PDA

View Full Version : Nuclear weapons (was How Howard will win (attacking Iran etc)) [bumped]



Davidflude
13-09-2007, 12:26 AM
Sir Wellington Boot on Henry Thornton's web site suggests that Howard has been tipped off by George Bush that an attack will be made on Iran. I have tracked down the source of where the stories of the attack are coming from.

Harper's Magazine -

Speaking From Experience, Part II: Former CIA official expects war with Iran
DEPARTMENT Washington Babylon
BY Ken Silverstein
PUBLISHED September 4, 2007

Until recently, I thought the odds that the United States would attack Iran were less than fifty-fifty, but the chances of a military confrontation are clearly growing (as my colleague Scott Horton has been reporting on for some time). Earlier this year, I asked a former CIA official, who was stationed in the Persian Gulf during the first Gulf War and served in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, if he though the administration was planning a military strike. “I don’t think the administration is about to carry out military action,” he told me. “The military does not want to do this. We will lose planes if there is a massive air strike over Iran. We’ll have pilots killed and captured.”

Yesterday, I called the official—who speaks with me only off the record—and he now believes a military strike is likely. Here are his comments, which I offer not as an endorsement of an invasion, but because of his knowledge and insights into what might lay ahead:

It looks like a military strike is in the works and I base that on two things: observable fact and the rhetoric emanating from the White House. There’s a lot of movement of troops and materiel into the region–it’s stuff the United States can’t hide. It’s a huge expense to put Navy battle groups in the Gulf and we’ve got three of them there. We’ve also moved new fighter planes to Guam amidst much public fanfare. You can plainly see the upturn in US Naval activity in and around the Norfolk Naval installations. The movement of ships, re-supply, ammunition loading and general level of activity is high.

The Naval facilities and the ammunition loading areas are well known, and the activity is readily visible, especially at night. There’s a stream of ships coming in to load up and when they take off new ones come in. There’s only one part of the world where all that stuff is heading. Also, everyone I know who would be involved in an attack on Iran–pilots and other air assets–is gone. Normally some of them are around but now all of them are away at the same time.

The other evidence of a likely strike is all the harsh talk from the White House. President Bush has been talking about Iran a lot more recently, and he put the Revolutionary Guard on the list of terrorist groups. Whatever you think of the president, he has said he won’t let Iran move forward with its nuclear program. I’d take him at his word.

And it’s doable. The only part of the military that’s not stretched to the limits in Iraq is the Air Force. It will be a multi-day, multi-target air campaign–not ‘Shock and Awe,’ which wasn’t shocking and didn’t awe anyone, but a savage blow struck against President Ahmadinejad. We shouldn’t hit Iran’s Navy or Air Force but target the nuclear sites and the Revolutionary Guard. A measured response helps Ahmadinejad because he’s saying the Americans won’t attack, or can’t hurt, Iran. A disproportionate response will be hard for him to explain to the Iranian public.





Harper's Magazine is an American journal of literature, politics, culture, and the arts published from 1850. Subscriptions start at $16.97 a year.
© The Harper's Magazine Foundation. All rights reserved. · About Harper's · Contact Harper's

Capablanca-Fan
13-09-2007, 02:02 AM
Well, Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear facilities, and despite the bleating of the bleeding hearts at the time, we now know it was a good thing. Now, Iran's president both denies the last Holocaust against the Jews and advocates another one, and is developing nuclear facilities although oil-rich Iran hardly needs them for power development. Is the West supposed to wait for a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv before it acts? The experience with Hitler should tell the world that when someone says that he intends to wipe out the Jews, believe him!!

Davidflude
13-09-2007, 12:02 PM
What makes very very suspicious of Iran's intentions is that they are building a heavy water plant as well as centrifuges. Heavy water enables you to build the Canadian style nuclear reactors that run on unenriched uranium oxide and provide plutonium as a by product. The first Canadian plant was running in 1946.

If the allies had not destroyed the bulk of the nazi's supply of heavy water and if Hiesenberg had not deliberately or accidentally mucked up his calculations as to how big an atom bomb needed to be then things could have got very nasty.

One other point is that Iran sells petrol so cheaply to the locals that in a few years they will not be able to keep up with local demand let alone produce electricity from oil. (source "The Economist" magazine.)

Basil
13-09-2007, 12:26 PM
What makes very very suspicious of Iran's intentions

Thanks David. A question for you and any other motivated party:

When one S. Hussein was asked (prior to the 2nd Iraq War)

-- "Hey buddy, what did you do with those WMD that the UN has ordered you to get rid off?" and he replied

-- "I'm not telling you but they're not here anymore, come see for yourself."

Were you also suspicious?

Southpaw Jim
13-09-2007, 01:09 PM
Interesting - but doesn't Boot suggest that this would be a negative for Howard, being seen as 'in on it'?

antisense
13-09-2007, 02:06 PM
If the allies had not destroyed the bulk of the nazi's supply of heavy water and if Hiesenberg had not deliberately or accidentally mucked up his calculations as to how big an atom bomb needed to be then things could have got very nasty.
Things did get very nasty. Hiroshima, Nagasaki? Just because it didn't happen to you, doesn't make it any less 'nasty'.

I find it ironic that the only country in history to have dropped a nuclear bomb on anyone is the very one now lurching around accusing everyone else of hiding nuclear weapons.

Capablanca-Fan
13-09-2007, 03:55 PM
Things did get very nasty. Hiroshima, Nagasaki? Just because it didn't happen to you, doesn't make it any less 'nasty'.

I find it ironic that the only country in history to have dropped a nuclear bomb on anyone is the very one now lurching around accusing everyone else of hiding nuclear weapons.

Would you have preferred to lose a million Allies taking the Japanese mainland, to say nothing of at least as many Japanese? Also, the Allies' decisive actions finished the Warlord / Emperor worship cult off once and for all, unlike their current pussyfooting around with the Islamofascists.

eclectic
13-09-2007, 04:47 PM
have you ever stopped to think how totally "useless" all these "unusable" nuclear weapons are?

Garvinator
13-09-2007, 05:25 PM
Would you have preferred to lose a million Allies taking the Japanese mainland, to say nothing of at least as many Japanese? Also, the Allies' decisive actions finished the Warlord / Emperor worship cult off once and for all, unlike their current pussyfooting around with the Islamofascists.
I was going to make a very similar point regarding loss of lives on both sides.

Axiom
13-09-2007, 05:57 PM
Thanks David. A question for you and any other motivated party:

When one S. Hussein was asked (prior to the 2nd Iraq War)

-- "Hey buddy, what did you do with those WMD that the UN has ordered you to get rid off?" and he replied

-- "I'm not telling you but they're not here anymore, come see for yourself."

Were you also suspicious?
no, why should any clear thinker be?

the usa made the assertion that the wmds were in iraq!
they needed to prove it
they didnt
no wmds were found !(ie. nothing significant as per claim )


and now the dodgy cherry picking rationalisation continues with iran !
eg. (similar to the usa puppet govt propaganda, surprise surprise !)

Now, Iran's president both denies the last Holocaust against the Jews and advocates another one, and is developing nuclear facilities although oil-rich Iran hardly needs them for power development. Is the West supposed to wait for a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv before it acts? The experience with Hitler should tell the world that when someone says that he intends to wipe out the Jews, believe him!!

(1)Ahmedinajad was mis quoted out of context, and was directly responding to threats made by israel !
(2)to deny or question any so called historical fact is or should be the free speech right of everyone,unencumbered by threats.
(3)the precept rationalisation for invading iraq is now fully discredited, and you trust the same people's rationalisation for attacking Iran ??

and the fact that both countries happen to be oil rich is totally coincidental !

Basil
13-09-2007, 06:13 PM
no, why should any clear thinker be?

the usa made the assertion that the wmds were in iraq!
they needed to prove it
they didnt
no wmds were found !(ie. nothing significant as per claim

You've missed the point entirely. And apparently have a deficient knowledge of history.

The WMDs were in Iraq! Hussein didn't deny it! The world saw them. The UN resolution was passed that Iraq remove them. He agreed (but played silly buggers while doing so - a bit like your recent spell in coventry).

When he missed his deadlines (more silly buggers and brinksmanship), he eventually declared them gone (the ones you imply weren't there :doh:)

The point is ... he wouldn't say what he had done with them - which he was required to do. Please pay more attention.

eclectic
13-09-2007, 06:18 PM
so HOW will Howard* win?


As you were. Carry on!

;)

* deliberate ambiguity

Axiom
13-09-2007, 06:31 PM
You've missed the point entirely. And apparently have a deficient knowledge of history.

The WMDs were in Iraq! Hussein didn't deny it! The world saw them. The UN resolution was passed that Iraq remove them. He agreed (but played silly buggers while doing so - a bit like your recent spell in coventry).

When he missed his deadlines (more silly buggers and brinksmanship), he eventually declared them gone (the ones you imply weren't there :doh:)

The point is ... he wouldn't say what he had done with them - which he was required to do. Please pay more attention.
why should he? he said he destroyed the wmds!
did that deserve whats happened to the country now?
did that deserve the shock an awe?
proportionate?

saddam was installed by the us, had very close ties to usa govt,but because he fell out with the cartel(after being mislead over kuwait) he refused to kowtow to the bullying (yes,via the UN apparatus ) and was hunted down.

thats the history.

the real story of the invasion of iraq , like most wars ,is based on the fight for resources, in this case oil...the so called stabilisation of the mid east is also a motive to increase the scope and financial/economic control over this non-conforming region.

but this idea of stabilisation is also a ruse, unless you adhere to the principle of "order out of chaos" ! :lol:

Axiom
13-09-2007, 06:43 PM
What makes very very suspicious of Iran's intentions is that they are building a heavy water plant as well as centrifuges. Heavy water enables you to build the Canadian style nuclear reactors that run on unenriched uranium oxide and provide plutonium as a by product. The first Canadian plant was running in 1946.

If the allies had not destroyed the bulk of the nazi's supply of heavy water and if Hiesenberg had not deliberately or accidentally mucked up his calculations as to how big an atom bomb needed to be then things could have got very nasty.

One other point is that Iran sells petrol so cheaply to the locals that in a few years they will not be able to keep up with local demand let alone produce electricity from oil. (source "The Economist" magazine.)
not only should iran have the right to build nuclear power plants, but also the justification to own nuclear weapons.They have israel with nukes on their doorstep making threats .
Its ok for pakistan ! but then again ,the us govt (as a front for the corporate banking globalist cartel) is happy to have cartel puppet associate musharef there !

Capablanca-Fan
13-09-2007, 11:05 PM
not only should iran have the right to build nuclear power plants, but also the justification to own nuclear weapons.They have israel with nukes on their doorstep making threats !
Not at all. Israel is not making threats to annihilate Muslims at all, the way Ahmedinejab is making against Jews. Israel has several times faced wars of annihilation, and thus has ample justification for having nukes as a deterrent.

It's also notable that many of Israel's long-term foes had strong Nazi ties. The Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, spent the war years with Hitler, recruited Bosnian Muslims for the SS, and urged Eichmann to hurry up with his "final solution" http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php. His relative and devoted student Mohammed Abd al-Rahman Abd al-Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini called the Nazi-loving Mufti "our hero", and his student was better known as Yasser Arafat http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35563.

