Chances of US and Iranian conflict?

[Dan:]

I don't know if dissolution is the best answer, but it definately needs major changes, we can agree on that.

[Water Dog]

there are other options than "striking now." we need to be absolutely sure that they are going to try to do us harm before we "strike" or otherwise we risk what is left of our international credibility which whether you like it or not IS important.  

The best way to lose credibility is to not keep our word to the 25 million people that we liberated in Iraq.  "Cut and Run" or as some say, "Re-deploy", is a sure way of losing credibility in the world.

A way to gain credibility is to WIN in Iraq.

Another way to gain credibility might be to give the Iranians the opportunity to phase out their nuclear plans and if they aren't immediately forth coming drop a small tactical nuke down their chimney.  These maniacs cannot be allowed to have nuclear arms.

[Troutfisher]

Well said, Water Dog!

[Dan:]

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

My intent when using this passage was to show that the Bible, just as the Qu'ran has passages that prescribe violence and that modern practicers do not follow the Word letter by letter in Christianity and it is the same way with the passages against non beleivers in the Qu'ran. Whether or not the passage has other requirements for stoning an offspring and despite the age of the offspring, the point still remains, it decrees a violent punishment and Christians do not practice it--just as some of the Qu'ran's violent decrees are not practiced except by the extremists. That was my point.

[Water Dog]

c312:  I'm a little lost here...

I have never heard of any Christian, not even any "right wing card carrying snake handling Christian", stone his wife, or child, has anyone else.  I have never heard of any brand of Christian sawing someone's head off with a dull knife.  I have never heard of any Christian blowing themselves up in a group of other people.

I have never heard of any back woods para-military good old boys do any of these things although I would know enough to be somewhat leery of them.

On the other hand I have heard of Muslims doing all of these things and more.

[Dan:]

yes, but the difference is they have religious leaders that condone a culture that embraces that extremism. The point is, not all of the muslims practice that way, only the ones who live under the extremists. The point is both texts contain some aspects of violence but their practice depends on the extremists who interpret them, and in the muslim case, those extremists are much more successful in the socio-economic difficulties in many middle eastern countries, countries that also have more of a focus on a culture of religion. Those factors make it more common in middle eastern countries. My point isnt that there are practicing extremists on both sides, but rather that the texts are not always taken literally and there are many moderates that do not practice every violent aspect of the Quran and lead peaceful lives.

[Troutfisher]

The Bible does not list such extreme items such as "Slay the unbelievers where you see them."  You should read one of my first posts on this subject, where it points out countless times when the quran states violence.  The Bible has no such degree of violence, nor does it call to "Slay the unbelievers where you see them."

[Glenn]

Hi Folks,

This is gettting a little out of hand. Talk of war, and using religion as a reason for it, is quite the oxymoron. "Thou shalt not kill" , or was that somehow forgotten?

Troutfisher & Redneck - I highly recommend you read up on political German history in the years leading up to WWII, and the reasons millions of otherwise normal people felt compelled to lash out at the world and "get them before they get us". Their actions, as we all know today, caused the utter destruction of the very country they felt they were trying to protect.

Learn from history, my friend. It has a tendancy to repeat itself.

All -

I leave you with this quote to ponder:

Naturally the common people don't want war... That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

     -- Hermann Göring, second only to Adolf Hitler in the hierarchy of the Nazi Party.  It is said Göring was the mastermind behind the Nazi secret police (Gestapo), and he is considered one of the architects of the concentration camp system that murdered millions of Jews.

[Troutfisher]

My stance is merely focusing on terrorism, and saying that we should attack terrorists before they attack us.  I'm sorry if it was misunderstood....

[Fish Man]

with all due respect i do no my history and i believe there is a difference between a country making nuclear threats and possibly helping terrorists and saying to go get them and when germany went about attacking countrys that didnt threaten them if i understand you right

[Dan:]

You should read one of my first posts on this subject, where it points out countless times when the quran states violence.  The Bible has no such degree of violence, nor does it call to "Slay the unbelievers where you see them."

I am well aware of the violence within the Qu'ran, my point is that most Muslims do not practice it even though it is in the Qu'ran. Therefore you can't point out a violent verse in the Qu'ran and use it to say that Muslims are violent.

[Guest avid]

I think Glenn's point is simple, if twofold.

#1 - Leaders manipulate their citizens to go to war.

#2 - when you embark on a course of annhilation - you run the risk of being annhiliated.

We need to have the courage and intellegence to seek alternatives.

[Glenn]

with all due respect i do no my history and i believe there is a difference between a country making nuclear threats and possibly helping terrorists and saying to go get them and when germany went about attacking countrys that didnt threaten them if i understand you right

You are indeed correct that those countries did not threaten Germany. However, the German public was lead to believe by it's leaders that those countries posed a serious threat to them.

Reason 1

The Russian Revolution led many Germans to fear that a communist insurrection would occur in their own country. Shortly after World War I, the communists attempted to seize power in the country, leading to the establishment of the short-lived Bavarian Soviet Republic. The Freikorps helped to put down the rebellion and their forces were an early component of the Nazi Party.

