| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"=?utf-8?B?TW9zaGUgdGhlIEtvc2hlciBIb25leS1iYWtlZCBIYW0gbG92aW5nIFBpZ+KEoiDimaU=?=" |
| Date: |
21 Apr 2006 03:47:59 AM |
| Object: |
Nuclear War on the way ? |
http://fp.uni.edu/northia/article2.asp?ID=3D4793&SECTION=3D2
Nuclear War on the way?
As the war in Iraq trudges on, new information has been released
confirming that the United States has marked Iran as the next possible
target in the war on terror. Iran=E2=80=99s government functions on an
entirely different level than Iraq=E2=80=99s or Afghanistan=E2=80=99s, and =
so the
conflict would seemingly be very different. The United States
government has not overlooked these differences and has added the use
of nuclear weapons to the possible methods of attack.
For those of you who are just now joining the program, the United
States is considering a pre-emptive nuclear strike against a foreign
nation.
The debate has already begun =C2=AD=C2=AD=E2=80=93 Iran has been accused of=
violating
the proliferation treaty and advancing its nuclear weapons program.
Iran=E2=80=99s current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is an
ultra-conservative who has said that Israel should be =E2=80=9Cwiped off the
map=E2=80=9D and has publicly questioned the authenticity of the Holocaust.
US officials fear that Ahmadinejad may be the next =E2=80=9CHitler=E2=80=9D=
and
have come to the conclusion that allowing Iran to have the bomb would
be irresponsible.
Despite this reasoning, the fact remains that to prevent Iran from
making nuclear weapons, America is considering employing our own
nuclear arsenal, something that has not been done since the end of
World War II.
After that War, America was the big kid on the block. We were the only
ones with nuclear weaponry. Fifty years have passed, and there are now
seven nations known to have nuclear weapons (Russia, the United
Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan and the United States), two
nations believed to have nuclear capabilities (Israel and North Korea),
and one nation (Iran) is suspected of having a clandestine nuclear
program.
When we dropped the bomb on Japan, we had a mere idea of what we were
unleashing. Now, nations hope to gather more nuclear weaponry as a
method of =E2=80=9Cdeterrence,=E2=80=9D the idea being that if everyone has=
a gun,
nobody will shoot. However, America seems ready to draw, and who knows
what will come of the nuclear standoff once the first shot has been
fired.
Alfred Einstein, whose theory of relativity helped lead to the
construction of the Atomic Bomb said it best, =E2=80=9CI know not with what
weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought
with sticks and stones.=E2=80=9D
The nuclear arms race resulted from the fear generated by our use of
atomic weaponry. There is no positive application for nukes. Our
president isn=E2=80=99t even positive he can say nuclear, but regardless of
whether we=E2=80=99re listening to George Bush or Franklin Delano Roosevelt,
a president should never consider nuclear weapons a legitimate option.
---0---
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=3D10=
&no=3D287138&rel_no=3D1
'Attack on Iran Strengthens Its Regime'
Iranian scholars comment on possible U.S. military action
Email Article Print Article Ali Cimen (alicimen)
As a result of its highly suspect nuclear program, Iran -- which has
had turbulent relations with the West since Ahmadinejad was chosen as
president in June 2005 -- has now become the main item on the agenda of
the world's superpowers.
Though Iranian officials constantly give assurances that they only hope
to benefit from nuclear energy -- the U.S., Israel and others share the
fear that Iran might misuse the rods, part of the nuclear energy
production process, and use them to build nuclear weapons in the
future.
Along the corridors of the brain storming centers of the world's most
powerful countries the most prominent question of recent days has been
"Will America attack Iran?"
We asked the very same question of Iranian-born scholars and experts
who live in the West.
Meir Javedanfar, a leading international relations expert and
strategist, is extremely well-known for his insightful analysis of the
Middle East. He studied in England and currently lives in London and
Tel Aviv as the president of Meepas, the Middle East Economic and
Political Analysis Company.
Professor Mehdi Noorbaksh is an assistant professor at the Center for
International Studies at the University of St. Thomas in Houston,
Texas. His areas of specialization are comparative politics and
international relations with an emphasis on globalization, oil and
energy, conflict and conflict resolution, and Middle-Eastern politics.
In addition Professor R. K. Ramazani also commented briefly. Professor
Ramazani is the Edward Stettinius Chair at the University of Virginia,
and former chairman of the university's Woodrow Wilson Department of
Government and Foreign Affairs.
Ramazani has penned 10 books on the Middle East, contributed numerous
chapters and journal articles, and has been a consultant to the White
House, the Department of State, the Defense Department and the Treasury
Department; as well as to many private foundations and companies.
What do you think the Iranian presidency is trying to do with these
tension-escalating-statements coming one after another?
Javedanfar: I believe that President Ahmadinejad's statements are not
made due to sheer ignorance. They are well planned and well timed to
meet the following goals:
1=2E One of the main reasons is internal. Ahmadinejad recently suffered
internal defeats in the Majlis [Iranian parliament]; where three of his
candidates for the position of oil minister were rejected one after
another in front of him. Although his fourth candidate has recently
been accepted, after the rejection of his second candidate, Ahmadinejad
found the defeat so painful that he got up on the Majlis podium and
angrily declared.
"This has never been done to another President of the Islamic Republic.
No other president has ever been subject to such negative propaganda
and treatment."
Such statements are hardly made by a president who feels confident
about his position. Therefore in a bid to stamp his authority,
Ahmadinejad has decided to pick on the easiest victim, Israel, with
whom Iran has no economic or political relations. The fact that the
Islamic Republic's leader Ayatollah Khamenei came out to support him
after he attacked Israel is testament that this method works favorably
for Ahmadinejad.
Now that he has the backing of the ultimate source of power in Iran,
Ahmadinejad intends to use it to implement his policy with more
authority and confidence. This also means that every time Ahmadinejad
has internal problems he will attack Israel again, using it as a tool.
This is forecast to happen again in the next month, as Ahmadinejad's
budget, which has been presented to the Majlis, is expected to be
rejected by Majlis members due to its unsuitability.
This will be a major defeat for him which will leave him looking weak.
This will prompt him to create another foreign crisis.
2=2E The second major reason behind Ahmadinejad's attacks against Israel
is related to the nuclear talks between Iran and the E.U.-3 countries
(Germany, U.K and France).
Since his election, Ahmadinejad has taken an uncompromising stance in
the nuclear talks with the E.U. His unwillingness to change Iran's
nuclear position was confirmed again during the same, "The Holocaust is
a myth" speech, when he declared that he will not "cede one inch of
Iran's nuclear rights to foreign powers".
In other words, Iran will continue to insist on carrying out conversion
and enrichment of uranium on its soil. The E.U. can't and won't
continue to go to the negotiation table to be told the same thing by
Tehran. Therefore, in the face of Ahmadinejad's unwillingness to
compromise, it is very possible that there will be a breakdown in the
talks with the E.U., and we can see this today as Iran finds itself on
the verge of being referred to the U.N Security Council.
Ahmadinejad realizes this, and in a bid to prepare the ground to shift
blame when talks breakdown, Ahmadinejad is pushing the Europeans,
especially Germany to defend Israel, and what better subject than the
Holocaust, which Germany is still incredibly sensitive about.
And as a result, when the talks breakdown, Ahmadinejad will be in a
position to blame the Europeans and their defense of the "Zionist
entity" and the "Holocaust myth" as the main cause for the collapse of
the negotiations.
3=2E Ahmadinejad is a man who likes to play to his audience. The
"Holocaust is a myth" speech coincided with the visit of Hamas leader
Khaled Mashaal to Tehran. The verbal assault was Ahmadinejad's way of
showing his commitment to Hamas and its rejectionist stance.
Unfortunately for Israel, such support from the president of a powerful
Middle East country is likely to add to Hamas's motivations for not
renewing its ceasefire.
Noorbaksh: Ahmadinejad's confrontational foreign policy emanates from
two sources. First, the new president is naive and does not have a deep
understanding of international politics.
Second, he comes from a background shaped mostly by his involvement in
the war against Iraq in the 1980s. He saw in that war injustice,
insecurity and defeat and blames the United States for support of the
brutal regime of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.
He is offended by Washington's siding with Baghdad in the war and its
indifference to the plight of thousands in Iran and Iraq who were
exposed to Saddam's weapons of mass destruction including chemical
warheads during the war.
The war mentality has been carried out by him and his group of friends
who are currently accompanying him in government. Ahmadinejad's remarks
against Israel are aimed at competing with al-Qaeda in the Middle East
for the support from radical orientations in the region. This support,
if achieved, can help the new president stabilize his power position
among the hard-line conservatives within the country.