Now Israel's enemies still circulate ancient "blood libels" and the notorious forgery Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Capablanca-Fan
13-09-2007, 11:12 PM
(1)Ahmedinajad was mis quoted out of context, and was directly responding to threats made by israel !
Then put it in context!


(2)to deny or question any so called historical fact is or should be the free speech right of everyone,unencumbered by threats.
Holocaust denial should be a free speech right, but it is also my free speech right to denounce holocaust deniers as dangerous antisemites. When a denier is building nukes and preaching doom for Jews, said Jews have a right to take action. Once again, when someone clearly states his intention to wipe out Jews, believe him!


(3)the precept rationalisation for invading iraq is now fully discredited,
Please re-read the rationalization then. One of the clearly stated ones was removal of a murderous despot. Another was repeated violations of the Gulf War ceasefire conditions, which justified resumption of hostilities.


and you trust the same people's rationalisation for attacking Iran ??
No, just knocking out their nuclear facilities.


and the fact that both countries happen to be oil rich is totally coincidental !
What rubbish. If America were after oil, they could just drill Alaska's bleak wilderness, as the Alaskans want. They also could have had Kuwait's oil for the taking.

eclectic
13-09-2007, 11:17 PM
If America were after oil

yep the last time i looked in the mirror to shave i noticed my skin was colored green

CameronD
13-09-2007, 11:33 PM
Maybe Howard could combine his tactics of the last few elections with...

a terrorist overboard scandel

antisense
14-09-2007, 01:20 AM
Would you have preferred to lose a million Allies taking the Japanese mainland, to say nothing of at least as many Japanese? Also, the Allies' decisive actions finished the Warlord / Emperor worship cult off once and for all, unlike their current pussyfooting around with the Islamofascists.
I'm not saying the bombs shouldn't have been dropped, although that is far from a clear-cut issue. I don't really know enough about the complexities of it to argue the point, but I would question, for example, whether the second bomb was absolutely necessary, aside from the US's desire to test the effects of two different types of bomb.

I just think it's useful to consider things from the other side's point of view. It seems to me there are obvious reasons why not everyone in the rest of the world sees the US as a shining example of ultimate good and righteousness. Yet the US government (and others of the Western world) seems so surprised when other countries fail to completely trust them, and assumes it's just because they're evil, and enemies of freedom, who have to be beaten into submission before they can execute the dastardly plots that they must surely be concocting...

Coming back to the atomic bombings, civilian targets were deliberately chosen, rather than military ones, for maximum destruction and psychological effect. You could argue that sticking to strictly military targets would not have had the desired effect, i.e. ending the war quickly. Nevertheless, how is this different from terrorism? Does terrorism become okay if you can say it saved more lives than it took? No matter what the justifications, it does make the "war on terror" look more than a little hypocritical.

Basil
14-09-2007, 01:51 AM
I'm not saying the bombs shouldn't have been dropped, although that is far from a clear-cut issue. I don't really know enough about the complexities of it to argue the point, but I would question, for example, whether the second bomb was absolutely necessary, aside from the US's desire to test the effects of two different types of bomb.
My understanding was that the Americans dropped the first and wanted immediate surrender. When Axiom and AO and Saddam, ahem, I mean The Japanese started p*ssing around and double-daring, the second one got dropped just to make the point. War is a most diabolical thing, but as Jono has inferred, the bs had to stop.


It seems to me there are obvious reasons why not everyone in the rest of the world sees the US as a shining example of ultimate good and righteousness.
The 'US' is a 1/4 of a billion people with as many and varied ideas as we here. No-one and certainly not them (it) holds itself out as a shining example. They are just people charged with the power of the day. They do the best they can and they call it as they see it.


Yet the US government (and others of the Western world)
I don't think trust is the issue with the majority of the mainstream 1st world countries - I think its generally their own political expediency or conscience.


No matter what the justifications, it does make the "war on terror" look more than a little hypocritical.
Would you mind developing that point?

Basil
14-09-2007, 02:08 AM
why should he? he said he destroyed the wmds!
Don't be stupid. Chamberlain went and shook hands with Hitler who promised not to invade Poland :eek: Chamberlain came back grinning like a cheese because he had taken the word of despot.

Hussein had an obligation to prove the disposal and he wouldn't. It amazes how some people are all for brinkmanship (especially when starting from a position of wrong) and then stand amazed when it's not tolerated. Not only did Hussein play games (public ones he reveled in them - just like you did), but he was given very clear forewarning of the consequences - and even then, the US backed down a couple of times.


did that deserve whats happened to the country now?
What is a balanced assessment of what has happened to the country now (in its partial reconstructed state)?


proportionate?
Proportionate to what?


saddam was installed by the us, had very close ties to usa govt ...
Yes ...


... but because he fell out with the cartel (after being mislead over kuwait) he refused to kowtow to the bullying (yes,via the UN apparatus)...
Dribble.


the real story of the invasion of iraq , like most wars ,is based on the fight for resources, in this case oil ... the so called stabilisation of the mid east is also a motive to increase the scope and financial/economic control over this non-conforming region.
More dribble. But amazingly popular dribble.

antisense
14-09-2007, 02:42 AM
My understanding was that the Americans dropped the first and wanted immediate surrender. When Axiom and AO and Saddam, ahem, I mean The Japanese started p*ssing around and double-daring, the second one got dropped just to make the point. War is a most diabolical thing, but as Jono has inferred, the bs had to stop.
Yes, this is my understanding too. But was there absolute certainty that further diplomacy would not work? Surely it'd be worth a try, even if it seemed unlikely to succeed, in order to save a few tens of thousands of lives. Also, Japan also suddenly found themselves at war with the Soviet Union at this time, which might have changed their views on surrender even without the second bomb.


The 'US' is a 1/4 of a billion people with as many and varied ideas as we here.
Aware of this. Live with one, and she's certainly not a Bush supporter. But I was still speaking from the point of view of one looking at US government policies from the outside, and many people do tend to view a foreign country as a single entity. I'm sure you realise that "The Japanese" also hold many and varied ideas, not always in tune with those of their government.


No-one and certainly not them (it) holds itself out as a shining example. They are just people charged with the power of the day. They do the best they can and they call it as they see it.
Bush, and many of his supporters, is very keen to polarise debates into "good" and "evil", with no question of which side he's on. So yes, I do think they hold themselves out as a shining example. It's becoming clearer and clearer that invading Iraq has done no-one any good, but will you ever hear them admit it? Not likely.


I don't think trust is the issue with the majority of the mainstream 1st world countries - I think its generally their own political expediency or conscience.
I was thinking more of countries that might feel that they could be under threat, either now or in the future, if they get on the wrong side of the US.


Would you mind developing that point?
Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. The US names all terrorism "evil" and vows to extinguish it from the planet (good luck with that), yet does not renounce its terrorist acts against Japan.

Basil
14-09-2007, 02:55 AM
... which might have changed their views on surrender even without the second bomb.
Quite possibly. I was thinking this was sixty years ago. America wasn't 'big' on the super power thing. They didn't even get into the war until someone popped up in the their own backyard. My point is that the US then and now may as well be two different entities for the sake of drawing parallels (which you were).


... many people do tend to view a foreign country as a single entity
Fair enough.


Bush, and many of his supporters, is very keen to polarise debates into "good" and "evil", with no question of which side he's on.
Fair enough, too. But this style of politics is prevalent. Long dissertations don't work. Headlines and dumbing it down works - especially in the US - and quite well here. But you are correct in what you say (the premise).


So yes, I do think they hold themselves out as a shining example.
OK. Disagree (the conclusion).


It's becoming clearer and clearer that invading Iraq has done no-one any good, but will you ever hear them admit it? Not likely.
Well I genuinely disagree with you. As such I am unlikely to admit it if I don't believe it. I'm not a fan of Bush, but I believe he believes he did the right thing and that good has come of it all. I think he is genuinely surprised at the drawn out nature and difficulties he's encountered (militarily). I think he made the same mistake as the WWI Brits and thought they'd be home for Christmas :eek:


Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. The US names all terrorism "evil" and vows to extinguish it from the planet (good luck with that), yet does not renounce its terrorist acts against Japan.
Thanks for extrapolating. I disagree that the nuking of Japan was a terrorist act. I have also noted that I feel that America then and now are essentially two different entities (morally and mentally). Therefore I reject the hypocrisy assertion.

Aaron Guthrie
14-09-2007, 03:32 AM
Just leaving aside the nuke business, what about the conventional bombing of cities (i.e. firestorm bombing) as it occurred in Japan and Germany. I often see the debate about the nukes, which revolves around whether or not ending the war justified it. But these bombings seem to be ignored. As is my understanding, they killed as many civilians (e.g. the tokyo bombing), but they don't seem to have the same justification. Does anyone have any views on this? (I am anti, but I don't consider that I have much of an argument to this effect, so I neglect pulling one out my non-existent hat)

pax
14-09-2007, 08:44 AM
Back to the thread title, how exactly is Bush attacking Iran supposed to help Howard?

Garvinator
14-09-2007, 11:58 AM
Back to the thread title, how exactly is Bush attacking Iran supposed to help Howard?I was also wondering this.

Davidflude
14-09-2007, 12:23 PM
Previously stated

what rubbish. If America were after oil, they could just drill Alaska's bleak wilderness, as the Alaskans want. They also could have had Kuwait's oil for the taking.

I have seen it stated that all the oil in Alaska would add one year to the world's reserves.

The problem is not that the world is running out of oil yet but that the expense
of extracting and processing the oil increases as the easily obtained oil starts to run short. That is why i am overweight oilers in my portfolio, BHP, Woodside, Horizon And MAE.

pax
14-09-2007, 01:07 PM
The problem is not that the world is running out of oil yet but that the expense
of extracting and processing the oil increases as the easily obtained oil starts to run short. That is why i am overweight oilers in my portfolio, BHP, Woodside, Horizon And MAE.

Do you really think a sharp increase in the cost of oil production is going to increase the value of oil companies?

Capablanca-Fan
14-09-2007, 03:28 PM
Yes, this is my understanding too. But was there absolute certainty that further diplomacy would not work? Surely it'd be worth a try, even if it seemed unlikely to succeed, in order to save a few tens of thousands of lives.
But consider the number of people being killed in the battles that the Japanese were fighting even after Hiroshima. And the Allies brutalized in their POW camps certainly shed no tears that the war would come to a speedy end. Also, the overwhelming force meant there was no nonsense from the defeated nation when America imposed constitutional democracy on them.

But now, we don't reply with overwheling force against those who deserve it, like the terrorist thugs who deliberately target innocent civilians. And perversely, "world opinion" (i.e. the opinion of the world's despots in that thugocracy, the UN) is against Israel when they defend themselves. Thus there is every incentive for terrorists to continue.

Capablanca-Fan
14-09-2007, 03:57 PM
I have seen it stated that all the oil in Alaska would add one year to the world's reserves.
I have seen it stated that if the untapped oil in ANWR were used, and supplied 5% of America's oil, it would last 32 years under current extraction conditions. And it would hardly disturb the bleak wilderness. Indeed, caribou like the warm oil pipelines.


