IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

[NeonVomit]

Hardly - most people who are USA bashing just go after the politicians. I despise most politicians of any country, so it's a moot point for me.

Saying things like 'Europe appeases Islamic extremists' however is simply absurd, and quite irrational. It's almost as if anyone who disagrees with America is instantly an enemy.

Anyhow, most people who USA bash usually don't know what they're talking about, which was the whole point of my previous post. I have grievances with the US government, just like I do with any other government. If you've noticed, however, I don't make crazy accusations. Europe is hardly a utopia (after all, we're humans over here as well...)

[Carcass]

Maybe this nuclear issue could've been solved a long time again.

After 9/11 even Teheran payed respect to the dead with a minute's silence and by lighting up candles in the streets. I guess this was seen like a crack in the ice by many. The next step was invading Afganistan, a potential enemy of Iran, and as we know having a common enemy is a rather connective thing. When the new government of Afganistan was formed the co-operation with Iran was extensive, compared to what diplomatic realtions with Iran were like before these things took place. Some saw hope of normalising the relations with Iran.

But then Mr. Bush went and called Iran a part of the "axis of evil" in one of those State of the Union speeches. He and his big mouth. The next chance of opening came from Iran in the form of a letter as a response to a set of talking points from US diplomats. The letter promised Iran would be open with it's nuclear program, stop aiding the Palistinian militant groups and even help to disarm Hezbollah. What Iran wanted was that Bush would take his words back, a statement that Iran is not a part of the axis of evil.

And what was done with this letter? Nothing, despite it being a clear sign that Iran was ready to negotiate. I'm quoting Larry Wilkerson, the chief of staff to US Secretary of State Colin Powell: "In my mind it was one of those things you throw up in the air and say I can't believe we did this."

But the hardliners got their way. Since US had marched to Baghdad it was thought that US could dictate the conditions with it's tanks functioning as a deterrence. This in turn, was a gift for the hardliners in Teheran.

Read this, this post is just a quickly written summary:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5377914.stm

[stratohawk]

most of what you wrote is quite true. the world and especially the USA missed the chance after 9/11, that the terrorist attacks offered them. After 9/11 the world stood close on the side of the USA. President Bush and his government gambled away this advance. I doubt some things about that "letter", but what is true, is the fact that the US government provoked Iran with describing that country as part of the axis of evil.

I cannot believe how people can be so bullheaded. It would be the simpliest and best approach for everybody, if officials of both countries would sit down and talk to each other. But instead: "No, we don't talk to evil" I REALLY FUCKING HATE those politicians for being such stubborn ignorants.

btw, the bbc-article is really good, I recommend it to everybody.

[NeonVomit]

btw, the bbc-article is really good, I recommend it to everybody.[/quote

Very good article, but I'm sure some people will reject it out of hand instantly, just because it is from the BBC.

[miditek]

but what is true, is the fact that the US government provoked Iran with describing that country as part of the axis of evil.

If it were the US that had actually "provoked" Tehran, then why is why is Ahmandinejad threatening to wipe Israel (as opposed to the US) off of the map?

And for that matter, why has Iran been arming Hezbollah for the past 25 years?

President Bush (correctly) labeling Iran as part of the axis of evil has absolutely nothing to do with Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Ahmandinejad has his crazy visions of the apocalypse dancing in his head, and his attention is primarily on Israel.

Moreover, Iran's promises to halt nuclear production have about as much credibility as Hitler's claim of the Sudetenland as being "this is the last territorial claim that I have in Europe."

Now why would Iran, a country that allegedly does not yet have nuclear weapons, be threatening Israel, a country that is most definitely armed with several hundred nuclear warheads?

Tel Aviv takes those threats quite seriously (wouldn't you?), and blaming Bush would change that fact on iota.

[stratohawk]

and what do you say about the rest of that bbc-article? did you read it?

[Carcass]

Now why would Iran, a country that allegedly does not yet have nuclear weapons, be threatening Israel, a country that is most definitely armed with several hundred nuclear warheads?

So are you saying Tehran actually have nuclear weapons in their arsenal?

I'll reply more extensively when I have more time.

[NeonVomit]

Now why would Iran, a country that allegedly does not yet have nuclear weapons, be threatening Israel, a country that is most definitely armed with several hundred nuclear warheads?

So are you saying Tehran actually have nuclear weapons in their arsenal?