Al-Zarqawi, and his strategy of killing the Shiite in Iraq, has become
a new impetus for this president to galvanize support in the Arab
Middle East around anti-American slogans for the sake of controlling
Muslim radical rhetoric and movements.
Taking into consideration the U.S. position and its restraints in Iraq,
do you see an American military operation against Iran possible? Can it
handle this on its own or with the support of the E.U and Israel? What
role could Turkey play in such an operation?
Javedanfar: U.S. action against Iran is certainly a possibility,
although one that is not recommendable.
The U.S. has the military might, in the air, land and sea to do this
alone. The U.S. has bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain and Qatar which
is only 500 kilometers away from the Bushehr nuclear sites.
It must also be added that the runways of the U.S. airbase in Qatar
have just been extended for B-52 landings. This should ring some
serious alarm bells for Iran's military planners.
Therefore, logistically, the U.S. can carry out a sustained military
operation against Iran's nuclear facilities. Turkey would certainly be
able to play a part in the operations. The U.S. airbase in Incirlik
would be able to provide support to the attacking forces. Intelligence
bases on Turkish bases on Iran's borders would also assist the U.S..
As for Israel, in my opinion Israel's first choice will be to stay well
away from an attack, if it can, both militarily and politically. Iran
is not Iraq. Iran, with allies such as Hamas, Islamic jihad and
Hezbollah sitting on Israel's borders, Israel would prefer not to
provoke them. Iran is also equipped with the Shahab-3 missile, which
can reach Israel, and cause serious damage.
Also logistically speaking, Israel does not have sufficient aerial
capability for a sustained aerial attack against Iran's bases.
However what will help the U.S. enormously is political support from
the E.U and Turkey in the case of such an attack.
Bush's unilateral action in Iraq has left the U.S. politically isolated
in the region. To attack another Middle Eastern country again, the U.S.
will need a broader consensus this time.
Ultimately if the talks fail, the E.U may discreetly give the green
light to Washington. However, I believe that it will be unlikely for
Turkey to do that. Prime Minister Erdogan rejected a $30 billion loan
from the U.S. for assistance to topple Saddam, who was literally a
"dead man walking."
Therefore it will even be more unlikely that he will support actions
against Turkey's much more powerful neighbor Iran, who not only has a
stronger army, but also is a major energy supplier (gas) to the Turkish
economy.
Noorbaksh: Attacking Iran's nuclear sites is definitely
counterproductive. The West must deal with the issue of fuel cycle
rights and uranium enrichment in Iran with the utmost prudence. These
issues are bigger than simply Ahmadinejad's government.
Most Iranians think that it is the legal right of Iran as a signatory
of the N.P.T. to develop scientific projects in this area, regardless
of how critical they are of the current government.
Any contemplation of attacking Iran's nuclear facilities will have dire
consequences for Iran, the reform movement inside this country, and the
whole region. Any attack by Israel would also be considered an attack
by the United States, because both nations are security partners in the
Middle East.
Overall, the nations of this region do not separate between Israel and
the United States when it comes to political, security and military
issues in this part of the world.
The "carrot and stick" strategy and serious negotiations with Iran
through a third party, such as the Russians and Chinese, provide a very
useful approach. Extreme measures against Iran would further
destabilize the Middle East region and would have the potential to
disrupt the flow of oil from different parts of the Persian Gulf area
at this critical juncture in the history of energy supply.
There are conservative hard-line members of parliament in Iran who have
suggested confrontation with the United States in the Strait of Hormuz.
If we put the military option aside, what could be the best strategy
that should be followed against Iran? Do you think an economic embargo
works?
Javedanfar: The best strategy would be to offer better economic
incentives to Iran. The E.U's economic promises to Iran turned out to
be not very substantial, as many of the items requested by Iran
contained U.S. technology, which due to the embargo, the E.U was not
able to supply.
I don't believe that sanctions will work. Iran has just had a bumper
financial year; it earned $40 billion from oil alone. Iran also has
porous borders, which means that smuggling from places such as
Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Shiite areas of Iraq are very possible.
Sanctions against Iran will also hurt western economies, as they rely
heavily on Iranian oil (Iran is OPEC's second biggest oil producer).
Putting economic factors aside, culturally speaking, any sanctions
against Iran will make the Iranian people more determined to support
the nuclear program.
History has shown time and time again that despite internal political
differences, in times of foreign hostility, Iranian people unite. This
was shown during the British embargo on Iran during the rule of Mosadeq
in the 1950s.
The economic sanctions imposed by the British and the U.S. did not
break the Iranian people, despite all expectations of the West. The
only way the West managed to change the situation was by financing a
coup against Mosadeq.
Economic sanctions against Iran will be a mistake, by punishing the
Iranian people; the West will also become their victimizer. If
punishments are needed, the best form of sanctions would be one which
targets the business interests of the leadership.
It is well known that Ayatollah Rafsanjani deals with conglomerates
such as Daewoo, Hyundai, Statoil of Norway, Airbus and numerous other
investments stretching all the way to Canada.
Other sections of the regime, such as the Revolutionary Guards
(Pasdaran) have huge business interests in the Emirates. If those are
targeted by sanctions, they will have a much better chance of
convincing the regime, as the leadership will pay from its own pocket,
and not from the pocket of Iran's innocent citizens.
Noorbaksh: The best sanction on Iran is the sanction on Iranian oil
exports. The Iranian non-oil export revenue is close to eight billion
dollars a year. This amount is very small compared to the revenue of
the oil export from the country.
The Iranian economy is absolutely dependent on oil revenue. Without oil
money, the Iranian government's ventures will be hard hit. The middle
class and intelligentsia are the engines of change and opposition to
the government in Iran today.
Punishing this group, as poorly-devised sanctions will inevitably do,
is not in the interest of change and democratization in the country.
Cutting off Iranian oil from the global market is also not a wise thing
to do. Both the industrial and developing nations need 2.5 million
barrels of oil, five percent of the world's needs, which is exported
from Iran daily. One million of this amount may be compensated, but the
intense global oil market will suffer the consequences of this
shortfall.
There is doubt that Saudi Arabia would pick up this one million barrel
deficit, because the royal family might not want to jeopardize its
relations with Iran especially after siding with the rest of the world
in opposition to Iran's nuclear program.
Standard & Poor's sees dire consequences if sanctions are imposed on
the Iranian oil exports; sending prices, near record level, and even
higher. Consequently, that will badly damage global economic growth.
Israel is believed to have at least 200 nuclear weapons or capacity to
be able to produce this amount, and has not yet signed the NPT. Israeli
statesmen, too, sometimes use the same threatening jargon as Iranians.
But we see the international pressure focused only on Iran that tries
hard to persuade the world that its nuclear agenda is bound only to
energy production and nothing more. Could you view this approach as a
double standard as seen by the majority of Muslim World?
Javedanfar: Israel, unlike Ahmadinejad has never called for the total
elimination of Arab countries. Nor has Israel called Muslim history a
"myth" and a lie, something which Dr Ahmadinejad did to Jewish people
in his remarks denying the Holocaust.
Meanwhile many Muslim countries, especially Saudi Arabia, Egypt and
Persian Gulf Countries, back the claim that Iran's nuclear program may
not be as innocent as it should be. This is why many Arab countries are
not providing Iran with their full support.
However, one can certainly understand why Arab and Muslim countries
view Israel's supposed nuclear capability as a double standard, as
Israel is not even a signatory of the NPT. This is certainly
understandable and has logic to it. I believe the best way to solve
such perceptions of double standards is to free the Middle East of all
weapons of mass destruction.
We also need to convince countries not to call for the elimination of
others; as such threats are one of the biggest motivators for the
possession of doomsday weapons. We need to create motivations to
eliminate weapons of mass destruction, not to acquire them.
America's probable military operation will aim only at eliminating the
nuclear capacity of Iran or might there be different expectations in
the minds of war strategists?
Javedanfar: I strongly believe that in the case of an attack, U.S.
planners would focus on the destruction of Iran's nuclear installations
and possibly an attack against some of Iran's missiles and aerial bases
in order to neutralize Iran's capability to respond. Any other attack
would be counter productive and a waste of U.S. resources.
I do not see the U.S. attacking political sites such as the homes of
politicians, as it is a well known fact that many of Iran's top
politicians are very well protected.
There are some comments that America wants to play (is playing) the
ethnical group card in Iran as it did in Iraq. Do you agree with this
view? If so, could Kurds have an important role in Iran, too?
Javedanfar: It is very possible that the U.S. is manipulating Iran's
ethnic minorities, especially Iranian Arabs in the Khuzestan region of
Iran.
The U.S. can use its influence and infrastructure in Iraq to lend
political and military support to them. The Kurds will also be a
candidate for this task as the U.S. forces in Iraq, and their close
relations with Barzani especially (not Talabani as he has excellent
relations with Iran) may allow them to support Kurdish independence
aspirations in Iran.