The problem is not that the world is running out of oil yet but that the expense of extracting and processing the oil increases as the easily obtained oil starts to run short.
This is true, and the main thing that doom-mongering charlatan Paul Ehrlich overlooked, and why he lost a famous bet with economist Julian Simon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon-Ehrlich_wager).

Kevin Bonham
14-09-2007, 06:26 PM
But now, we don't reply with overwheling force against those who deserve it, like the terrorist thugs who deliberately target innocent civilians.

Which "terrorist thugs" do you suggest we reply with overwhelming force against, what sort of "overwhelming force", and precisely where are they at the moment?

Axiom
14-09-2007, 08:01 PM
Which "terrorist thugs" do you suggest we reply with overwhelming force against, what sort of "overwhelming force", and precisely where are they at the moment?
JONO rightly referred to the U.N as thugs, and i guess they sanction terror, so JONO would have to agree to applying "overwhelming force" against them ! :lol:

pax
14-09-2007, 09:05 PM
Which "terrorist thugs" do you suggest we reply with overwhelming force against, what sort of "overwhelming force", and precisely where are they at the moment?

Maybe Jono thinks we should nuke the Gaza strip...

Kevin Bonham
14-09-2007, 10:29 PM
JONO rightly referred to the U.N as thugs, and i guess they sanction terror, so JONO would have to agree to applying "overwhelming force" against them ! :lol:

Wouldn't take much force to overwhelm that lot. :lol:

Basil
15-09-2007, 12:24 AM
Just leaving aside the nuke business, what about the conventional bombing of cities (i.e. firestorm bombing) as it occurred in Japan and Germany
And London.


Does anyone have any views on this?
I struggle to get my head around the concept of being the guy who sends the troops in, let alone being the guy who ratifies the use of anti-civilian measures.

Weighing civilan deaths against military deaths becomes more obscure the harder I look.

Axiom
15-09-2007, 01:33 AM
Wouldn't take much force to overwhelm that lot. :lol:
it would if it was a battle of ideologies !

Capablanca-Fan
15-09-2007, 02:14 AM
Maybe Jono thinks we should nuke the Gaza strip...
No, but next time the "Palestinians" fire rockets directed at Israeli civilians, their military should go in with force and destroy the launchers. In every other conflict but this one, the belligerants who hide among civilians are the ones held responsible for their deaths and injuries, not the ones who are fighting them. And most of the "Palestinians" support terrorist attacks against Israel, so they are not so innocent.

But maybe Pax thinks that Israel should wait till there is a mushroom cloud above Tel Aviv before knocking out Iran's nuclear capability, with a nuke if necessary.

Note, Hamas is the Hebrew word for violence.

Capablanca-Fan
15-09-2007, 02:16 AM
Which "terrorist thugs" do you suggest we reply with overwhelming force against, what sort of "overwhelming force", and precisely where are they at the moment?
Al Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah. I think Shrubby has forgotten what he rightly said just after 11-9: that he would treat those who shelter and hide terrorists as guilty as the terrorists themselves.

Capablanca-Fan
15-09-2007, 02:23 AM
And London.
And Coventry.


Weighing civilan deaths against military deaths becomes more obscure the harder I look.
Not really. Most moral systems differentiate between deliberately targeting civilians and accidentally killing them while aiming at military targets. The latter is covered by the principle of double effect, i.e., if a contemplated action has both good and bad effects, then is permissible only if it is not wrong in itself and if it does not require that one directly intend the bad result.

Only when it comes to Israel and America does "world opinion" refuse to do that. Just look at the morons in academia who want to single out Israel uniquely for divestiture, and pity the poor "Palestinians", when the latter are the ones who fire rockets into civilian areas and blow up school buses and discotheques, while the former tries to avoid civilian deaths even though the terrorists use them as human shields. Even in the defensive wars that Israel has fought, its enemies targeted cities while Israel targeted airfields and tank columns.

Alan Dershowitz's book The Case for Israel is most informative, and he is an atheistic leftist.

Capablanca-Fan
15-09-2007, 07:49 AM
Wouldn't take much force to overwhelm that lot. :lol:
Indeed, if the USA stopped funding the UN, it would collapse.

Desmond
15-09-2007, 01:43 PM
Back to the thread title, how exactly is Bush attacking Iran supposed to help Howard?
Defence (or attack, as the case may be) is for some reason considered one of Howard's strong suits. A new war would bring it to the front of the agenda. Hell, it worked last time didn't it?

Axiom
15-09-2007, 01:52 PM
Indeed, if the USA stopped funding the UN, it would collapse. oh and i wonder why they dont?! :lol:

Axiom
15-09-2007, 01:54 PM
Note, Hamas is the Hebrew word for violence.
note, Mossad's motto is "by deception shall we wage war"

Axiom
15-09-2007, 02:08 PM
Defence (or attack, as the case may be) is for some reason considered one of Howard's strong suits. A new war would bring it to the front of the agenda. Hell, it worked last time didn't it?
all very convenient and dare i say it coincidental, that the PNAC documents reveal the stated need for a galvanising attack on usa, and hey presto here comes 9/11.
also the repeated timely release of the OBL tapes
johhny howard is the equivalent of a mayor of a tiny satellite town of the usa, he basically does as he is told, ...note - only these types are allowed to rise to position of head puppet . Look at what happens to those that 'buck the system' !

The cover is being blown right off this major international fraud, the war on terror is a hoax, the precept for the war on terror was a hoax, and they know if they go into iran ,they will be fully exposed as the corrupt war criminals that they are.

Axiom
15-09-2007, 02:24 PM
Al Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah. I think Shrubby has forgotten what he rightly said just after 11-9: that he would treat those who shelter and hide terrorists as guilty as the terrorists themselves.
are they the only groups in the world practicing terror?
have you studied the origins of al qaida? it was set up by the CIA (Bryzinski) !
anyone defending iraq from the us invasion is labelled a terrorist ,al qaida even!
yes there are violent jihadist groups but in reality they represent a minute threat to the west, and where are they ? afghanistan? iraq? no ! ....try pakistan,saudi arabia ! :lol:
in true spirit of espionage the globalists exagerate this puny threat into a major fear campaign, to exact what ends, you may well ask !

remember folks, this is geo-political chess !............its not just "oh, my queen is threatened i better protect or move it", it is far far more deceptive and complex than that!
please stop swallowing the propaganda wholesale !

Davidflude
15-09-2007, 03:17 PM
The key to solving global warming is using the market place.

Example 1. A member of the Smorgan family (age 90+) is building a pilot plant
which added to a coal power station removes 46% of the carbon dioxide at a profit. It uses plastic pipe, bacteria and photo synthesis producing three products which are all highly saleable.

It should not be too hard to figure out how to store the carbon dioxide for 12 hours so that efficiency can go up to over 90%.

Example 2. I am thinking of adding solar power units to the roof of my house. If the power companies raise their charges and pay me for the electricity I put back into the grid it becomes a lay down mizerre.

Example 3. South Africa is developing pebble bed nuclear reactors which are, small, much safer than other types of reactors and will provide electricity for mine sites out in the woop woops cheaper than diesel plants.

Example 4. There is a plant currently considered a weed in Western Australia
which is very resistant to Autralian droughts and is the best plant so far found for making bio diesel. It is got to be a better bet than growing wheat in the rain shadow areas of Australia.

Example 5. Check out the web and see how main stream aussie companies are marketing solar hot water systems with gas boosters.

Example 6. The Prius was a car that combines a petrol endgine with an electric motor and batteries. now I see that several manufactures are striving to put diesol hybrids into production. A peugeot 308 diesel hybrid is expected this year or next year.

Example 7. Pacific hydro is making good profits with run of the river (no dams)
power plants and by fitting power plants to irrigation dams. Check out their profit growth. (they would have been at least a six bagger for anyone who bought them early on.)

What we need is for governments to stop trying to pick environmental winners but to to set up the market conditions to encourage enviromental actions and watch the business entrepreneurs tear into it.

Axiom
15-09-2007, 03:20 PM
Then put it in context!
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12763.htm



Holocaust denial should be a free speech right, but it is also my free speech right to denounce holocaust deniers as dangerous antisemites. When a denier is building nukes and preaching doom for Jews, said Jews have a right to take action. Once again, when someone clearly states his intention to wipe out Jews, believe him!
it was to wipe out zionism not jews !
as you know there is a significant population of jews(sephardic) happily residing in iran ! note - israel predominately hasidic jews.



Please re-read the rationalization then. One of the clearly stated ones was removal of a murderous despot. Another was repeated violations of the Gulf War ceasefire conditions, which justified resumption of hostilities.
yes that is the rationalisation fed to us via the media propaganda machine.




What rubbish. If America were after oil, they could just drill Alaska's bleak wilderness, as the Alaskans want. They also could have had Kuwait's oil for the taking.
the oil is a bonus,as are profits for the military industrial complex, but the economic control of a non-conforming region is the real agenda.

it could also well be a means of imploding america by design, by overstretching its world police role,then from the ensuing chaos a one world govt can be ushered in.

Axiom
15-09-2007, 03:23 PM
I think we need a split to perhaps " Attacking Iran"

and david flude i think global warming belongs in another thread.

eclectic
15-09-2007, 03:31 PM
I think we need a split to perhaps " Attacking Iran"

and david flude i think global warming belongs in another thread.

we need a new thread entitled perhaps

how howard after his defeat plans to be assistant special u n envoy to the middle east under blair

:uhoh:
:eek:
:hmm:

ElevatorEscapee
15-09-2007, 03:47 PM
I would just like to say, that by owning a small car, such as the Toyota Starlet... that my petrol/fuel economy per kilometre is substantially less than that of the larger, hybrid cars such as the Toyota Pious.... er, Prius.

Capablanca-Fan
15-09-2007, 04:39 PM
it was to wipe out zionism not jews !
Since this meant wiping out the Jewish State, it amounts to the same thing.


as you know there is a significant population of jews(sephardic) happily residing in iran ! note - israel predominately hasidic jews.
Jews were always Dhimmis in Muslim countries, i.e. second-class citizens who were really non-citizens, but avoiding worse by paying a special tax.

After the formation of Israel, many Islamic countries expelled their Jews. But tiny Israel has resettled them, while the huge Arab countries leave the "Palestinians" in squalid refugee camps to use as pawns.


yes that is the rationalisation fed to us via the media propaganda machine.
Come off it. The Leftmedia have always undermined the war on terror, and ignored Shrubby's clearly stated justification for attacking Iraq.

Capablanca-Fan
15-09-2007, 04:41 PM
The key to solving global warming is using the market place.

...

What we need is for governments to stop trying to pick environmental winners but to to set up the market conditions to encourage enviromental actions and watch the business entrepreneurs tear into it.
While I'm not convinced that AGW is a problem, I totally agree that if it is, the market would solve it far better than government.