Part of the reason for the Nazis popularity was due to their staunch anti-communism platform. Which later came into play when Germany attacked Russia.

Reason 2

The Treaty of Versailles can be said by some to be the single most important, indirect cause of the war. It placed the blame, or "war guilt" on Germany and Austria-Hungary, and punished them from their alleged "responsibility" rather than working out an agreement that would assure peace in the long-term future. The Treaty resulted in harsh monetary reparations, lost land to Lithuania, France, Poland, and Denmark. Notable losses included the Polish Corridor, Danzig, the Memel Territory (to Lithuania), the Province of Posen and the most economically valuable eastern portion of Upper Silesia. The economically valuable regions of the Saarland and the Rhineland were placed under the authority (but not jurisdiction) of France. The result of this loss of land was population relocation, bitterness among Germans, and also difficult relations with those in these neighboring countries. In addition, it indirectly hampered the German economy by causing rapid hyperinflation.

Another important aspect of the Treaty was that it created bitter resentment towards the victors of the World War I, who had promised the people of Germany that U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points would be a guideline for peace; President Woodrow Wilson was never able to get the allies to agree to adopt them.

The Nazis used this to invoke a feeling amongst the public that they were being prosecuted by the world, lied to by international leaders, and that eventually Germany would be destroyed by these evil forces. By starting with the real grievances of the Versailles Treaty, the Nazis were able to stoke a sense of grievance throughout Germany to redress perceived wrongs. The Nazis claimed that only they could free Germany from international subjugation.

Reason 3

One other important political element the Nazis used in the years leading up to WWII was the Dolchstosslegende. The Dolchstosslegende was a theory used to explain their loss in WWI. The theory proclaimed that the public had failed to respond to its "patriotic calling" at the most crucial of times and some had even intentionally "sabotaged the war effort." In essence, it claimed lack of patriotism back-stabbed the country and caused it to lose the war.

Reason 4

And finally, German Nazis professed concern for the rights of ethnic Germans living in portions of Poland and Czechoslovakia which had been taken from Germany and Austria. Hitler's aides produced multiple reports alleging atrocities against ethnic Germans in nearby countries, which Hitler invoked in support of Germany's claims to its former territory, as well as instilled fear amongst the Germans by showing them what these countries would do to them (the atracities were never confirmed).

The reasons for the Nazis popularity included their renouncement of the Treaty of Versailles, staunch anti-communism, the Dolchstosslegende and promises of stability and economic reconstruction. They also appealed to a sense of Germanic identity, superiority and entitlement, which would play an important role in starting the war, as they demanded to restore the "rightful" boundaries of pre-World War I Germany. Hitler was also portrayed by himself, his party, and his book Mein Kampf as an almost otherworldly savior for the German people.

So you're correct, those countries didn't pose a threat. But the Germans were led to believe they did pose a threat, using real events and "patriotism" to whip them into a fervor using a powerful psychological mechanism called "herding", which makes conforming to the group a stronger impulse than breaking out, even if the individual does not agree with what the group is doing. So long as the gradual changes in group behavior are small, herding can eventually take the group towards a state that is far removed from past behavior and is more and more extreme.

Interesting paradigm when you fast-forward to today. We're being led to believe Muslim extremists are out to destroy America, and certain countries are supporting their agenda. And that we're unpatriotic if we think otherwise.

Conversely, Muslim extremists are being led to believe "the Crusaders" (Christians) are out to destroy their way of life and religion, and that THEY are being attacked. They believe that they are defending their very existence. And to think otherwise would be a denouncement of their religion.

Avid summed it up quite nicely.

Learn from history, so that we don't make the same mistakes!

[Water Dog]

Alternatives are fine; however, we can't afford to take anything off the table when dealing with religious ideologues who possess or may soon possess a nuclear weapon. Our government has to be firm with them. We don't have the luxury of following in Neville Chamberlain's footsteps, the man who made 'appeasement' famous.

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/chamberlain_arthur_neville.shtml>

Like many in Britain who had lived through World War One, Chamberlain was determined to avert another war. His policy of appeasement towards Hitler culminated in the Munich Agreement in which Britain and France accepted that the Czech region of the Sudetenland should be ceded to Germany. Chamberlain left Munich believing that by appeasing Hitler he had assured "peace for our time." However, in March 1939 Hitler annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia and in September 1939 invaded Poland. Chamberlain responded with a British declaration of war on Germany.

I'm not willing to sacrifice an American City to see if the 'appeasers' are right. Negotiate in good faith, sure. If the Iranians are not willing to give up their nuclear ambitions, then drop a tactical nuke down their chimney before they can manufacture a series of bombs to be distributed to our shores.

Frankly, I take them at their word. The result of not doing so is unthinkable.

[Troutfisher]

Interesting paradigm when you fast-forward to today.  We're being led to believe Muslim extremists are out to destroy America, and certain countries are supporting their agenda.  And that we're unpatriotic if we think otherwise.