The Kurds could have an important role to play, as there are a number
of Kurdish movements with established resources in Iran. In the long
run, however, any Kurdish or Arab aspirations and plans for
independence in Iran may be futile, as the Iranian government and
people (in Iran and abroad including myself in Israel) are united
against any plans for the division of Iran.
In short I believe any foreign plans to split Iran will be one of the
biggest mistakes the west could make, as it would incur the wrath of
millions of Iran's citizens. The West needs Iran's citizens on its
side, not against it.
Some are afraid that America's probable operation against Iran could be
the trigger of World War III. Do you agree?
Javedanfar: I do not believe that a U.S. attack against Iran would lead
to WW III. For that to happen we need to see many countries becoming
involved in the conflict. Even if Iran is attacked, I do not see great
number of countries becoming involved in attacking the West.
Iran may have the support of numerous groups, such as Hezbollah or
Islamic Jihad; however, it does not have the support of countries that
would be prepared to go to war on its behalf.
'U.S. Operation Cannot Destroy the Iranian Regime'
Professor R. K. Ramazani comments: From the Iranian perspective,
Ahmadinejad is trying to resist Western pressures with his statements.
A U.S. or Israeli military strike is not likely to succeed, nor would
the E.U. go along with an invasion.
Turkey should act the same prudent way it behaved in the case of the
American invasion of Iraq. When it comes to what should be done; the
best strategy for the U.S. would be to bite the bullet, recognize the
Iranian regime and talk to it respectfully and directly. And right now
even, some Americans see the Bush administration's approach to the
nuclear issue as hypocritical.
Strategy planners might hope that military action would also destroy
the regime, but that is a pipe dream because it would only strengthen
nationwide support for the regime. Kurds could have an important role
in Iran, too?
I really don't think so, but any Kurdish uprising would surely be
crushed. Some may be afraid of World War III, but I don't agree because
the cost of a world war would outweigh the benefits.
This interview was first published on March 7, 2006, at the Turkish
Internet newspaper www.zaman.com.
---0---
.
|
|
| User: "Melchizedek" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear War on the way ? |
21 Apr 2006 08:15:52 AM |
|
|
"Moshe the Kosher Honey-baked Ham loving PigT ?" <stargatedecember2012@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1145609279.269649.219360@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://fp.uni.edu/northia/article2.asp?ID=4793&SECTION=2
Nuclear War on the way?
For those of you who are just now joining the program, the United
States is considering a pre-emptive nuclear strike against a foreign
nation.
---- NOPE. This is all hype. They are at least 5+ years away.
A lot can heppen in that time. You could actually leave the web!
There's No Hurry !
http://207.234.208.119/bibleweb-archive.info/dont-click-this.html
Without Reservation !
Are YOU Going to Heaven?
The Hope !
DaVinci
The DaVinci Deception
http://207.234.208.119/bibleweb-cm-studies.info/cm-studies/studies/=CD-R=davinci-deception-realvideo/DaVinci_Deception_01
_Slideshow/DaVinci_Deception_01.smil
http://207.234.208.119/bibleweb-cm-studies.info/cm-studies/studies/=CD-R=davinci-deception-realvideo/DaVinci_Deception_02
_Slideshow/DaVinci_Deception_02.smil
Small Group Bibly Study Materials
http://bibleweb.info/
Small Group Bible Studies Comprehensive
Old & New Testament Bible studies, prophecy,
commentaries, concordances, apologetics,
Bible lookups, and multiple translations. PowerPoint,
movies in RealAudio, MP3, MediaPlayer,
Adobe PDF formats with free readers.
Published Small Group Bibly Study Materials
http://lulu.com/bibleweb/
Design From a Benevolent Creator
In defense of the Biblical stance that all creation in the
universe is a product of magnificent design from a
Benevolent Creator, this book is an overview of just how
wonderful God is and why His book, the Bible is so significant.
Creation Studies: Evidence of Design
In a workbook style, this book will address the pros and cons
of two worldviews. Creation - belief that the origin, history,
and destiny of the universe, life, and human life is based on
God's Word about a perfect-six-day-creation, ruined by man's sin,
destroyed by Noah's flood, and restored to new life in Christ.
Evolution - belief that (with or without God's involvement) the
origin, history, and "meaning" of the universe, life, and human
life is based on expert human opinion about time, chance, and long
ages of death and struggle. Since each model of origins entails a
comprehensive worldview, embracing the whole of reality, each is
basically philosophical or better religious. The premise that
evolution is science and creation is religion is obviously false
since it is impossible for scientists actually observe or repeat
unique events of the past.
The Resurrection of Jesus
This book is an elaboration of the 12 Minimal Facts Approach,
from the EVA-100, Apologetics Class Presentation. Not all areas
have been expanded. (See Preview.) There appear to be a number
of misconceptions regarding the Crucifixion of Jesus. Jesus was
NOT the first nor the only person to be crucified. The Romans
had used that method of execution for at least 70 years before
Jesus was Crucified. In around 40 BC, in Rome, a historian
recorded that 2,000 people were crucified in a single day,
for the entertainment of Quintilius Varus! About 40 years
after Jesus' Crucifixion, the Romans crucified around 500
per day in 70 AD.
The Pre-Tribulational Rapture of the Church
The purpose of this book is to offer specific evidence from
Scripture that supports the Pre-Tribulational Rapture of the
Church (Body of Christ), by Jesus Christ Himself, before the
Tribulation begins. It is not a commentary on the Book of
Revelation, though is does comment on several aspects of
the book.
A Primer On Biblical Counseling
== Biblical Counseling ==
1. All true valid and lasting
ministries proceed through a deep burden, a passion, etc.
2. We minister based upon the Bible. We believe that all
Scripture is given by inspiration of God. 3. Ministry is a sacrifice.
4. Transparency - Be Yourself, (God has anointed me).
Also: (2 Timothy 3:16 NASB) All Scripture is inspired by God and
profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training
in righteousness; [4 Step Process]
1. doctrine, teaching . (never analyze)
2. reproof (a soft tongue breaks bones)
3. correction (to set up right in perfect form, again)
4. instruction (like child training) . Equipped for every good work.
A Primer On The Gospel Of John (Q & A)
This is a primer on the Gospel According to John,
with questions and answers, plus an extensive appendices.
Note: Purpose of the Book of John
(John 20:30-31 NLT)
30 Jesus' disciples saw him do many other
miraculous signs besides the ones recorded in this book.
31 But these are written so that you may believe that
Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing
in him you will have life.
Challenges Facing The Future Evangelical Church
As we stand at the Opening of a New Millennium,
What New Challenges Face the Evangelical Protestant Church?
Historical Background Of First John
Although the author's name is not specifically mentioned in 1 John,
the indications within the letter (eyewitness of the life of Jesus,
apostolic authority, someone well-known to the readers, and
similarities to the Fourth Gospel) are certainly consistent with the
traditional ascription of authorship to John the Apostle. The strong,
consistent and earliest testimony of the church ascribes it to John
the disciple and apostle (cf. Luke 6:13,14). This literary evidence
is supported by the remains of churches bearing his name at Ephesus.
There he was remembered as a vigorous champion of orthodoxy, which
fits the description of the first epistle.
My Working Theology Of Leadership
The making of a leader is not instantaneous, but is a journey through
life, learning and acquiring the absolute truths that form a person's
true character, unto fulfillment of our appointed destiny. I will
introduce some hindsight on my past life, so as to never forget
where I came from, and to solidify a new directive in my life.
As a case study, I will analyze the account of Abraham of the
Bible and overview his path into leadership.
Concise New Testament Synthetic Studies
Concise [one page] New Testament synthetic overviews of each book,
in workbook format, with applications for us today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
/> A Christian Bible Study Collection
<>< />
/< Small Group Bible Studies
[XXXX(O):::===============================>
\< 250Gb online - 1.5Tb DVD archive
<> \>
\> http://Bibleweb.Info/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear War on the way ? |
21 Apr 2006 10:21:45 AM |
|
|
Nuclear War on the way?
For those of you who are just now joining the program, the United
States is considering a pre-emptive nuclear strike against a foreign
nation.
---- NOPE. This is all hype. They are at least 5+ years away.
A lot can heppen in that time. You could actually leave the web!
There's No Hurry !
If there's a nuclear strike on Iran, it will be launched by Israel
(with the blessing of Bush, of course).
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?utf-8?B?S2FybCBNYWxkZW4ncyBub3Nl4oSiIOKZpQ==?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear War on the way ? |
21 Apr 2006 09:20:35 PM |
|
|
Al Smith wrote:
Nuclear War on the way?
If there's a nuclear strike on Iran, it will be launched by Israel
(with the blessing of Bush, of course).