Capablanca-Fan
15-09-2007, 04:53 PM
note, Mossad's motto is "by deception shall we wage war"
Not so. Their motto that you misrepresent was actually from Proverbs 24:6, "by wise guidance you can wage your war" (בתחבולות תעשה לך מלחמה‎, "be-tachbūlōt ta`aseh lekhā milchāmāh"). Now their motto comes from Prov. 11:14, "Where there is no counsel, the people fall; But in the multitude of counselors there is safety" (באין תחבולות יפול עם, ותשועה ברוב יועץ‎ "be-'éyn tachbūlōt yippol `ām; ū-teshū`āh be-rov yō'éts").

eclectic
15-09-2007, 04:59 PM
Not so. Their motto that you misrepresent was actually from Proverbs 24:6, "by wise guidance you can wage your war" (בתחבולות תעשה לך מלחמה‎, "be-tachbūlōt ta`aseh lekhā milchāmāh"). Now their motto comes from Prov. 11:14, "Where there is no counsel, the people fall; But in the multitude of counselors there is safety" (באין תחבולות יפול עם, ותשועה ברוב יועץ‎ "be-'éyn tachbūlōt yippol `ām; ū-teshū`āh be-rov yō'éts").

can't wait until joogle trawls this thread!

;)

ElevatorEscapee
15-09-2007, 05:17 PM
Yes, but what cars do they drive?

Basil
15-09-2007, 07:01 PM
What we need is for governments to stop trying to pick environmental winners but to to set up the market conditions to encourage enviromental actions and watch the business entrepreneurs tear into it.
Like Kevin, there is definitely hope for you, mate ;)

Axiom
15-09-2007, 07:56 PM
Since this meant wiping out the Jewish State, it amounts to the same thing..
As per these wise folk? http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/images/icons/new.gif


Jews were always Dhimmis in Muslim countries, i.e. second-class citizens who were really non-citizens, but avoiding worse by paying a special tax...
and you're sure this is the case in iran?


After the formation of Israel, many Islamic countries expelled their Jews. But tiny Israel has resettled them, while the huge Arab countries leave the "Palestinians" in squalid refugee camps to use as pawns..
geo political chess started when balfour pressed the clock(well, a new game in a long match )



Come off it. The Leftmedia have always undermined the war on terror, and ignored Shrubby's clearly stated justification for attacking Iraq.
ignored ,possibly because they are nothing more than gatekeepers. i denounce the gutless blind socialist left as much as i do the bootlicking right corporate globalists...and the line is unsurprisingly blurred!
try reading the many libertarian dissections, dismantling the justification for attacking iraq www.*******s.com , kurt nimmo, ron paul !

Axiom
15-09-2007, 08:06 PM
Not so. Their motto that you misrepresent was actually from Proverbs 24:6, "by wise guidance you can wage your war" (בתחבולות תעשה לך מלחמה‎, "be-tachbūlōt ta`aseh lekhā milchāmāh"). Now their motto comes from Prov. 11:14, "Where there is no counsel, the people fall; But in the multitude of counselors there is safety" (באין תחבולות יפול עם, ותשועה ברוב יועץ‎ "be-'éyn tachbūlōt yippol `ām; ū-teshū`āh be-rov yō'éts").
(THAT WAS FROM WIKIPEDIA)

OK,what would be your interpretation of " in the multitude of counselors there is safety"?

eclectic
15-09-2007, 08:09 PM
:hmm:

i wonder if this whole thread should be moved to

the koshie lounge

:owned:

Axiom
15-09-2007, 08:13 PM
:hmm:

i wonder if this whole thread should be moved to

the koshie lounge

:owned:
are you breaking out in that rash ec ? :lol:

Axiom
15-09-2007, 08:16 PM
SAS motto "who dares wins"
examine what "dares" could possibly involve?
in this light consider the history of british duplicity and deception.

Axiom
16-09-2007, 01:05 AM
U.S. Officials Begin Crafting Iran Bombing Plan
Wednesday, September 12, 2007

By James Rosen


http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,296450,00.html

A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime, FOX News confirmed Tuesday.

pax
16-09-2007, 06:45 AM
No, but next time the "Palestinians" fire rockets directed at Israeli civilians, their military should go in with force and destroy the launchers. In every other conflict but this one, the belligerants who hide among civilians are the ones held responsible for their deaths and injuries, not the ones who are fighting them.

What exactly is it, when Israel goes in with tanks and bulldozers, or air-to-ground missiles, if not "going in with force". Isn't it overwhelming enough for you, when an entire apartment block is wiped in response to a rocket launcher attach? I'm not condoning the Hamas tactics, but you make it sound as if Israel is just sitting there and turning the other cheek (hmm, where have I heard that phrase before?)..


And most of the "Palestinians" support terrorist attacks against Israel, so they are not so innocent.



But maybe Pax thinks that Israel should wait till there is a mushroom cloud above Tel Aviv before knocking out Iran's nuclear capability, with a nuke if necessary.

We weren't talking about Iran, and I hadn't mentioned it. But now that you have raised it, exactly when would a nuke be "necessary"? What if the US had decided a nuke was necessary to wipe out Iraq's "WMD capability"?

Capablanca-Fan
16-09-2007, 08:07 AM
What exactly is it, when Israel goes in with tanks and bulldozers, or air-to-ground missiles, if not "going in with force".
See Dershjowitz' book. The Israeli Supreme Court has outlawed certain actions that would endanger civilians, and some Israelis are hopping mad that this endangers Israeli soldiers by making them go house-to-house.


Isn't it overwhelming enough for you, when an entire apartment block is wiped in response to a rocket launcher attach?
Give an example. It is perfectly appropriate to aim a bazooka at a window that a sniper is firing from.


I'm not condoning the Hamas tactics,
How nice. But the world has always rewarded their terrorist tactics, as well as those of the PLO's predecessor, the Hitler-loving Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Yet "world opinion" bleats at the slightest Israeli reaction against these murderers.


but you make it sound as if Israel is just sitting there and turning the other cheek (hmm, where have I heard that phrase before?)..
And taking it out of context. The government of a country is not obliged to turn its citizens' cheeks.

Israel is certainly not replying with nearly enough force. The Hamas thugs deliberately target civilians, yet the "palestinians" voted for them. There need to be far more consequences for launching terrorist attacks, sheltering terrorists, and waging wars of annihilation against Israel.


We weren't talking about Iran, and I hadn't mentioned it. But now that you have raised it, exactly when would a nuke be "necessary"?
If this is the only way to stop Iran developing a nuke. Israel is not obliged to wait for Iran's Jew-hating president to launch an attack first.


What if the US had decided a nuke was necessary to wipe out Iraq's "WMD capability"?
What if? Is there a point to this?

pax
16-09-2007, 12:12 PM
If this is the only way to stop Iran developing a nuke. Israel is not obliged to wait for Iran's Jew-hating president to launch an attack first. I cannot think of a scenario where a nuclear attack could be necessary or justified. Can you?


What if? Is there a point to this?

My point is that *somebody* has to decide when a nuclear attack is "necessary". And judging by recent history, military "intelligence" cannot be trusted.

Who makes the call to launch an attack which could take the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians as a "pre-emptive" move?

Capablanca-Fan
16-09-2007, 03:37 PM
I cannot think of a scenario where a nuclear attack could be necessary or justified. Can you?
Yes. If Iran was in the process of developing nukes, and if they were buried too deeply for conventional weapons. And of course, to end WW2 decisively and ensure the destruction of the Japanese warrior/emperor worship cult.


My point is that *somebody* has to decide when a nuclear attack is "necessary".
If Iran's president persists in rhetoric about wiping out the Jewish state, and developing nuclear capability his country doesn't need, Israel sure can't afford to sit back until they nuke Tel Aviv. Israel is so tiny that one would probably be enough to destroy the country.


And judging by recent history, military "intelligence" cannot be trusted.
Judging by not so recent history, when someone says he intends to wipe out the Jews, believe him.


Who makes the call to launch an attack which could take the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians as a "pre-emptive" move?
Israel, to prevent its threatened obliteration.

Basil
16-09-2007, 04:16 PM
And judging by recent history, military "intelligence" cannot be trusted.
Jon, odd that you should make such an elementary deductive error.

eclectic
16-09-2007, 04:19 PM
"intelligence": what an ironic use of the word :rolleyes:

pax
16-09-2007, 09:31 PM
Jon, odd that you should make such an elementary deductive error.

Please enlighten me..

Axiom
16-09-2007, 09:42 PM
Please enlighten me..
please refer to the SAS and Mossad mottos !
...for an insight into the true role of "intelligence" !

Kevin Bonham
16-09-2007, 10:03 PM
Thread title edited due to thread drift.

Rincewind
16-09-2007, 10:07 PM
Please enlighten me..

I was interested too since you were clearly making use of inductive and not deductive reasoning.

Aaron Guthrie
16-09-2007, 10:13 PM
I was interested too since you were clearly making use of inductive and not deductive reasoning.I echo those sentiments. Though I reckon I there is an interpretation of what pax said as a deductive argument. But my interpretation of what pax said that gives it a deductive form leaves it valid.

paulb
17-09-2007, 12:16 AM
Just a reminder of a few important facts:

The US, with its huge nuclear facility, has openly discussed nuclear strikes on Iran; it has been relentlessly hostile towards Iran for decades, including $3 billion of support to Iraq during the 1980 war that left a million dead; the US has recently attacked two Iranian neighbours; and Israel is also nuclear-equipped. It is therefore not completely irrational for Iranians to seek nuclear arms; in fact, if you look at the world from their point of view, it makes a lot of sense.

The idea that the Iranians are somehow inherently irrational or untrustworthy is just racist; do you seriously think George W Bush is a safer pair of hands? Do you think white people should be allowed to have nukes but no one else?

That said, I think it's hugely unfortunate that the Iranians elected Ahmadinejad rather than Rafsanjani; blame Bush's axis of evil rhetoric for that.


And as regards those evil Palestinians:

1. Israel has killed far more Palestinians than vice verse; in the past five years or so, it's 3-4 Palestinians killed for every Israeli. This is by far the most important fact in this whole dispute
2. Israel has stolen land that legally belonged to Palestinians and has continued to do so. Israel seized the land of about 700,000 Palestinians in 1948; today, some 60 years later, some 4.5 million Palestinians still live in refugee camps as a result of this. This roughly means living in a tent and pissing in a bucket. Conversely, Palestinians have not stolen land from Israelis.
3. If you want to understand why Palestinians support armed resistance and Hamas and so on, see points 1 and 2 above.
4. The fact that Israelis feature in your preferred holy book, and the fact that they suffered dreadfully during WWII, does not confer any special status on them in relation to later, unrelated disputes (though it does make their reactions understandable)

Axiom
17-09-2007, 12:49 AM
What rubbish. If America were after oil, they could just drill Alaska's bleak wilderness, as the Alaskans want. They also could have had Kuwait's oil for the taking.
STILL THINK ITS RUBBISH JONO ?

"Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for OIL
AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

Capablanca-Fan
17-09-2007, 03:47 PM
STILL THINK ITS RUBBISH JONO ?

"Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for OIL
AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece
Yeah, of course I think it's rubbish. What would he know? He was great in his younger days on financial matters, e.g. splattering the anti-trust nonsense (http://www.capitalism.org/faq/antitrust.htm) (on which our crappy ACCC is based), but in his dotage he has no clue about military and political matters.