I'll reply more extensively when I have more time.

Iran = sabre-rattling. They know they couldn't hope to face up to Israel in terms of nuclear exchange.

There's a thing called brinksmanship... you know, like the entire cold war. This is a smaller scale version of that, similar situations have arisen between India and Pakistan.

[stratohawk]

I find it funny that anyone who tries to stand up to Miditek gets clobbered by facts, then declares him misleading or not worth his/her time.

Saying things like 'Europe appeases Islamic extremists' however is simply absurd, and quite irrational. It's almost as if anyone who disagrees with America is instantly an enemy.

Check out the results of this poll.
An alarming amount of people think Iran has absolutely no potential of Nuclear weapons, or rather just hate the USA/Israel and want the Mushroom cloud over their cities.

you are misunderstanding it. Don't generalize the ones who don't want a new war in middle east as narrow-minded pacifists. Btw, what miditek puts into this discussions are no better facts than the facts "we" have against the US administration, against a new war, against escalation. I'm still waiting for a differentiated answer my miditek (or anyone else who goes for a military strike against Iran) to the BBC-article.

[stratohawk]

btw, I just read an interview with Schirin Ebadi, who got the Nobel Peace Prize for her activities for human rights in Iran. It's really interesting (I'm sorry that I only got it in German under the following link), she says that Ahmadinedshad has not that great support in his population like one might think, but that he censors the media and the press. He suppresses human rights and acts more like a dictator than a democratic leader. She also says that the majority of the Iran people have absolutely nothing against Jews or Christians or other religions in general. It's the government that uses these aggressions for distracting his people from the interiour problems of Iran (high unemployment, high inflation, corruption).

http://www.tagesschau.de/aktuell/meldun ... F1,00.html

[Just a Vampire]

Maybe we shouldn't take care of the nuclear capapility as well as the biological capability. (but nuclear is nuclear, huh?). Or maybe is just blahbering.
why we never question the US capability to start the WWIII? why do they think they have the rigth to restrict the development in a 3rd world country?. Yes, Iran can be a risk, but the US can be to. Or Irak can, or India, or China, or Russia, or Pakistan....

[NeonVomit]

Maybe we shouldn't take care of the nuclear capapility as well as the biological capability. (but nuclear is nuclear, huh?). Or maybe is just blahbering.
why we never question the US capability to start the WWIII? why do they think they have the rigth to restrict the development in a 3rd world country?. Yes, Iran can be a risk, but the US can be to. Or Irak can, or India, or China, or Russia, or Pakistan....

I shudder to think what might have happened had someone like Zhirinofsky (sp?) taken power in Russia in the upheval after the fall of the Soviet Union. Or some other super-nationalist-expansionist nut. People seem to forget that Russia still has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, larger than America's.

[miditek]

and what do you say about the rest of that bbc-article? did you read it?

It's interesting, from a propogandist's viewpoint, I suppose. Iran allegedly claims that it wanted to play nice after all these years (probably because they were shitting their pants, and for good reason!), but Washington gets the blame once again (of course), for refusing to negotiate with the world's primary practitioners of state-sponsored terror.

Despite the fact that the BBC was gushing in the most glowing of terms, over supposed promises of better behavior from Iran, and yet it utterly fails to see that those behavioral patterns are not going to change until the current regime itself is either removed or destroyed.

So essentially what the article is saying, is that the Washington itself was the last hope of a successful conclusion of negotations to dismantle Iran's nuclear program, and that any future attempts by the EU-led initiatives will be utterly doomed to fail. Perhaps what the BBC is really saying is that the US, to quote Chamberlain, "missed the bus", and seeks to merely make Bush a convenient scapegoat.

"So Tehran made a dramatic - but surprisingly little known - approach to the Americans.
Iran's offer came in the form of a letter"

I'd love to a see a PDF copy of that letter, and where it is posted at. The Iranian foreign ministry's website? Iran will never stop its support for Hezbollah and Hamas, so there's really nothing to negotiate to begin with.

Also, just how "dramatic" can a letter actually be? And if it were so "dramatic", then why is it so "surprisingly little known"? That statement alone contradicts itself, and belies the BBC's penchant from tripping itself up over its own propoganda.

That story makes about as much sense as Chirac's idiotic quips that "Iran is a great nation, and a stabilizing force in the Middle East."