Agreed......
Not much time left anyway -- certainly not five years b4 it begins
as the other poster (Melchelzanek ?!?) alluded to....
We'll be well & truly living amongst the confusion, chaos & anarchy
of a *post-nuclear* world in five years time (2011)......
It will happen much sooner than later, & precisely as U say,
with the blessings of the right-wing fanatical neocrazies in
America....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1367264/posts
HOOROO
UNCLE WALLY
---0---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear War on the way ? |
21 Apr 2006 09:38:59 PM |
|
|
If there's a nuclear strike on Iran, it will be launched by Israel
(with the blessing of Bush, of course).
Agreed......
Not much time left anyway -- certainly not five years b4 it begins
as the other poster (Melchelzanek ?!?) alluded to....
We'll be well & truly living amongst the confusion, chaos & anarchy
of a *post-nuclear* world in five years time (2011)......
It will happen much sooner than later, & precisely as U say,
with the blessings of the right-wing fanatical neocrazies in
America....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1367264/posts
HOOROO
UNCLE WALLY
The strike against Iran is definitely going to take place. I've
been preaching that message (so to speak) for a year, when I began
to notice articles planted in the news intended to soften up
American and world opinion to the idea. If you can lay odds in
Vegas, folks, do so -- it's a lead-pipe cinch. Whether it will
involve a nuclear weapon, I doubt. It's hard to believe that even
Bush and the Israelis are that crazy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "zax.victen.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear War on the way ? |
22 Apr 2006 08:24:11 PM |
|
|
I hope they do it soon.....that would be a good message to send to all of
those subhuman bastards.
"Al Smith" <invalid@address.com> wrote in message
news:dM62g.63692$VV4.1189948@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Nuclear War on the way?
For those of you who are just now joining the program, the United
States is considering a pre-emptive nuclear strike against a foreign
nation.
---- NOPE. This is all hype. They are at least 5+ years away.
A lot can heppen in that time. You could actually leave the web!
There's No Hurry !
If there's a nuclear strike on Iran, it will be launched by Israel (with
the blessing of Bush, of course).
.
|
|
|
| User: "G-Ray" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear War on the way ? |
22 Apr 2006 11:27:43 PM |
|
|
zax.victen.com wrote:
I hope they do it soon.....that would be a good message to send to all of
those subhuman bastards.
....and coming from the subhuman bastards in the Bush Cabinet, it would
be an unforgettably ironic message to 'em!
"Al Smith" <invalid@address.com> wrote in message
news:dM62g.63692$VV4.1189948@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Nuclear War on the way?
For those of you who are just now joining the program, the United
States is considering a pre-emptive nuclear strike against a foreign
nation.
---- NOPE. This is all hype. They are at least 5+ years away.
A lot can heppen in that time. You could actually leave the web!
There's No Hurry !
If there's a nuclear strike on Iran, it will be launched by Israel (with
the blessing of Bush, of course).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear War on the way ? |
23 Apr 2006 02:05:33 AM |
|
|
I hope they do it soon.....that would be a good message to send to all of
those subhuman bastards.
...and coming from the subhuman bastards in the Bush Cabinet, it would
be an unforgettably ironic message to 'em!
The irony of it would certainly be wonderful. "We can't let you
develop nuclear weapons because we can't trust you to refrain from
using them for selfish purposes -- therefore we're going to nuke
your country, to prevent this horrible misuse from ever taking place."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear War on the way ? |
23 Apr 2006 02:49:38 AM |
|
|
Al Smith <invalid@address.com> Spat the Words
I hope they do it soon.....that would be a good message to send to all of
those subhuman bastards.
...and coming from the subhuman bastards in the Bush Cabinet, it would
be an unforgettably ironic message to 'em!
The irony of it would certainly be wonderful. "We can't let you
develop nuclear weapons because we can't trust you to refrain from
using them for selfish purposes -- therefore we're going to nuke
your country, to prevent this horrible misuse from ever taking place."
Also ironic is Iran developing nuclear technology and simultaneously
vowing annihilation of certain other countries. If the mad mullahs
think they'll get to keep their new scientific 'prizes' then they've
been doing too much poppy derivative.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear War on the way ? |
23 Apr 2006 02:36:53 PM |
|
|
The irony of it would certainly be wonderful. "We can't let you
develop nuclear weapons because we can't trust you to refrain from
using them for selfish purposes -- therefore we're going to nuke
your country, to prevent this horrible misuse from ever taking place."
Also ironic is Iran developing nuclear technology and simultaneously
vowing annihilation of certain other countries. If the mad mullahs
think they'll get to keep their new scientific 'prizes' then they've
been doing too much poppy derivative.
When it comes down to it, on these matters there is no right and
wrong, there is only power, and who has it.
Iran has just as much right to nuclear weapons as the United
States. If they can develop them in secret and keep them from
being destroyed, as Israel did, they will get to keep them,
because no one would dare to try to take them away for fear of
becoming their target.
I can see things from the Iranians' point of view. Their country
is being threatened with military actions or invasion from the
United States and Israel. They just watched neighboring Iraq
invaded and occupied. Iran wants a deterrent to prevent these
kinds of aggressions against it. Whether they succeed in acquiring
it entirely depends on their courage and strength of will. Right
and wrong has nothing to do with it. The USA is not in the right,
and Iran in the wrong. It's only that the USA has more power.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear War on the way ? |
23 Apr 2006 03:55:22 PM |
|
|
Al Smith <invalid@address.com> Spat the Words
The irony of it would certainly be wonderful. "We can't let you
develop nuclear weapons because we can't trust you to refrain from
using them for selfish purposes -- therefore we're going to nuke
your country, to prevent this horrible misuse from ever taking place."
Also ironic is Iran developing nuclear technology and simultaneously
vowing annihilation of certain other countries. If the mad mullahs
think they'll get to keep their new scientific 'prizes' then they've
been doing too much poppy derivative.
When it comes down to it, on these matters there is no right and
wrong, there is only power, and who has it.
Iran has just as much right to nuclear weapons as the United
States. If they can develop them in secret and keep them from
being destroyed, as Israel did, they will get to keep them,
because no one would dare to try to take them away for fear of
becoming their target.
I can see things from the Iranians' point of view. Their country
is being threatened with military actions or invasion from the
United States and Israel. They just watched neighboring Iraq
invaded and occupied. Iran wants a deterrent to prevent these
kinds of aggressions against it. Whether they succeed in acquiring
it entirely depends on their courage and strength of will. Right
and wrong has nothing to do with it. The USA is not in the right,
and Iran in the wrong. It's only that the USA has more power.
I agree with everything you've said. From where I'm sitting and
from my perspective though, I would kind of like to have Israel
stay intact and not have a US city spontaneously explode in a
fireball. Islamic fundamentalists (the kind running Iran) have
this nasty reputation of not caring about their own lives if
they can take out some of their professed enemies with a big bang.
If the Iranian elite were not threatening annihilation of Israel
and professing undying hatred of the US and the west, I might feel
differently about the whole Iranian nuclear thing. People shouldn't
be denied the right of scientific exploration, but when it appears
that the only goal is some religious-holocaust nuclear nightmare-
wetdream by some turbin-wearing cootie-infested fanatic who wants
to kill as many people as possible, then my view changes.
I guess I'm just not convinced that a nuclear bomb won't end up
in the hands of a real Islamic Fanatic if Iran gets the chance
to build them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "G-Ray" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear War on the way ? |
23 Apr 2006 04:10:20 AM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
Al Smith <invalid@address.com> Spat the Words
I hope they do it soon.....that would be a good message to send to all of
those subhuman bastards.
...and coming from the subhuman bastards in the Bush Cabinet, it would
be an unforgettably ironic message to 'em!
The irony of it would certainly be wonderful. "We can't let you
develop nuclear weapons because we can't trust you to refrain from
using them for selfish purposes -- therefore we're going to nuke
your country, to prevent this horrible misuse from ever taking place."
Also ironic is Iran developing nuclear technology and simultaneously
vowing annihilation of certain other countries. If the mad mullahs
think they'll get to keep their new scientific 'prizes' then they've
been doing too much poppy derivative.
And EVEN MORE IRONIC, if not MORONIC as well, is that Americans are
willing to suffer a devastating economic downfall to their nation (and
any allies, too) if Iran's nuclear facilities are attacked AND
Americans wouldn't even be whispering about such an insane attack if
Iran had a nuclear DETERRENT at this time AND, even more incredibly, a
large occupying US military force in neighboring Iraq and a smaller
force in Afghanistan would be sitting ducks for retaliation...and,
don't forget the 'inspiration' that such an attack would provide for
more anti-US/West terrorism for years to come.