Capablanca-Fan
17-09-2007, 04:11 PM
The US, with its huge nuclear facility, has openly discussed nuclear strikes on Iran; it has been relentlessly hostile towards Iran for decades,
Yeah, after the Ayatollah's mob took US embassy staff hostage during that bumbling fool Carter's ignominious reign. FYI, an embassy is legally the soil of the country of that embassy, so Iran attacked the US itself with this action.


The idea that the Iranians are somehow inherently irrational or untrustworthy is just racist;
Not at all. It is not based on Ahmedinejad's Persian ethnicity, but his strident statements about wiping out the Jews.


do you seriously think George W Bush is a safer pair of hands? Do you think white people should be allowed to have nukes but no one else?
Playing the race card might play well in Leftyland, but it won't work here. I wouldn't care if the US president were black; he hasn't denied the Holocaust or threatened genocide against the Jews.


That said, I think it's hugely unfortunate that the Iranians elected Ahmadinejad rather than Rafsanjani; blame Bush's axis of evil rhetoric for that.
No, blame the people who voted, rather than make excuses for them.


And as regards those evil Palestinians:
All refuted in Dershowitz's book.


1. Israel has killed far more Palestinians than vice verse; in the past five years or so, it's 3-4 Palestinians killed for every Israeli. This is by far the most important fact in this whole dispute.
No, the important fact is how many civilians have been killed. Also, look at the number of women killed. Yet apologists for terrorism sometimes even include suicide bombers among the Palestinian "casualties".


2. Israel has stolen land that legally belonged to Palestinians
Who are they? The land was part of the Ottoman Empire. When the land known as Palestine was allocated, the Arabs living there originally didn't want a "Palestine" but to be part of the new Syria.

The part allocated to the Jews had a Jewish majority. Some parts had a continuous Jewish presence for centuries, and other parts were legally bought by Jews and then improved (turning malarial swamps into productive areas).


and has continued to do so. Israel seized the land of about 700,000 Palestinians in 1948;
The Palestinians at the time rejected the two-state solution. Israel was a tiny part that was already majority owned by Jews. Yet to this day, Israel allows Arabs to live there and even be part of the Knesset. Arabs actually have more democratic rights in Israel than in any Arab country!


today, some 60 years later, some 4.5 million Palestinians still live in refugee camps as a result of this.
No, the results of being used as political pawns by Jew-hating Arabs. Dershowitz points out that's it's much more complex than blaming Israel. Sometimes the Arabs asked the Palestinians to move out so they could wipe out the Jews, then they would be allowed in. Other times, it was a matter of fleeing a war zone.


This roughly means living in a tent and pissing in a bucket. Conversely, Palestinians have not stolen land from Israelis.
They have fomented pogroms against them, e.g. kiling unarmed Jews in Hebron, Kfar Etzion and a medical convoy to Hadassah Hospital.


3. If you want to understand why Palestinians support armed resistance and Hamas and so on, see points 1 and 2 above.
You mean why they have continually supported blowing up school buses and discotheques, and training their children to be suicide bombers? Tibetans have been victimized far more, and had a real country, but they don't produce suicite bombers.


4. The fact that Israelis feature in your preferred holy book, and the fact that they suffered dreadfully during WWII, does not confer any special status on them in relation to later, unrelated disputes (though it does make their reactions understandable)
Dershowitz doesn't use biblical arguments (he is an atheist), and neither have I in this thread. But you're wrong about being unrelated. The Arab leaders like the Grand Mufti (Arafat's explicitly stated hero) were involved in the Holocaust directly. And less directly, because their terrorist actions caused the British to close the borders of Palestine to appease them, thus denying Jews the chance to escape.

Fact is, the Palestinian Arabs supported the losing side in WW1, WW2, the Gulf War, and losers of a war should expect not to get their own way. Dershowitz points out how the Sudeten Germans were deported after WW2, so how much less special treatment should the Mufti's followers expect after his close support of the Nazi Holocaust.

Basil
17-09-2007, 04:34 PM
Please enlighten me..
Hi Jon. Will do. Just got back here after a 24 hour shift (trying) to kill PC spyware :eek:

Once work has quietened down, will do (attempt to). Curious thing was that a) I expected (don't know why) the answer you gave but b) was going to call for who else wants a piece of me (and was even going to call baz and the manager in) - somehow I just had a feeling about this one :lol:

Should be fun :eek: Why do I feel a thread split coming on? Talk soon.

Axiom
17-09-2007, 05:15 PM
Yeah, of course I think it's rubbish. What would he know? He was great in his younger days on financial matters, e.g. splattering the anti-trust nonsense (http://www.capitalism.org/faq/antitrust.htm) (on which our crappy ACCC is based), but in his dotage he has no clue about military and political matters.
oh well , thats the end of that then ! ;)


ok,
so he spoke on a fundamentally important matter from a clueless position?

he is/was part of the admin leadership,its conceivable he may have gleaned this from his social circle, is it not?

What is interesting is how we pick and choose who to believe, and how we untangle the facts from the "intelligence" led military propaganda.

Bill Gletsos
17-09-2007, 05:30 PM
oh well , thats the end of that then ! ;)


ok,
so he spoke on a fundamentally important matter from a clueless position?

he is/was part of the admin leadership,its conceivable he may have gleaned this from his social circle, is it not?

What is interesting is how we pick and choose who to believe, and how we untangle the facts from the "intelligence" led military propaganda.Greenspans clarifies his oil comments are at http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,22430830-31037,00.html

Capablanca-Fan
17-09-2007, 05:30 PM
so he spoke on a fundamentally important matter from a clueless position?

he is/was part of the admin leadership,its conceivable he may have gleaned this from his social circle, is it not?
I trust Greenspan on military matters as much as I would trust Petraeus on monetary policy.

Axiom
17-09-2007, 06:20 PM
I trust Greenspan on military matters as much as I would trust Petraeus on monetary policy.
Personally, i find it extraordinary that you would trust either of them, at all !

Axiom
17-09-2007, 07:32 PM
Greenspans clarifies his oil comments are at http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,22430830-31037,00.html
clarified oil eh ? ;) Clarify, as in purify ??
i'll give you the good oil mate ! :lol:

TheJoker
18-09-2007, 03:00 PM
I haven't bothered to read all the posts in this thread but one point that alarms me is the justification be given for the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That is that by dropping the bombs the overall death toll was less (speculative).

Firstly this was a direct attack on non-combatants (innocent civilians) which I believe is a war crime.

As was pointed out earlier (in reference to the US) the entire population is never in 100% support of its government or military actions. Particulary children who are to young to have formed any opinion. Therefore innocent people who were in direct opposition to the Japanese offensive were killed.

Justifying the taking of innocent lives with the speculation (or fact) that it will save more lives in the long run (or some other global benefit) should not be tolerated ethically.

I doubt many of you would have supported the idea of dropping nuclear bombs on Washington and New York by the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War in order to end the war and reduce overall casualties. Given the situation that the NV had nuclear weapons and the US did not.

TheJoker
18-09-2007, 04:22 PM
As for the Israel / Palastine conflict both sides should be condenmed for the atrocities they have committed. The solution definately does not rely on a tit for tat blame game. Neither side is to blame.

However, the actions and reactions on both sides is what fosters the racial / religous hatred.

What is needed is an integration policy, perhaps something like Malaysia "New Economic Policy" (albeit greatly modified with lessons learned from Malaysia outcomes) would be effective in Israel and provide a social atmoshpere less condusive to the racial / religous hatred.

Basil
18-09-2007, 09:17 PM
Hi Joker

I genuinely enjoyed reading your posts. Thanks.

Just one quickie off the main thrust please. When you spoke about children being too young to decide, do you have an opinion on the school kids protesting APEC? Not important.

Thanks again for your perspective.

paulb
19-09-2007, 01:01 AM
Yeah, after the Ayatollah's mob took US embassy staff hostage during that bumbling fool Carter's ignominious reign. FYI, an embassy is legally the soil of the country of that embassy, so Iran attacked the US itself with this action.

You conveniently overlook that this came after the US installed the Shah as dictator, overturning existing Iranian leadership. But you do pinpoint an important fact: I suspect US embarrassment over being humbled by the Iranians drives their policy to this day.



Not at all. It is not based on Ahmedinejad's Persian ethnicity, but his strident statements about wiping out the Jews.

Your racism consists in the fact that you uncritically support the actions of one group over another. Actually, it's probably more a matter of religious bigotry than racism.




No, the important fact is how many civilians have been killed.
No. That's just nonsense. But revealing nonsense. Surely as a Christian who supposedly values life you have to take all casualties seriously. At the end of the day, the Israelis are killing 3-4 Palestinians for every Israeli victim ... on any fair reading, they are the aggressors in this conflict. Their so-called "response" (to use their preferred misnomer) is consistently disproportionate (even if you allow, as I do not, that one has a right to defend stolen property)



Yet apologists for terrorism sometimes even include suicide bombers among the Palestinian "casualties".

I agree that if you choose to take your life in the course of a conflict, then your death cannot be blamed on the other side. However, as you would know, suicide bombers are a small proportion of the casualties. Subtract them, and the 3/4:1 ratio still holds.



Who are they? The land was part of the Ottoman Empire. When the land known as Palestine was allocated, the Arabs living there originally didn't want a "Palestine" but to be part of the new Syria.

The part allocated to the Jews had a Jewish majority. Some parts had a continuous Jewish presence for centuries, and other parts were legally bought by Jews and then improved (turning malarial swamps into productive areas).


The Palestinians at the time rejected the two-state solution. Israel was a tiny part that was already majority owned by Jews. Yet to this day, Israel allows Arabs to live there and even be part of the Knesset. Arabs actually have more democratic rights in Israel than in any Arab country!

This is all either dishonest or dumb. Israel today is bigger than envisaged by the UN in 1947, because territory that was meant to be Arab was lost in the 1948 war. Even Israel acknowledges that many Palestinians lost their land in 1948 (they only dispute the number, putting it at 400,000; this compares with the Arab estimate of a million and the UN figure of 700,000. In any case, it's a big number). Whether Palestinians preferred Syria to Israel is irrelevant. Whether they preferred a two or one state solution is irrelevant; The fact is that they lost their land to Israelis who have refused to give it back - that's theft.


... being used as political pawns by Jew-hating Arabs. Dershowitz points out that's it's much more complex than blaming Israel. Sometimes the Arabs asked the Palestinians to move out so they could wipe out the Jews, then they would be allowed in. Other times, it was a matter of fleeing a war zone.

I actually agree about much of this. The Palestinians are victims of the other Arabs as well as being victims of the Jews. For example, Palestinian refugees are denied citizenship and the right to work in many Arab countries. But this only highlights how poor their situation is.


... losers of a war should expect not to get their own way. Dershowitz points out how the Sudeten Germans were deported after WW2.
Really? This sounds like really advanced moral reasoning. Might is right, perhaps, or some deeper principle?

paulb
19-09-2007, 01:21 AM
Things did get very nasty. Hiroshima, Nagasaki? Just because it didn't happen to you, doesn't make it any less 'nasty'.

I find it ironic that the only country in history to have dropped a nuclear bomb on anyone is the very one now lurching around accusing everyone else of hiding nuclear weapons.