You laid out the facts about German history correctly, Glenn.  However, I do not see a correlation between us and the Germans of the WWII era.  Muslim extremists are out to destroy America.  It has been said before, and I will say it again:  we face a new generation of enemy here.  Terrorists are extreme cowards.  They will hide amongst innocent civilians.  They stoop to levels of planting bombs on innocent children.  They WILL NOT hold peace talks. Terrorists do not believe in compromise or peace.  They will not be stopped until their work is done, or until someone stops them.  I cannot stress that enough.

[Alpster]

Interesting paradigm when you fast-forward to today.  We're being led to believe Muslim extremists are out to destroy America, and certain countries are supporting their agenda.  And that we're unpatriotic if we think otherwise.

You laid out the facts about German history correctly, Glenn.  However, I do not see a correlation between us and the Germans of the WWII era.  Muslim extremists are out to destroy America.  It has been said before, and I will say it again:  we face a new generation of enemy here.  Terrorists are extreme cowards.  They will hide amongst innocent civilians.  They stoop to levels of planting bombs on innocent children.  They WILL NOT hold peace talks. Terrorists do not believe in compromise or peace.  They will not be stopped until their work is done, or until someone stops them.  I cannot stress that enough.

You are correct and wise, way beyond your years young man.

Ronnie

[paparock]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ae2d5d24-badd-11db-bbf3-0000779e2340.html

Iran on course for nuclear bomb, EU told

By Daniel Dombey and Fidelius Schmid in Brussels

Iran will be able to develop enough weapons-grade material for a nuclear bomb and there is little that can be done to prevent it, an internal European Union document has concluded.

In an admission of the international community's failure to hold back Iran's nuclear ambitions, the document compiled by the staff of Javier Solana, EU foreign policy chief says the atomic programme has been delayed only by technical limitations rather than diplomatic pressure. Attempts to engage the Iranian administration in a negotiating process have not so far succeeded, it states.

The downbeat conclusions of the reflection paper seen by the Financial Times are certain to be seized on by advocates of military action, who fear that Iran will be able to produce enough fissile material for a bomb over the next two to three years. Tehran insists its purposes are purely peaceful.

At some stage we must expect that Iran will acquire the capacity to enrich uranium on the scale required for a weapons programme, says the paper, dated February 7 and circulated to the EU's 27 national governments ahead of a foreign ministers meeting yesterday.

In practice, the Iranians have pursued their programme at their own pace, the limiting factor being technical difficulties rather than resolutions by the UN or the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The problems with Iran will not be resolved through economic sanctions alone.

[Troutfisher]

Interesting paradigm when you fast-forward to today. We're being led to believe Muslim extremists are out to destroy America, and certain countries are supporting their agenda. And that we're unpatriotic if we think otherwise.

You laid out the facts about German history correctly, Glenn. However, I do not see a correlation between us and the Germans of the WWII era. Muslim extremists are out to destroy America. It has been said before, and I will say it again: we face a new generation of enemy here. Terrorists are extreme cowards. They will hide amongst innocent civilians. They stoop to levels of planting bombs on innocent children. They WILL NOT hold peace talks. Terrorists do not believe in compromise or peace. They will not be stopped until their work is done, or until someone stops them. I cannot stress that enough.

You are correct and wise, way beyond your years young man.

Ronnie

Thank you, Alpster.

[Hookemdown.]

I've just saw this topic, so here's my 2 cents.

I'm not the kind of person to say, to   with it, let's nuke em'. But I stand 100 % behind America protecting herself.

I feel that some muslims interpret the Qu'ran  differently from others, just as Christians do.

But here's a point I would like to make:

I'm not saying anything  just read my link. It's a little thought provoking

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

[Alpster]

I'm not saying anything  just read my link. It's a little thought provoking

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

The only thought that that site provokes is, how can anyone swallow that koolaid? I'm sorry, but that is just plain ultra liberal, way far left, silliness. JMHO

Ronnie

[Troutfisher]

My opinion on the site? A slanted attempt at swaying the support for our President and troops overseas. Comparing our Commander in Chief and Military to Fascists is ridiculous.

[Hookemdown.]

No reason to jump all over me guys, i'm just adding to the conversation.

[Alpster]

No reason to jump all over me guys, i'm just adding to the conversation.

No one is picking on you. We are all friends here. This is a fishing board and "off topic' and "everything else" threads tend to get a little passionate sometimes. Don't let it bother you, we all express what we feel, based on what we believe to be true. It's a good thing we all don't think alike. A debate is just a debate. Try to learn what you can and be smarter as you go along. Keep on keeping on. We can get along even if we don't agree all the time. Thanks for your input.

Ronnie

[Dan:]

many of the points on that site are vastly overstated and even plain incorrect.

[Hookemdown.]

Thanks Ronnie, sorry, i've just had a bad day.I know you guys don't mean anything by it, and for that, I apologize.  I just read through that link thoughtfully and I can see  your points.  Cheers!