Lots of reasons why playing around with preemptive war speculation and
veiled threats is simply as irrational and "crazy" for the US/West to
do as Ahmadinejad and the mullahs spouting threats toward Israel (or
the US/West).
It's all fucking insane, folks, and it looks like insanity has taken
hold of what's left of Americans' brainwashed-by-fear-and-hate minds --
led by an administration that is more than happy to have you accept
more oil take-over scheming and outright lies.
Remove these fucking monsters from office, people, and get your
military asses out of Iraq.
Start thinking down a path away from financial and military disaster
and towards the same path the US/West has been on with its "nemesis" --
nuclear-armed China. Ya know, the people we're making huge profits from
and vice versa. Or nuke-armed India which Bush just cut a big lucrative
deal to help develop their "peaceful" nuclear program. Or Pakistan
where Bush and Co. coddles a nuke-armed military dictatorship.
Get smart, folks, and get away from fear-mongerors and war-obsessives
whether they be exploitative corporate news bobbleheads or oil-rich
family dynasties. Keep believing and following these assholes, and
you'll have to increase the birth rate and get a draft going to provide
them with more of your family members and friends for war fodder...not
to mention huge amounts of public money placed into rich elitists' bank
accounts.
Sooner or later, it'll be 'shock and awe' here in the USA...if this
reckless course continues and it won't matter a flying ***** whether
you're conservative, liberal, patriotic or not, you'll be as dead as
the next idiot for accepting this insanity, and not using your rights
in a democracy to move against it.
You ***** fools!
G-Ray
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear War on the way ? |
23 Apr 2006 04:39:47 AM |
|
|
"G-Ray" <g-ray52@excite.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
Al Smith <invalid@address.com> Spat the Words
I hope they do it soon.....that would be a good message to send to
all of
those subhuman bastards.
...and coming from the subhuman bastards in the Bush Cabinet, it
would be an unforgettably ironic message to 'em!
The irony of it would certainly be wonderful. "We can't let you
develop nuclear weapons because we can't trust you to refrain from
using them for selfish purposes -- therefore we're going to nuke
your country, to prevent this horrible misuse from ever taking
place."
Also ironic is Iran developing nuclear technology and simultaneously
vowing annihilation of certain other countries. If the mad mullahs
think they'll get to keep their new scientific 'prizes' then they've
been doing too much poppy derivative.
And EVEN MORE IRONIC, if not MORONIC as well, is that Americans are
willing to suffer a devastating economic downfall to their nation (and
any allies, too) if Iran's nuclear facilities are attacked AND
Americans wouldn't even be whispering about such an insane attack if
Iran had a nuclear DETERRENT at this time AND, even more incredibly, a
large occupying US military force in neighboring Iraq and a smaller
force in Afghanistan would be sitting ducks for retaliation...and,
don't forget the 'inspiration' that such an attack would provide for
more anti-US/West terrorism for years to come.
Lots of reasons why playing around with preemptive war speculation and
veiled threats is simply as irrational and "crazy" for the US/West to
do as Ahmadinejad and the mullahs spouting threats toward Israel (or
the US/West).
So you think Iranian religious fundamentalists with nuclear
bombs would be a 'safe' environment to live in ?
It's all fucking insane, folks, and it looks like insanity has taken
hold of what's left of Americans' brainwashed-by-fear-and-hate minds --
led by an administration that is more than happy to have you accept
more oil take-over scheming and outright lies.
Remove these fucking monsters from office, people, and get your
military asses out of Iraq.
Start thinking down a path away from financial and military disaster
and towards the same path the US/West has been on with its "nemesis" --
nuclear-armed China. Ya know, the people we're making huge profits from
and vice versa. Or nuke-armed India which Bush just cut a big lucrative
deal to help develop their "peaceful" nuclear program. Or Pakistan
where Bush and Co. coddles a nuke-armed military dictatorship.
Get smart, folks, and get away from fear-mongerors and war-obsessives
whether they be exploitative corporate news bobbleheads or oil-rich
family dynasties. Keep believing and following these assholes, and
you'll have to increase the birth rate and get a draft going to provide
them with more of your family members and friends for war fodder...not
to mention huge amounts of public money placed into rich elitists' bank
accounts.
Sooner or later, it'll be 'shock and awe' here in the USA...if this
reckless course continues and it won't matter a flying ***** whether
you're conservative, liberal, patriotic or not, you'll be as dead as
the next idiot for accepting this insanity, and not using your rights
in a democracy to move against it.
Try to stay focused. We were talking about crazy clerics with
nuclear weapons.
You ***** fools!
G-Ray
.
|
|
|
| User: "G-Ray" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear War on the way ? |
23 Apr 2006 05:02:09 AM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
"G-Ray" <g-ray52@excite.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
Al Smith <invalid@address.com> Spat the Words
I hope they do it soon.....that would be a good message to send to
all of
those subhuman bastards.
...and coming from the subhuman bastards in the Bush Cabinet, it
would be an unforgettably ironic message to 'em!
The irony of it would certainly be wonderful. "We can't let you
develop nuclear weapons because we can't trust you to refrain from
using them for selfish purposes -- therefore we're going to nuke
your country, to prevent this horrible misuse from ever taking
place."
Also ironic is Iran developing nuclear technology and simultaneously
vowing annihilation of certain other countries. If the mad mullahs
think they'll get to keep their new scientific 'prizes' then they've
been doing too much poppy derivative.
And EVEN MORE IRONIC, if not MORONIC as well, is that Americans are
willing to suffer a devastating economic downfall to their nation (and
any allies, too) if Iran's nuclear facilities are attacked AND
Americans wouldn't even be whispering about such an insane attack if
Iran had a nuclear DETERRENT at this time AND, even more incredibly, a
large occupying US military force in neighboring Iraq and a smaller
force in Afghanistan would be sitting ducks for retaliation...and,
don't forget the 'inspiration' that such an attack would provide for
more anti-US/West terrorism for years to come.
Lots of reasons why playing around with preemptive war speculation and
veiled threats is simply as irrational and "crazy" for the US/West to
do as Ahmadinejad and the mullahs spouting threats toward Israel (or
the US/West).
So you think Iranian religious fundamentalists with nuclear
bombs would be a 'safe' environment to live in ?
I think you're grossly confused, if not naive. So you think Iranian
mullahs want to have their nation annihilated in retaliation after they
nuked Israel? And, incidentally, they've not threatened "other nations"
as you suggest with nukes. Only Israel. If this war-mongering *****
continues from the US, though, that list could be expanded. Iran has
never moved past its borders to attack since it was converted (in name)
from Persia in 1935 -- except in response to a US-supported war started
by Iraq in the 80's. It is the US that has preemptively attacked two
Muslim nations on its common borders, and now threatens Iran for
something that it "predicts" will be a military threat a few years from
now. Don't be an idiot, space rocks. The only reason the US/West has
scores of multinational corporate headquarters installed in Iraq is to
expand its oil/natural gas investment opportunities, and exploit
cheaper labor. It wants Iran in the fold, too. If you still think the
"mental stability" of its leaders are a factor to warrant a preemptive
strike, then you've obviously ignored the irrationality displayed from
America's leaders in the past five years. You confuse propaganda with
actual intent to go to war. You need to stay more informed...and
focused.
It's all fucking insane, folks, and it looks like insanity has taken
hold of what's left of Americans' brainwashed-by-fear-and-hate minds --
led by an administration that is more than happy to have you accept
more oil take-over scheming and outright lies.
Remove these fucking monsters from office, people, and get your
military asses out of Iraq.
Start thinking down a path away from financial and military disaster
and towards the same path the US/West has been on with its "nemesis" --
nuclear-armed China. Ya know, the people we're making huge profits from
and vice versa. Or nuke-armed India which Bush just cut a big lucrative
deal to help develop their "peaceful" nuclear program. Or Pakistan
where Bush and Co. coddles a nuke-armed military dictatorship.
Get smart, folks, and get away from fear-mongerors and war-obsessives
whether they be exploitative corporate news bobbleheads or oil-rich
family dynasties. Keep believing and following these assholes, and
you'll have to increase the birth rate and get a draft going to provide
them with more of your family members and friends for war fodder...not
to mention huge amounts of public money placed into rich elitists' bank
accounts.
Sooner or later, it'll be 'shock and awe' here in the USA...if this
reckless course continues and it won't matter a flying ***** whether
you're conservative, liberal, patriotic or not, you'll be as dead as
the next idiot for accepting this insanity, and not using your rights
in a democracy to move against it.
Try to stay focused. We were talking about crazy clerics with
nuclear weapons.
Yep, that's what YOU'RE wanting to limit the discussion to, for obvious
reasons. The issue expands beyond those limits. And I remind you that
you're not a ***** moderator here.
You ***** fools!