Indeed

Axiom
19-09-2007, 01:24 PM
Governments throughout history have staged false flag terror attacks.
A study of this taboo subject , will give you a far broader spectrum -understanding of the dynamics involved in real warfare as opposed to the official propagandised variety.

Basil
19-09-2007, 03:05 PM
A study of this taboo subject...
Not so much taboo; more a case of balls in many cases.

TheJoker
19-09-2007, 03:48 PM
Hi Joker

I genuinely enjoyed reading your posts. Thanks.

Just one quickie off the main thrust please. When you spoke about children being too young to decide, do you have an opinion on the school kids protesting APEC? Not important.

Thanks again for your perspective.

Interesting you ask I recently had a discussion with a colleague at work about this very topic. His son had asked him to sign a consent form to attend an APEC protest. My colleague said he would sign his sons consent form if his son could explain why he felt it necessary to protest against APEC. His son had no idea and was just looking to be part of the excitement and get a day off school. So he refused to sign the form.

I agree with his methodology if his son had presented an informed opinion on why he felt it necessary to protest against or during APEC then he should be allowed to do so. I would make sure the child can put up reasonable arguement (i.e. explain the reasoning behind his or her position).

Capablanca-Fan
19-09-2007, 04:44 PM
You conveniently overlook that this came after the US installed the Shah as dictator, overturning existing Iranian leadership. But you do pinpoint an important fact: I suspect US embarrassment over being humbled by the Iranians drives their policy to this day.
More likely, Jimmy Carter's reign was a disaster, allowing the Ayatollah to take over from the Shah, a despot to be sure, but a modernizing one in the mold of Kemal Atatürk, trying to bring Iran into the modern world and improve the lot of women.


Your racism consists in the fact that you uncritically support the actions of one group over another.
There is nothing "uncritical" about any support for Israel, for me or Dershowitz. But there is something uncritical about the support for Palestinian terrorism.


Actually, it's probably more a matter of religious bigotry than racism.
Typical lefty: play the race and bigotry card. No, actually I don't like targeting innocent civilians as your beloved "Palestinians" do. Cheap psychologization of my motives won't do your lost cause any good.

Actually, you are the racist and bigot, supporting terror against Jews and making excuses for the "Palestinians". This actually dehumanizes the latter as well. And what to say when your favorite group has proven Nazi connections, as I've documented.


No. That's just nonsense. But revealing nonsense.
Not so. Dershowitz points out:


Israelis have foiled hundreds of attempted Palestinian terrorist attacks that would have killed tens of thousands. Attempted atttacks are as morally culpable as successful ones.
Israeli medical skills save many lives of terrorist victims. More Palestinians would have been saved if they had accepted Israeli medical help instead of incompetent Palestinian doctors. Remember the case when they refused donations of Jewish blood?
Palestinian casualty reports often count the suicide bombers, armed fighters, terrorist leaders, terrorists shot in self-defence while planting or throwing bombs, bomb-makers (and their neighbours) killed when the bombs they were making blew up, "collaborators" killed by other Palestinians, those killed by the absurdly dangerous Palestinian practice of shooting live ammo at funerals and protests, and innocent people caught in the crossfire even when there is no evidence that Israelis fired the fatal shot.
Israeli female fatalities outnumbered Palestinian female fatalities 3 or 4 to 1. Israeli females were 40% of Israeli non-combatants killed by Palestinians, while Palestinian deaths were 95% male. So the Palestinians deliberately target females, as well as other unarmed civilians and children, while Israelis killed armed male soldiers.
According to the Boston Globe, April 2003, of the 800 Israeli deaths in the Intifada, 567 were innocent civilians including women, children and the elderly. But in Israel's legitimate actions of self-defence, only 18% of the 2000 Palestinians killed were civilians. Dershowitz says even this number of 360 is too high, but even so the moral culpability of these accidental casualties of war is far less than the culpability of deliberately targeting civilians as the Palestians have done since the days of Hitler's Mufti.



Surely as a Christian who supposedly values life
There is no "supposedly" about it, not that you would care what Christians think unless it suits your purpose. I do value the lives of schoolchildren blown up while busing to or from school, for example.


you have to take all casualties seriously.
Are you seriously calling the suicide bomber a "casualty"?


At the end of the day, the Israelis are killing 3-4 Palestinians for every Israeli victim ... on any fair reading, they are the aggressors in this conflict.
Even if you were right in blind counting of casualties (overlooking the difference between civilian and military), the argument is fallacious. The Japanese and Germans lost more than the Americans in WW2, but the former were clearly the aggressors and in the wrong.


Their so-called "response" (to use their preferred misnomer) is consistently disproportionate
This term is crass. The Japs and Germans hardly touched the American mainland, but it was reasonable for the Americans to bomb their countries to win the war. This was "disproportionate", but justified. Fact remains, if someone attacks another person with a knife, the latter should not be restricted to defending himself with a knife, but is morally entitled to disarm the agressor with a stronger weapon.


(even if you allow, as I do not, that one has a right to defend stolen property).
And you ignore the fact that the Jews legally bought most of their land, and were already had thriving communities and were a majority in the allotment of land partitioned to them.

And you apparently don't think there is a right to defend life either.


This is all either dishonest or dumb. Israel today is bigger than envisaged by the UN in 1947,
It is still very tiny.


because territory that was meant to be Arab was lost in the 1948 war.
Which the Arabs started in a clearly stated war of annihilation.


Even Israel acknowledges that many Palestinians lost their land in 1948 (they only dispute the number, putting it at 400,000; this compares with the Arab estimate of a million and the UN figure of 700,000. In any case, it's a big number).
Again, the question is why this number lost their land. The fleeing was largely the fault of the Arabs. Also note that the UN disingenuously defines a refugee differently in the case of Palestinians, of those who had lived there for as little as two years. Contrast that with the Arab countries forcing out Jews who had lived there fore generation, yet Israel managed to settle them in their tiny land.


Whether Palestinians preferred Syria to Israel is irrelevant.
Come off it. This shows that the Palestinians never had a historical state, and never wanted one until recently. No, they just don't want the Jews there.


Whether they preferred a two or one state solution is irrelevant; The fact is that they lost their land to Israelis who have refused to give it back - that's theft.
Losers of a war shouldn't expect any favours. They attacked, so Israel took land from which aggressive attacks were launched.


I actually agree about much of this. The Palestinians are victims of the other Arabs as well as being victims of the Jews. For example, Palestinian refugees are denied citizenship and the right to work in many Arab countries. But this only highlights how poor their situation is.
Yet Arabs have full citizenship rights in Israel. So the fault is with the Arab countries who hate the Jews more than they care about the Palestinians.


Really? This sounds like really advanced moral reasoning. Might is right, perhaps, or some deeper principle?
An accepted historical precedent. It is absurd that "world opinion" in only this case thinks that the aggressors who lost should not suffer any consequences, while the winner of a war of self-defence should give back the very land from which the attacks were launched.

Capablanca-Fan
19-09-2007, 04:54 PM
Interesting you ask I recently had a discussion with a colleague at work about this very topic. His son had asked him to sign a consent form to attend an APEC protest. My colleague said he would sign his sons consent form if his son could explain why he felt it necessary to protest against APEC. His son had no idea and was just looking to be part of the excitement and get a day off school. So he refused to sign the form.

I agree with his methodology if his son had presented an informed opinion on why he felt it necessary to protest against or during APEC then he should be allowed to do so. I would make sure the child can put up reasonable arguement (i.e. explain the reasoning behind his or her position).
That's very wise parenting.

Basil
19-09-2007, 05:51 PM
That's very wise parenting.
Ditto. Still not sure if I would do the same, but I certainly don't wish to fault your colleague, and I have no issue with parents that elect that path.

Axiom
19-09-2007, 05:51 PM
Not so much taboo; more a case of balls in many cases.
"in many cases"? so you admit its existence?
i would be most interested as to which cases you believe they have occurred,and which ones you dispute.
thankyou,
Axiom

Basil
19-09-2007, 05:54 PM
"in many cases"? so you admit its existence?
Yes I do admit it occurs and have never argued otherwise. I recall making this same point at he beginning of your drib... I mean CT threads.

What I object to is unsupported allegations where the onus is to disprove, whereas the onus should be to prove.

Axiom
19-09-2007, 06:05 PM
Yes I do admit it occurs and have never argued otherwise. I recall making this same point at he beginning of your drib... I mean CT threads.

What I object to is unsupported allegations where the onus is to disprove, whereas the onus should be to prove.
i refer you ,at this juncture, to my "Coincidence Theory" thread.

however, could you please give a simple yes/no ff to the following:-

1) gulf of tonkin incident
2) attack on uss liberty
3)the reichstag fire
4) operation northwoods( just the pentagon plan, as it was never enacted)
5) the posada affair ( shooting down cuban jets)
6) ~70% of IRA bombings
7)Nero's rome burnings (blamed on christians)

OR simply state a single example where you believe it was a FF

Axiom
21-09-2007, 05:22 PM
i refer you ,at this juncture, to my "Coincidence Theory" thread.

however, could you please give a simple yes/no ff to the following:-

1) gulf of tonkin incident
2) attack on uss liberty
3)the reichstag fire
4) operation northwoods( just the pentagon plan, as it was never enacted)
5) the posada affair ( shooting down cuban jets)
6) ~70% of IRA bombings
7)Nero's rome burnings (blamed on christians)

OR simply state a single example where you believe it was a FF
gd- this may help http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/

Capablanca-Fan
21-09-2007, 08:22 PM
Q: Why does Kevin Rudd turn his back to John Howard in parliament?
A: Because he’s too scared to turn his back on Julia Gillard!
:lol:

Spiny Norman
22-09-2007, 07:32 AM
The last sitting day of federal parliament was hilarious. Two weeks ago I wouldn't have given the Coalition any chance of winning. Now I'm not so sure. I'm beginning to suspect that KRudd is rather vulnerable as a front-runner and, given the rigours of a long campaign, his ex-union mates might cause him some real grief, especially if the polls close up and start getting tight again. The trouble with these ex-union blokes is that the only thing they hate more than the Libs/Nats is another ex-union bloke from the opposite 'wing' ... and there are so many of them on KRudd's team I think they might turn on each other when the heat is turned up (I don't see KRudd as strong enough to keep them in check forever).

Desmond
22-09-2007, 11:06 AM
Q: Why does Kevin Rudd turn his back to John Howard in parliament?
A: Because he’s too scared to turn his back on Julia Gillard!
:lol:
Nice try Jono, but it's the Lib's with the in-fighting and struggle to be next in line for the top job now.

Kevin Bonham
22-09-2007, 11:48 AM
I doubt Gillard will be a leadership threat to Rudd any time soon assuming the party remains in a competitive position federally, as the biases of the electorate (and not over politics) make her unelectable as PM.

Axiom
22-09-2007, 12:31 PM
are we going to discuss the puppets or the puppeteers?

Capablanca-Fan
22-09-2007, 12:39 PM
I doubt Gillard will be a leadership threat to Rudd any time soon assuming the party remains in a competitive position federally, as the biases of the electorate (and not over politics) make her unelectable as PM.
What biases? Most Aussies dislike her because she is an aggressive lefty union hack, not because she is female.

pax
22-09-2007, 03:49 PM
What biases? Most Aussies dislike her because she is an aggressive lefty union hack, not because she is female.

Union hack? Which union? You mean that student union stuff in the '80s? I think you've been paying too much attention to Joe "Union Bosses" Hockey.

Kevin Bonham
22-09-2007, 04:44 PM
What biases? Most Aussies dislike her because she is an aggressive lefty union hack, not because she is female.

I'm not sure if there's any evidence that "most Aussies" dislike her at all at the present time.

But I suspect if she was ever under serious consideration for the leadership, it wouldn't be her being female that would be the issue for many voters, but her being unmarried and childless. In NZ it wouldn't be an issue, but NZ seems to be more progressive re women in politics.

Basil
22-09-2007, 06:10 PM
It wouldn't be because she is utterly bloody clueless - that's for sure :lol:
Read that how will ;)

Capablanca-Fan
22-09-2007, 08:53 PM
It wouldn't be because she is utterly bloody clueless - that's for sure :lol:
Read that how will ;)
Of course not :evil:

Seriously, those who might object to her for being unmarried and childless are likely to have already disliked her for her leftist union hack feminism. After all, such people do not have the same dislike for the equally unmarried and childless Julie Bishop. So I doubt that the childlessness is the primary issue; rather, ideology is.

To support this, the über-leftist Al Franken has attacked the über-right Ann Coulter for being unmarried and childless.

pax
22-09-2007, 09:08 PM
Seriously, those who might object to her for being unmarried and childless are likely to have already disliked her for her leftist union hack feminism.

You're never happy unless you can stereotype someone, are you Jono? What exactly makes Gillard a feminist, apart from her being a successful woman? And where do you get "union hack" from?

Kevin Bonham
22-09-2007, 10:11 PM
After all, such people do not have the same dislike for the equally unmarried and childless Julie Bishop. So I doubt that the childlessness is the primary issue; rather, ideology is.

There's two contexts here. You're talking about what causes some people to dislike particular female politicians, and I'm talking about what may cause many Australian voters to not necessarily dislike them but to be reluctant to accept them as a possible leader.

Julie Bishop isn't really a serious leadership contender at this stage - even less so than, as I shudder to recall, Bronwyn Bishop once was. :eek:

Capablanca-Fan
23-09-2007, 12:04 AM
You're never happy unless you can stereotype someone, are you Jono? What exactly makes Gillard a feminist, apart from her being a successful woman? And where do you get "union hack" from?
You never fail to push the PC line. Of course, one doesn't have to be a feminist to be a successful woman. But she is, because she is very much involved with the Emily's list harridans and female quotas for the ALP.

Capablanca-Fan
23-09-2007, 08:45 AM
There's two contexts here. You're talking about what causes some people to dislike particular female politicians, and I'm talking about what may cause many Australian voters to not necessarily dislike them but to be reluctant to accept them as a possible leader.

Julie Bishop isn't really a serious leadership contender at this stage - even less so than, as I shudder to recall, Bronwyn Bishop once was. :eek:
Fair comment. Well, another comparison would be Condoleeza Rice, whom some conservative Americans thought would be a good Presidential candidate, an anti-Hillary, although Condi is single and childless. So it's doubtful that childlessness in itself is the problem with Gillard.

Capablanca-Fan
23-09-2007, 08:47 AM
Prime Minister John Howard, in parliament yesterday, responds to Kevin Rudd's attacks about a smear campaign (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22453700-20261,00.html)
The Australian, 21 Sept 2007

Capablanca-Fan
24-09-2007, 12:12 PM
Paul Sheehan writes about Gillard's involvement in a group of disaffected Communists for nine years (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/playing-a-pantomime-of-prudence/2007/09/23/1190486132033.html?page=2):


Between 1984 and 1986 she worked full-time for Socialist Forum, a group that formed after another schism in the Communist Party of Australia (http://www.lib.unimelb.edu.au/collections/archives/collections/pdfs/socialistforum(102~28).pdf), with the aim of advancing the socialist agenda in Australia. She served as a member of Socialist Forum's management committee until 1993, well into her career as a lawyer.

This has never been secret, or illegal, or improper. Is this the "dirt" she was alluding to last week? Or just the telling gap in her narrative? If so, it is yet another example of the air-brushing that goes on when Labor talks about the union movement, which exercises inordinate control over the party and would dominate any Rudd cabinet.

That's why Costello, winding up Labor on Thursday, began by stating: "There is a 70 per cent chance that, if you are running in the next election, the Labor Party candidate will be a trade union official."

Capablanca-Fan
30-09-2007, 01:32 PM
Ahmadinejad's Holocaust Myths (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=E36120C9-D999-4CE1-B285-A838B7D316A2)
By Alan M. Dershowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, September 28, 2007:


... myth, however, is one that escapes critical attention for the most part, because many people are not aware of its falsity. The myth is that the Palestinian people and their leadership had absolutely nothing to do with the Holocaust. The conclusion that is supposed to follow from this “fact” is that the establishment of Israel in the wake of the Nazi genocide of the Jewish people was unfair to the Palestinians. This is the way Ahmadinejad put it in his Columbia talk.


“…[G]iven this historical event [the Holocaust], if it is a reality, we need to question whether the Palestinian people should be paying for it… “The Palestinian people didn’t commit any crime. They had no role to play in World War II.”

These statements about the role of the Palestinians are demonstrably false. The truth is that the Palestinian leadership, supported by the Palestinian masses, played a significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust. The Palestinian leader at the time was Hajj Amin Al-Husseini, the Grand Mufit of Jerusalem. As Professor Edward Said has acknowledged:


“Hajj Amin al-Husseini represented the Palestinian Arab national consensus, had the backing of the Palestinian political parties that functioned in Palestine, and was recognized in some form by Arab governments as the voice of the Palestinian people.”

Husseini was “Palestine’s national leader” and it was in that capacity that he made his notorious alliance with Hitler and played an active role in promoting the Holocaust. Here is the true story that Ahmadinejad tried to mythologize.

...

The grand mufti’s “hatred of Jews…was fathomless, and he gave full vent to it during his period of activity alongside the Nazis (October 1941-May 1945).” His speeches on Berlin Radio were anti-Semitic to the core: “Kill the Jews wherever you find them—this pleases God, history and religion.” In 1948, the National Palestinian Council elected Husseini as its president, even though he was still a wanted war criminal living in exile in Egypt. Indeed, Husseini is still revered today among many Palestinians as a national hero. Yasser Arafat, in an interview conducted in 2002 and reprinted in the Palestinian daily Al-Quds on August 2, 2002, calls Haj Amin al-Husseini “our hero,” referring to the Palestinian people. Arafat also boasted of being “one of his troops,” even though he knew he was “considered an ally of Nazis.” (If a German today were to call Hitler “our hero,” he would appropriately be labeled a neo-Nazi.!)

It is a myth therefore — another myth perpetrated by Iran’s myth-maker-in-chief — that the Palestinians played “no role” in the Holocaust. Considering the active support by the Palestinian leadership and masses for the losing side of a genocidal war, it was more than fair for the United Nations to offer them a state of their own on more than half of the arable land of the British mandate. The Sudeten Germans got a lot less!

Davidflude
30-09-2007, 01:49 PM
It wouldn't be because she is utterly bloody clueless - that's for sure :lol:
Read that how will ;)

A drongo named Alexander Downer wins "the most clueless politician" award.

He "Could not remember" and "did not recall" so many times at the Cole Enquiry.

No wonder Hyacinthe went ballistic went he was chosen to tell the Prime minister that it is the end of the penny section.

Davidflude
30-09-2007, 01:57 PM
Have a look at The Australian's webpage. Their is a report showing problems with work choices and right next to it is a Howard government advert for workchoices
funded at taxpayer expense.

Some of the text

AUSTRALIA'S workplace watchdog has ruled that 25,000 wage agreements should fail John Howard's "fairness test" amid confusion among employers about how the federal Government's industrial relations laws operate.

The director of the Government's Workplace Authority, Barbara Bennett, confirmed yesterday that she had made a blanket decision to reject agreements covering up to 4000 employers.

Ms Bennett said employers had received "a reasonable window" to submit agreements that met the fairness test, and that it was "time to rule a line on this".

Unions and some employers struggling with the new test were quick to seize on Ms Bennett's decision as evidence that the Government's workplace laws were a mess, causing widespread confusion as companies were bogged down in red tape.

The decision by Ms Bennett's authority to reject 25,000 individual and collective wage agreements is a blow to the Prime Minister's efforts to argue that Work Choices has operated smoothly since he introduced a fairness test in May to guarantee employees could not be worse off.

Basil
30-09-2007, 08:59 PM
The decision by Ms Bennett's authority to reject 25,000 individual and collective wage agreements is a blow to the Prime Minister's efforts to argue that Work Choices has operated smoothly since he introduced a fairness test in May to guarantee employees could not be worse off.
Agreed. It's a blow.

Basil
30-09-2007, 09:01 PM
A drongo named Alexander Downer wins "the most clueless politician" award.

He "Could not remember" and "did not recall" so many times at the Cole Enquiry.
I think Downer might have been being expedient or some other sin, but Gillard is the class dunce.

Southpaw Jim
02-10-2007, 09:42 AM
Gillard is the class dunce.
Funny how the class dunce runs rings around the likes of Tony Abbott. I recall a debate on the 7.30 Report a couple of weeks ago where she caught young Tony in a lie several times in 5 minutes :lol:

Davidflude
03-10-2007, 04:25 PM
A drongo named Alexander Downer wins "the most clueless politician" award.

He "Could not remember" and "did not recall" so many times at the Cole Enquiry.

No wonder Hyacinthe went ballistic went he was chosen to tell the Prime minister that it is the end of the penny section.

I admit I was wrong

Fran Bailey wins "the most clueless politician award". Read today's Australian. How anyone could shift one group of natural liberal supporters to Labour without even trying is astonishing.

Basil
03-10-2007, 04:50 PM
I admit I was wrong
The good I take from this is that you cold be wrong again! :P ;)

Axiom
03-10-2007, 05:27 PM
The "Wipe Israel Off The Map" Hoax

What Ahmadinejad really said and why this broken record is just another ad slogan for war

http://www.************.com/articles/january2007/260107offthemap.htm

pax
03-10-2007, 07:49 PM
I admit I was wrong

Fran Bailey wins "the most clueless politician award". Read today's Australian. How anyone could shift one group of natural liberal supporters to Labour without even trying is astonishing.

I don't know about that. Have you heard Nicole Cornes open her mouth? The Labor candidate in the seat of Boothby in Adelaide is quite astonishingly ill-informed about just about everything political - you know, Labor policies and all that stuff. But maybe she doesn't count - after all she has Buckleys chance of winning the seat, and may not even make it to the election if the South Australian Labor Party has any sense.

pax
03-10-2007, 07:54 PM
The "Wipe Israel Off The Map" Hoax

What Ahmadinejad really said and why this broken record is just another ad slogan for war

My neighbour is Iranian - lovely bloke with a very friendly family. He mentioned to me once when I asked about Ahmadinejad that the translations of his speeches which appear in the Western press are often wildly inaccurate.