G-Ray
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear War on the way ? |
23 Apr 2006 11:17:40 AM |
|
|
"G-Ray" <g-ray52@excite.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
"G-Ray" <g-ray52@excite.com> Spat the Words
Lots of reasons why playing around with preemptive war speculation and
veiled threats is simply as irrational and "crazy" for the US/West to
do as Ahmadinejad and the mullahs spouting threats toward Israel (or
the US/West).
So you think Iranian religious fundamentalists with nuclear
bombs would be a 'safe' environment to live in ?
I think you're grossly confused, if not naive. So you think Iranian
mullahs want to have their nation annihilated in retaliation after they
nuked Israel? And, incidentally, they've not threatened "other nations"
as you suggest with nukes. Only Israel. If this war-mongering *****
continues from the US, though, that list could be expanded. Iran has
never moved past its borders to attack since it was converted (in name)
from Persia in 1935 -- except in response to a US-supported war started
by Iraq in the 80's. It is the US that has preemptively attacked two
Muslim nations on its common borders, and now threatens Iran for
something that it "predicts" will be a military threat a few years from
now. Don't be an idiot, space rocks. The only reason the US/West has
scores of multinational corporate headquarters installed in Iraq is to
expand its oil/natural gas investment opportunities, and exploit
cheaper labor. It wants Iran in the fold, too. If you still think the
"mental stability" of its leaders are a factor to warrant a preemptive
strike, then you've obviously ignored the irrationality displayed from
America's leaders in the past five years. You confuse propaganda with
actual intent to go to war. You need to stay more informed...and
focused.
mmm... you still haven't convinced me that Iran would not continue
supplying terrorists such as hezbollah with weapons after it obtained
such a nuclear bomb.
Convince me that the mad mullahs are looking for peace... all I
hear are threats of war and annihilation coming from their
headquarters, and the pursuit of nuclear technology even though
the place is filled with oil and natural gas.
This is your chance to expound on the peaceful good intentions
of the ruling religious fundies in Iran, so get to it.
You're confusing the Iraq mistake with what we're looking at
now in Iran, and the two are entirely different situations.
Do try to stay focused on the issue we're discussing, doc.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear War on the way ? |
23 Apr 2006 02:40:09 AM |
|
|
Al Smith wrote:
I hope they do it soon.....that would be a good message to send to all of
those subhuman bastards.
...and coming from the subhuman bastards in the Bush Cabinet, it would
be an unforgettably ironic message to 'em!
The irony of it would certainly be wonderful. "We can't let you
develop nuclear weapons because we can't trust you to refrain from
using them for selfish purposes -- therefore we're going to nuke
your country, to prevent this horrible misuse from ever taking place."
There's a truly amazing and comprehensive archive of articles on the
current Iranian 'nuclear crisis' at
http://www.mimico-by-the-lake.com/politics.htm, updated daily.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Non scrivetemi" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear War on the way ? |
21 Apr 2006 05:39:14 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Impressive handle, Moshe!
The late General George Smith Patton Jr.(III) stated:
"There is only one thing I am
interested in--war. I live it
and breathe it. I always have
and I always will"--GS Patton
I'd give Iran basically the same option that we gave
Japan in August 1945: Unconditional Surrender or Die.
Hopefully, the CIA & Co. are engineering a successful
and relatively peaceful overthrow of the current anti-
American, anti-Israel regime. That would certainly be
preferred to being forced to "negotiate" with nuclear
weapons in much the same way we "negotiated" with old
Japan...by letting our nuclear weapons do the TALKING.
In Vigilance,
Daniel Joseph Min
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2B1CCFE7
*Download Min's Banned (Freeware) Books:
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
*Min's Spiritual I.Q. Test (how smart are you, really):
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=HCRHGLQM38786.0401967593@anonymous.poster
*Min's Google-Archived Home Page On The WWW:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=XJBDEJF138262.9022453704@anonymous.poster
On 21 Apr 2006, "Moshe the Kosher Honey-baked Ham loving Pig" wrote:
http://fp.uni.edu/northia/article2.asp?ID=3D4793&SECTION=3D2
Nuclear War on the way?
<snips>
"'God is dead'-Nietzsche
'Nietzsche is dead'-God"
-Tomb's Restaurant,
in Washington D.C.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBREk6hZljD7YrHM/nEQITxwCg8zkfKX8ibHhiWux5FeuiVcLstuIAoPRN
7K7JigDejK3eN1wkUE1ce2iu
=b1OA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Joseph Min" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear War on the way ? |
22 Apr 2006 01:33:46 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Impressive handle, Moshe!
The late General George Smith Patton Jr.(III) stated:
"There is only one thing I am
interested in--war. I live it
and breathe it. I always have
and I always will"--GS Patton
I'd give Iran basically the same option that we gave
Japan in August 1945: Unconditional Surrender or Die.
Hopefully, the CIA & Co. are engineering a successful
and relatively peaceful overthrow of the current anti-
American, anti-Israel regime. That would certainly be
preferred to being forced to "negotiate" with nuclear
weapons in much the same way we "negotiated" with old
Japan...by letting our nuclear weapons do the TALKING.
In Vigilance,
Daniel Joseph Min
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2B1CCFE7
*Download Min's Banned (Freeware) Books:
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
*Min's Spiritual I.Q. Test (how smart are you, really):
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=HCRHGLQM38786.0401967593@anonymous.poster
*Min's Google-Archived Home Page On The WWW:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=XJBDEJF138262.9022453704@anonymous.poster
On 21 Apr 2006, "Moshe the Kosher Honey-baked Ham loving Pig" wrote:
http://fp.uni.edu/northia/article2.asp?ID=3D4793&SECTION=3D2
Nuclear War on the way?
<snips>
"'God is dead'-Nietzsche
'Nietzsche is dead'-God"
-Tomb's Restaurant,
in Washington D.C.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBREk6hZljD7YrHM/nEQITxwCg8zkfKX8ibHhiWux5FeuiVcLstuIAoPRN
7K7JigDejK3eN1wkUE1ce2iu
=b1OA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear War on the way ? |
21 Apr 2006 11:37:55 PM |
|
|
Moshe the Kosher Honey-baked Ham loving Pig=E2=84=A2 =E2=99=A5 wrote:
Javedanfar: I believe that President Ahmadinejad's statements are not
made due to sheer ignorance. They are well planned and well timed to
meet the following goals:
<snip>
He left out the most important reason of them all. Iran's sabre
rattling has resulted in fears of a supply disruption of Arab oil and
vaulted the price of said oil to over $75/barrel. This is genius,
really, as Iran has just increased their already massive oil profits
over 30% in the last year simply by threatening the world. Ahmadinejad
has already said the price of oil is too cheap, if he can get it over
$100/barrel he can both weaken his enemy and strengthen his nation.
It's a no brainer, really - as long as you think the US and Israel
won't call your bluff.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "G-Net" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear War on the way ? |
21 Apr 2006 09:09:48 AM |
|
|
Oh great, yet another war mongering moron!!! If you people like war so badly
why don't you enlist!!! Anyone who is even slightly SANE would never push
for a nuclear war. The scary part is there are at least a couple of folks
lerking around the news groups doing everything they can to promote it. This
is yet another post designed to scare the hell out of people and push for
nuclear war. YOU ARE A SICK, PATHETIC, JERK!!!!!
"Moshe the Kosher Honey-baked Ham loving PigT ?"
<stargatedecember2012@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1145609279.269649.219360@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://fp.uni.edu/northia/article2.asp?ID=4793&SECTION=2
Nuclear War on the way?
As the war in Iraq trudges on, new information has been released
confirming that the United States has marked Iran as the next possible
target in the war on terror. Iran's government functions on an
entirely different level than Iraq's or Afghanistan's, and so the
conflict would seemingly be very different. The United States
government has not overlooked these differences and has added the use
of nuclear weapons to the possible methods of attack.
For those of you who are just now joining the program, the United
States is considering a pre-emptive nuclear strike against a foreign
nation.
The debate has already begun ญญ- Iran has been accused of violating
the proliferation treaty and advancing its nuclear weapons program.
Iran's current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is an
ultra-conservative who has said that Israel should be "wiped off the
map" and has publicly questioned the authenticity of the Holocaust.
US officials fear that Ahmadinejad may be the next "Hitler" and
have come to the conclusion that allowing Iran to have the bomb would
be irresponsible.
Despite this reasoning, the fact remains that to prevent Iran from
making nuclear weapons, America is considering employing our own
nuclear arsenal, something that has not been done since the end of
World War II.
After that War, America was the big kid on the block. We were the only
ones with nuclear weaponry. Fifty years have passed, and there are now
seven nations known to have nuclear weapons (Russia, the United
Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan and the United States), two
nations believed to have nuclear capabilities (Israel and North Korea),
and one nation (Iran) is suspected of having a clandestine nuclear
program.
When we dropped the bomb on Japan, we had a mere idea of what we were
unleashing. Now, nations hope to gather more nuclear weaponry as a
method of "deterrence," the idea being that if everyone has a gun,
nobody will shoot. However, America seems ready to draw, and who knows
what will come of the nuclear standoff once the first shot has been
fired.
Alfred Einstein, whose theory of relativity helped lead to the
construction of the Atomic Bomb said it best, "I know not with what
weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought
with sticks and stones."
The nuclear arms race resulted from the fear generated by our use of
atomic weaponry. There is no positive application for nukes. Our
president isn't even positive he can say nuclear, but regardless of
whether we're listening to George Bush or Franklin Delano Roosevelt,
a president should never consider nuclear weapons a legitimate option.
---0---
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=10&no=287138&rel_no=1
'Attack on Iran Strengthens Its Regime'
Iranian scholars comment on possible U.S. military action
Email Article Print Article Ali Cimen (alicimen)
As a result of its highly suspect nuclear program, Iran -- which has
had turbulent relations with the West since Ahmadinejad was chosen as
president in June 2005 -- has now become the main item on the agenda of
the world's superpowers.
Though Iranian officials constantly give assurances that they only hope
to benefit from nuclear energy -- the U.S., Israel and others share the
fear that Iran might misuse the rods, part of the nuclear energy
production process, and use them to build nuclear weapons in the
future.
Along the corridors of the brain storming centers of the world's most
powerful countries the most prominent question of recent days has been
"Will America attack Iran?"
We asked the very same question of Iranian-born scholars and experts
who live in the West.
Meir Javedanfar, a leading international relations expert and
strategist, is extremely well-known for his insightful analysis of the
Middle East. He studied in England and currently lives in London and
Tel Aviv as the president of Meepas, the Middle East Economic and
Political Analysis Company.
Professor Mehdi Noorbaksh is an assistant professor at the Center for
International Studies at the University of St. Thomas in Houston,
Texas. His areas of specialization are comparative politics and
international relations with an emphasis on globalization, oil and
energy, conflict and conflict resolution, and Middle-Eastern politics.
In addition Professor R. K. Ramazani also commented briefly. Professor
Ramazani is the Edward Stettinius Chair at the University of Virginia,
and former chairman of the university's Woodrow Wilson Department of
Government and Foreign Affairs.
Ramazani has penned 10 books on the Middle East, contributed numerous
chapters and journal articles, and has been a consultant to the White
House, the Department of State, the Defense Department and the Treasury
Department; as well as to many private foundations and companies.
What do you think the Iranian presidency is trying to do with these
tension-escalating-statements coming one after another?
Javedanfar: I believe that President Ahmadinejad's statements are not
made due to sheer ignorance. They are well planned and well timed to
meet the following goals:
1. One of the main reasons is internal. Ahmadinejad recently suffered
internal defeats in the Majlis [Iranian parliament]; where three of his
candidates for the position of oil minister were rejected one after
another in front of him. Although his fourth candidate has recently
been accepted, after the rejection of his second candidate, Ahmadinejad
found the defeat so painful that he got up on the Majlis podium and
angrily declared.
"This has never been done to another President of the Islamic Republic.
No other president has ever been subject to such negative propaganda
and treatment."
Such statements are hardly made by a president who feels confident
about his position. Therefore in a bid to stamp his authority,
Ahmadinejad has decided to pick on the easiest victim, Israel, with
whom Iran has no economic or political relations. The fact that the
Islamic Republic's leader Ayatollah Khamenei came out to support him
after he attacked Israel is testament that this method works favorably
for Ahmadinejad.
Now that he has the backing of the ultimate source of power in Iran,
Ahmadinejad intends to use it to implement his policy with more
authority and confidence. This also means that every time Ahmadinejad
has internal problems he will attack Israel again, using it as a tool.
This is forecast to happen again in the next month, as Ahmadinejad's
budget, which has been presented to the Majlis, is expected to be
rejected by Majlis members due to its unsuitability.
This will be a major defeat for him which will leave him looking weak.
This will prompt him to create another foreign crisis.
2. The second major reason behind Ahmadinejad's attacks against Israel
is related to the nuclear talks between Iran and the E.U.-3 countries
(Germany, U.K and France).
Since his election, Ahmadinejad has taken an uncompromising stance in
the nuclear talks with the E.U. His unwillingness to change Iran's
nuclear position was confirmed again during the same, "The Holocaust is
a myth" speech, when he declared that he will not "cede one inch of
Iran's nuclear rights to foreign powers".
In other words, Iran will continue to insist on carrying out conversion
and enrichment of uranium on its soil. The E.U. can't and won't
continue to go to the negotiation table to be told the same thing by
Tehran. Therefore, in the face of Ahmadinejad's unwillingness to
compromise, it is very possible that there will be a breakdown in the
talks with the E.U., and we can see this today as Iran finds itself on
the verge of being referred to the U.N Security Council.
Ahmadinejad realizes this, and in a bid to prepare the ground to shift
blame when talks breakdown, Ahmadinejad is pushing the Europeans,
especially Germany to defend Israel, and what better subject than the
Holocaust, which Germany is still incredibly sensitive about.
And as a result, when the talks breakdown, Ahmadinejad will be in a
position to blame the Europeans and their defense of the "Zionist
entity" and the "Holocaust myth" as the main cause for the collapse of
the negotiations.
3. Ahmadinejad is a man who likes to play to his audience. The
"Holocaust is a myth" speech coincided with the visit of Hamas leader
Khaled Mashaal to Tehran. The verbal assault was Ahmadinejad's way of
showing his commitment to Hamas and its rejectionist stance.
Unfortunately for Israel, such support from the president of a powerful
Middle East country is likely to add to Hamas's motivations for not
renewing its ceasefire.
Noorbaksh: Ahmadinejad's confrontational foreign policy emanates from
two sources. First, the new president is naive and does not have a deep
understanding of international politics.
Second, he comes from a background shaped mostly by his involvement in
the war against Iraq in the 1980s. He saw in that war injustice,
insecurity and defeat and blames the United States for support of the
brutal regime of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.
He is offended by Washington's siding with Baghdad in the war and its
indifference to the plight of thousands in Iran and Iraq who were
exposed to Saddam's weapons of mass destruction including chemical
warheads during the war.
The war mentality has been carried out by him and his group of friends
who are currently accompanying him in government. Ahmadinejad's remarks
against Israel are aimed at competing with al-Qaeda in the Middle East
for the support from radical orientations in the region. This support,
if achieved, can help the new president stabilize his power position
among the hard-line conservatives within the country.
Al-Zarqawi, and his strategy of killing the Shiite in Iraq, has become
a new impetus for this president to galvanize support in the Arab
Middle East around anti-American slogans for the sake of controlling
Muslim radical rhetoric and movements.
Taking into consideration the U.S. position and its restraints in Iraq,
do you see an American military operation against Iran possible? Can it
handle this on its own or with the support of the E.U and Israel? What
role could Turkey play in such an operation?
Javedanfar: U.S. action against Iran is certainly a possibility,
although one that is not recommendable.
The U.S. has the military might, in the air, land and sea to do this
alone. The U.S. has bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain and Qatar which
is only 500 kilometers away from the Bushehr nuclear sites.
It must also be added that the runways of the U.S. airbase in Qatar
have just been extended for B-52 landings. This should ring some
serious alarm bells for Iran's military planners.
Therefore, logistically, the U.S. can carry out a sustained military
operation against Iran's nuclear facilities. Turkey would certainly be
able to play a part in the operations. The U.S. airbase in Incirlik
would be able to provide support to the attacking forces. Intelligence
bases on Turkish bases on Iran's borders would also assist the U.S..
As for Israel, in my opinion Israel's first choice will be to stay well
away from an attack, if it can, both militarily and politically. Iran
is not Iraq. Iran, with allies such as Hamas, Islamic jihad and
Hezbollah sitting on Israel's borders, Israel would prefer not to
provoke them. Iran is also equipped with the Shahab-3 missile, which
can reach Israel, and cause serious damage.
Also logistically speaking, Israel does not have sufficient aerial
capability for a sustained aerial attack against Iran's bases.
However what will help the U.S. enormously is political support from
the E.U and Turkey in the case of such an attack.
Bush's unilateral action in Iraq has left the U.S. politically isolated
in the region. To attack another Middle Eastern country again, the U.S.
will need a broader consensus this time.
Ultimately if the talks fail, the E.U may discreetly give the green
light to Washington. However, I believe that it will be unlikely for
Turkey to do that. Prime Minister Erdogan rejected a $30 billion loan
from the U.S. for assistance to topple Saddam, who was literally a
"dead man walking."