Don't get me wrong, I still think Ahmadinejad's a nutjob - but there may be (for once) a grain of truth in Axiom's conspiracy theory.

Axiom
03-10-2007, 08:29 PM
My neighbour is Iranian - lovely bloke with a very friendly family. He mentioned to me once when I asked about Ahmadinejad that the translations of his speeches which appear in the Western press are often wildly inaccurate.

Don't get me wrong, I still think Ahmadinejad's a nutjob - but there may be (for once) a grain of truth in Axiom's conspiracy theory.
what conspiracy theory?
that the media lies?
is used as a propaganda tool?
that america concocts pretexts for war?
this no theory my friend !

ahmadinajad is no saint, as are scarcely any heads of governments, thats my point!, they are mostly all puppets of centralised global banks! corrupted ,with little concern for the will of the people.(just observe history and current events)

we are lied to , so broadly and deeply, i dont blame people,considering their conditioning,in having trouble accepting the harsh reality of it all......but if you do the study, you will be left in little doubt, that the so called democratic political paradigm is nothing but an illusion. And what evil people do in exploiting this illusion,would make your hair curl !

Axiom
19-10-2007, 01:07 AM
Warning letters delivered to thousands of Jewish families in Iran advise them to leave the country without delay

October 17, 2007, 11:04 PM (GMT+02:00)




The letters, according to DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources, have been posted to Jewish families in Tehran (where the community numbers some 13,000), Isfahan (under 2,000) and Shiraz (some 4,000). They are captioned: Danger! Danger! Danger! and tell recipients to try and reach the West with all possible speed. Iranian Jews like the rest of the population face grave danger from impending events, the anonymous writers warn.

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=4685

Capablanca-Fan
09-11-2007, 11:03 AM
Funny how the class dunce runs rings around the likes of Tony Abbott. I recall a debate on the 7.30 Report a couple of weeks ago where she caught young Tony in a lie several times in 5 minutes :lol:
She was a big fan of Latham (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/nation_reminded_of_lucky_escape/)(remember him?).

Capablanca-Fan
09-11-2007, 11:05 AM
I don't know about that. Have you heard Nicole Cornes open her mouth? The Labor candidate in the seat of Boothby in Adelaide is quite astonishingly ill-informed about just about everything political — you know, Labor policies and all that stuff. But maybe she doesn't count — after all she has Buckleys chance of winning the seat, and may not even make it to the election if the South Australian Labor Party has any sense.
Labor's quota system in all its glory :lol:

antichrist
24-11-2011, 01:11 PM
Would you have preferred to lose a million Allies taking the Japanese mainland, to say nothing of at least as many Japanese? Also, the Allies' decisive actions finished the Warlord / Emperor worship cult off once and for all, unlike their current pussyfooting around with the Islamofascists.


the number of allies that may have been killed taking the Japanese mainland has been estimated between ten thousand and forty thousand, they are the figures that I have heard anyway. I think after the war they discovered that Japan was a lot worse then their estimates so not so many casualties would have occurred.

Capablanca-Fan
25-11-2011, 04:04 AM
the number of allies that may have been killed taking the Japanese mainland has been estimated between ten thousand and forty thousand, they are the figures that I have heard anyway. I think after the war they discovered that Japan was a lot worse then their estimates so not so many casualties would have occurred.
The estimates at the time were 1,202,005 US casualties, including 314,619 killed, with many times more Japanese soldiers and civilians (http://www.airforce-magazine.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Enola%20Gay%20Archive/EG_mission.pdf). based on extrapolating the huge casualties on the tiny island of Okinawa: 50,000 Allied casualties, including 12,500 killed, and or the Japanese, about 110,000 soldiers and about 160,000 civilians killed (http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-04102007-145400/unrestricted/PaulinThesisFinal.pdf). This was the outworking of the bushido code that included no surrender. We also need to add the Japanese War Ministry had ordered the execution of all 168,500 Allied POWs, including 15,000 Americans, if the Japanese mainlands were invaded.

antichrist
25-11-2011, 03:56 PM
well it seems from JOno links above that some generals believed that with conventional bombing and continuing bloakade the war would have ended anyway. It may have taken longer but if no invasion then no big loss of allied forces.

America should not have dropped the atomic bombs coz there was not one little yellow foot on USA soil

Capablanca-Fan
25-11-2011, 04:02 PM
well it seems from JOno links above that some generals believed that with conventional bombing and continuing bloakade the war would have ended anyway. It may have taken longer but if no invasion then no big loss of allied forces.
Not what those on the ground thought. Also ignored is what Robert Newman, Professor Emeritus of history at the University of Pittsburgh, points out in his book Truman and the Hiroshima Cult (1995):


“the last months were in many ways the worst; starvation and disease aggravated the usual beatings, beheadings and battle deaths. It is plausible to hold that upwards of 250,000 people, mostly Asian but some Westerners, would have died each month the Japanese Empire struggled in its death throes beyond July 1945.”

This monthly death toll is larger than that from the nukes, which were also lower than the conventional firebombing of Tokyo.


America should not have dropped the atomic bombs coz there was not one little yellow foot on USA soil
They started the war. If they were not defeated, America and Asia would not have been safe.

antichrist
25-11-2011, 04:14 PM
They started the war. If they were not defeated, America and Asia would not have been safe.

How would America not being safe? Because it immorally had its nose in Asia is why it was attacked. America, during the American-Spanish war promised the Philipinos their freedom if they fought with America. They did fight with America but America tricked them and kept them as a colony and exploiting the place for another fifty years. Then when the Philipinos finally got independence USA kept the mineral rights. And USA helped keep dictator Marcos in power for about another ten years whilst he was having thousands kiiled. And as well the USA did not begin paying US war pensions promised to Filipinos until about Clinton or Obama's time, when most of the combatants had already died and could not claim such for their families. What a total sell out america was.

Ian Murray
25-11-2011, 07:32 PM
Was the US bombing of Nagasaki necessary to end WWII? (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts/was-the-us-bombing-of-nagasaki-necessary-to-end-wwii/story-e6frg8nf-1226084256784)

From: The Australian
July 02, 2011


...The narrative is multifaceted. Collie describes the experiences of 50 ordinary citizens of Nagasaki - Japan's most Christian city, founded by the Portuguese in the 16th century - as well as a small group of Australian prisoners of war who were interned there. He also tracks events through the eyes of the American airmen who flew the two missions, and the military and political leaders of Japan, Russia and the US.

It's a compelling, frequently astonishing tale, and Collie undermines a lot of conventional wisdom. For a start, he reminds us that the second mission was nearly a fiasco. Whereas all had gone to plan for the crew of Enola Gay (the name of the B-29 that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima), the crew of its sister plane, Bockscar, encountered a raft of problems.

Their target was supposed to be Kokura, an industrial town 180km to the north. Bad weather, mechanical failure and human error necessitated a change of course in mid-flight, and a one-chance-only pass over Nagasaki.

The bomb - which was live and had cost $US2 billion to make - otherwise would have had to be dropped in the ocean....

Collie explores another, rather more disturbing, fact: that US president Harry Truman did not authorise the dropping of either bomb. Truman had assumed the presidency only a few months earlier, following the death of Franklin Roosevelt.

As Collie observes, he'd been unaware of the Manhattan Project while vice-president. He was soon briefed about it when he become commander-in-chief and, thereafter, kept periodically updated. But the formal order to use the first two bombs on Japan was issued by an unelected military officer, General Thomas Handy.

The day after Nagasaki, Truman insisted that any further use of nuclear weapons would require his express authority. It was just as well: the day before, Collie points out, four high-ranking US generals had been urging the use of a third atomic bomb on Tokyo....

Were the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings necessary to defeat Japan? Collie makes a good case that the answer is no. Japan, he argues, was already doomed. For months, its cities had been subjected to fire bombing on a vast scale. Its navy and most of its factories were in ruins. Fuel and food were scarce.

True, Japan had ignored the Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945, requiring "unconditional surrender". Publicly its leaders still made belligerent noises, but they knew defeat was inevitable; behind closed doors, the only issue that divided them was how to go about extracting the least humiliating terms.

Some hardliners, including war minister Korechika Anami, who ultimately committed suicide, advocated holding out longer to try to save national honour.

But the Americans knew prime minister Kantaro Suzuki and foreign minister Shigenori Togo - as well as the emperor, Hirohito - were working for peace at almost any price. In the end, during the night of August 9-10, 1945, it was the emperor who belatedly decided that Japan "must endure the unendurable", and surrender.

Now here's the kicker. Collie shows that, contrary to mythology, the atomic bomb was not a significant factor in Japan's decision. Outside Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese people remained largely unaware of what had happened (the result of strict media censorship) and even the powers-that-be did not completely understand.

The atomic bomb was but briefly discussed at the key cabinet and imperial council meetings of August 8-10. The deciding factor was Russia's decision on August 9 to enter the Pacific war. The Red Army invaded Manchuria to the north, dashing Japan's last faint hope: that the Soviets might intervene on their behalf in negotiations with the Allies.

It's hard to escape a mortifying conclusion: the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were victims of monstrous geo-political machinations. And what suffering they endured. It was better to be vaporised instantly, as tens of thousands were, than to survive maimed or irradiated for a few days or weeks....

antichrist
25-11-2011, 10:14 PM
Ian, you must realise that on this board some people dont find it abhorrent that people were vaporised, or grossly burnt with heat and radiation. That no matter who or what such weapons should never be used. That it only exemplifies that man is still no different from the savages and the worse of animals in nature. We are worse because we realise what we are doing.

It also proves there is no god

Capablanca-Fan
27-11-2011, 05:45 PM
Ian, you must realise that on this board some people dont find it abhorrent that people were vaporised, or grossly burnt with heat and radiation. That no matter who or what such weapons should never be used. That it only exemplifies that man is still no different from the savages and the worse of animals in nature. We are worse because we realise what we are doing.
There is another thread (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=207170#post207170) on this; probably needs its own thread. This thread answer's IM's post to a large degree. E.g.:


Tojo [who opposed surrender even after Nagasaki] said Japan was surrendering because it was afraid of more atomic bombings and of the Soviet Union entering the Pacific front.

I also pointed out that as far as the Allies were concerned, the Japs would have fought to the death, leading to a death toll far larger than that on Okinawa. And there were huge casualties every day the war continued.

Kevin Bonham
27-11-2011, 05:50 PM
I considered splitting this thread after AC bumped it but decided there were so many different off-topic tangents on it I wouldn't know where to begin! I'll change the title though.

Ian Murray
29-11-2011, 08:01 AM
There is another thread (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=207170#post207170) on this; probably needs its own thread. This thread answer's IM's post to a large degree. E.g.:


Tojo [who opposed surrender even after Nagasaki] said Japan was surrendering because it was afraid of more atomic bombings and of the Soviet Union entering the Pacific front.

I also pointed out that as far as the Allies were concerned, the Japs would have fought to the death, leading to a death toll far larger than that on Okinawa. And there were huge casualties every day the war continued.
Short of being a fly on the wall at cabinet meetings, we don't know what was realpolitik and what was bombast.

It should be remembered that prior to Hiroshima more than 60 Japanese cities has been firebombed out of business and there was no air defence against the B29s - they would keep on coming.