Therefore it will even be more unlikely that he will support actions
against Turkey's much more powerful neighbor Iran, who not only has a
stronger army, but also is a major energy supplier (gas) to the Turkish
economy.
Noorbaksh: Attacking Iran's nuclear sites is definitely
counterproductive. The West must deal with the issue of fuel cycle
rights and uranium enrichment in Iran with the utmost prudence. These
issues are bigger than simply Ahmadinejad's government.
Most Iranians think that it is the legal right of Iran as a signatory
of the N.P.T. to develop scientific projects in this area, regardless
of how critical they are of the current government.
Any contemplation of attacking Iran's nuclear facilities will have dire
consequences for Iran, the reform movement inside this country, and the
whole region. Any attack by Israel would also be considered an attack
by the United States, because both nations are security partners in the
Middle East.
Overall, the nations of this region do not separate between Israel and
the United States when it comes to political, security and military
issues in this part of the world.
The "carrot and stick" strategy and serious negotiations with Iran
through a third party, such as the Russians and Chinese, provide a very
useful approach. Extreme measures against Iran would further
destabilize the Middle East region and would have the potential to
disrupt the flow of oil from different parts of the Persian Gulf area
at this critical juncture in the history of energy supply.
There are conservative hard-line members of parliament in Iran who have
suggested confrontation with the United States in the Strait of Hormuz.
If we put the military option aside, what could be the best strategy
that should be followed against Iran? Do you think an economic embargo
works?
Javedanfar: The best strategy would be to offer better economic
incentives to Iran. The E.U's economic promises to Iran turned out to
be not very substantial, as many of the items requested by Iran
contained U.S. technology, which due to the embargo, the E.U was not
able to supply.
I don't believe that sanctions will work. Iran has just had a bumper
financial year; it earned $40 billion from oil alone. Iran also has
porous borders, which means that smuggling from places such as
Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Shiite areas of Iraq are very possible.
Sanctions against Iran will also hurt western economies, as they rely
heavily on Iranian oil (Iran is OPEC's second biggest oil producer).
Putting economic factors aside, culturally speaking, any sanctions
against Iran will make the Iranian people more determined to support
the nuclear program.
History has shown time and time again that despite internal political
differences, in times of foreign hostility, Iranian people unite. This
was shown during the British embargo on Iran during the rule of Mosadeq
in the 1950s.
The economic sanctions imposed by the British and the U.S. did not
break the Iranian people, despite all expectations of the West. The
only way the West managed to change the situation was by financing a
coup against Mosadeq.
Economic sanctions against Iran will be a mistake, by punishing the
Iranian people; the West will also become their victimizer. If
punishments are needed, the best form of sanctions would be one which
targets the business interests of the leadership.
It is well known that Ayatollah Rafsanjani deals with conglomerates
such as Daewoo, Hyundai, Statoil of Norway, Airbus and numerous other
investments stretching all the way to Canada.
Other sections of the regime, such as the Revolutionary Guards
(Pasdaran) have huge business interests in the Emirates. If those are
targeted by sanctions, they will have a much better chance of
convincing the regime, as the leadership will pay from its own pocket,
and not from the pocket of Iran's innocent citizens.
Noorbaksh: The best sanction on Iran is the sanction on Iranian oil
exports. The Iranian non-oil export revenue is close to eight billion
dollars a year. This amount is very small compared to the revenue of
the oil export from the country.
The Iranian economy is absolutely dependent on oil revenue. Without oil
money, the Iranian government's ventures will be hard hit. The middle
class and intelligentsia are the engines of change and opposition to
the government in Iran today.
Punishing this group, as poorly-devised sanctions will inevitably do,
is not in the interest of change and democratization in the country.
Cutting off Iranian oil from the global market is also not a wise thing
to do. Both the industrial and developing nations need 2.5 million
barrels of oil, five percent of the world's needs, which is exported
from Iran daily. One million of this amount may be compensated, but the
intense global oil market will suffer the consequences of this
shortfall.
There is doubt that Saudi Arabia would pick up this one million barrel
deficit, because the royal family might not want to jeopardize its
relations with Iran especially after siding with the rest of the world
in opposition to Iran's nuclear program.
Standard & Poor's sees dire consequences if sanctions are imposed on
the Iranian oil exports; sending prices, near record level, and even
higher. Consequently, that will badly damage global economic growth.
Israel is believed to have at least 200 nuclear weapons or capacity to
be able to produce this amount, and has not yet signed the NPT. Israeli
statesmen, too, sometimes use the same threatening jargon as Iranians.
But we see the international pressure focused only on Iran that tries
hard to persuade the world that its nuclear agenda is bound only to
energy production and nothing more. Could you view this approach as a
double standard as seen by the majority of Muslim World?
Javedanfar: Israel, unlike Ahmadinejad has never called for the total
elimination of Arab countries. Nor has Israel called Muslim history a
"myth" and a lie, something which Dr Ahmadinejad did to Jewish people
in his remarks denying the Holocaust.
Meanwhile many Muslim countries, especially Saudi Arabia, Egypt and
Persian Gulf Countries, back the claim that Iran's nuclear program may
not be as innocent as it should be. This is why many Arab countries are
not providing Iran with their full support.
However, one can certainly understand why Arab and Muslim countries
view Israel's supposed nuclear capability as a double standard, as
Israel is not even a signatory of the NPT. This is certainly
understandable and has logic to it. I believe the best way to solve
such perceptions of double standards is to free the Middle East of all
weapons of mass destruction.
We also need to convince countries not to call for the elimination of
others; as such threats are one of the biggest motivators for the
possession of doomsday weapons. We need to create motivations to
eliminate weapons of mass destruction, not to acquire them.
America's probable military operation will aim only at eliminating the
nuclear capacity of Iran or might there be different expectations in
the minds of war strategists?
Javedanfar: I strongly believe that in the case of an attack, U.S.
planners would focus on the destruction of Iran's nuclear installations
and possibly an attack against some of Iran's missiles and aerial bases
in order to neutralize Iran's capability to respond. Any other attack
would be counter productive and a waste of U.S. resources.
I do not see the U.S. attacking political sites such as the homes of
politicians, as it is a well known fact that many of Iran's top
politicians are very well protected.
There are some comments that America wants to play (is playing) the
ethnical group card in Iran as it did in Iraq. Do you agree with this
view? If so, could Kurds have an important role in Iran, too?
Javedanfar: It is very possible that the U.S. is manipulating Iran's
ethnic minorities, especially Iranian Arabs in the Khuzestan region of
Iran.
The U.S. can use its influence and infrastructure in Iraq to lend
political and military support to them. The Kurds will also be a
candidate for this task as the U.S. forces in Iraq, and their close
relations with Barzani especially (not Talabani as he has excellent
relations with Iran) may allow them to support Kurdish independence
aspirations in Iran.
The Kurds could have an important role to play, as there are a number
of Kurdish movements with established resources in Iran. In the long
run, however, any Kurdish or Arab aspirations and plans for
independence in Iran may be futile, as the Iranian government and
people (in Iran and abroad including myself in Israel) are united
against any plans for the division of Iran.
In short I believe any foreign plans to split Iran will be one of the
biggest mistakes the west could make, as it would incur the wrath of
millions of Iran's citizens. The West needs Iran's citizens on its
side, not against it.
Some are afraid that America's probable operation against Iran could be
the trigger of World War III. Do you agree?
Javedanfar: I do not believe that a U.S. attack against Iran would lead
to WW III. For that to happen we need to see many countries becoming
involved in the conflict. Even if Iran is attacked, I do not see great
number of countries becoming involved in attacking the West.
Iran may have the support of numerous groups, such as Hezbollah or
Islamic Jihad; however, it does not have the support of countries that
would be prepared to go to war on its behalf.
'U.S. Operation Cannot Destroy the Iranian Regime'
Professor R. K. Ramazani comments: From the Iranian perspective,
Ahmadinejad is trying to resist Western pressures with his statements.
A U.S. or Israeli military strike is not likely to succeed, nor would
the E.U. go along with an invasion.
Turkey should act the same prudent way it behaved in the case of the
American invasion of Iraq. When it comes to what should be done; the
best strategy for the U.S. would be to bite the bullet, recognize the
Iranian regime and talk to it respectfully and directly. And right now
even, some Americans see the Bush administration's approach to the
nuclear issue as hypocritical.
Strategy planners might hope that military action would also destroy
the regime, but that is a pipe dream because it would only strengthen
nationwide support for the regime. Kurds could have an important role
in Iran, too?
I really don't think so, but any Kurdish uprising would surely be
crushed. Some may be afraid of World War III, but I don't agree because
the cost of a world war would outweigh the benefits.
This interview was first published on March 7, 2006, at the Turkish
Internet newspaper www.zaman.com.
---0---
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