This was not a "news" story in the traditional sense, but more or less, a thinly disguised op-ed column that actually belonged in the editorial section, and should not be oficially passed off as the news.

The US Undersecretary of State can say whatever he wants, but he alone does not set the policy of the State Department. If his boss, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Colin Powell had properly dealt with Saddam and his gang during Gulf War I, then Gulf War II would have been unnecessary.

The BBC can parrot as much material as it wants from al-Jazeera and Iran's propoganda ministry, but most Americans are probably not buying into such ridiculous notions and accusations. Iran will continue with its malicious mischief, until, if you'll pardon the pun, the fallout from its actions comes back to haunt it.

[miditek]

Maybe we shouldn't take care of the nuclear capapility as well as the biological capability. (but nuclear is nuclear, huh?). Or maybe is just blahbering.
why we never question the US capability to start the WWIII? why do they think they have the rigth to restrict the development in a 3rd world country?. Yes, Iran can be a risk, but the US can be to. Or Irak can, or India, or China, or Russia, or Pakistan....

I shudder to think what might have happened had someone like Zhirinofsky (sp?) taken power in Russia in the upheval after the fall of the Soviet Union. Or some other super-nationalist-expansionist nut. People seem to forget that Russia still has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, larger than America's.

Zhirinovsky, really, is little more than a bombastic and loud-mouthed buffoon that never stood a real chance of getting elected. Former KGB Colonel Putin, on the other hand, is no idiot, but certainly dangerous. People also seem to forget that it is Moscow that functioning as the de facto "project manager" for Tehran's nuclear program.

Moscow is also an indirect supplier of arms to Hezbollah and Hamas, as there is a great deal of Russian military hardware that comes from Russia to Iran, which then makes its way into the hands of the enemies of Israel and the United States.

War with Iran is most likely inevitable, and before it's all over, quite possibly with Russia as well. Russia has been arming the enemies of Israel and the US for decades now. It is very likely that Russia too will be (somewhat reluctantly) drawn into this conflict, at the behest of her Arab client states.

Massive airstrikes on the Bushrer nuclear facilities would probably kill many hundreds, if not thousands, of Russian nuclear scientists and technicians. That could well be the act that tips the scales enough for Russia to enter the conflict, and at the insistence of her allies in the Middle East.

[miditek]

why do they think they have the rigth to restrict the development in a 3rd world country?. Yes, Iran can be a risk, but the US can be to. Or Irak can, or India, or China, or Russia, or Pakistan....

Given the fact that Iran is threatening to destroy Israel, a close ally and friend of the United States. Also considering that Iran does have a nuclear program, that it claims is for "peaceful purposes", much of which has been built in deep underground bunkers, calling for Iran to "stand down" is not an unreasonable policy.

If it refuses to do so, then it will face serious consequences, up to and including massive military actions.

Israel and the United States take these threats quite seriously, and will continue to focus on developing a plan to do what eventually must be done.

[NeonVomit]

*sigh* never mind. I'll get started on digging up my back yard for that bunker...

[miditek]

*sigh* never mind. I'll get started on digging up my back yard for that bunker...

Got enough room in there to hide the Pope? They've just issued a fatwa against him.

[stratohawk]

Well yes, if you really long for that third Wolrd War, then wait for it and do whatever you like. I'm not a naive optimist, but a realist, and we are still far away from this Apocalypse that you are promising. Of course Iran's leadership makes steps that might lead to an escalation, but even they won't be so stupid to attack Israel, with whatever weapons they have. Of course this world is more unsafe than it was during the Cold War, when there was one large front and only two sides. The problem of nowadays situation is the chaos, small terrorist cells all over the world, which are not even linked together. That's also one of the reasons why Bush and his Clan WILL NEVER WIN A WAR AGAINST TERRORISM! It's not possible in a military way!! The only way is to solve those burning conflicts (especially the conflict in Middle East) and to get the rich nations to help the poor countries out of their desperate situation. I tell you once again, that the terrorists that striked on 9/11 almost achieved a situation they never wanted: A world standing together to face a new and deadly threat. But of course ignorance and egoism made the politicians forget too soon again. Now everybody is aiming again on his own advantage. Nobody seems to be willing to make sacrifices, even if it would help the own people. Not all the people want a new World War, major part wants to live in peace and friendship with its neighbours. It's the leaders that mis-lead their people. It's the censorship and the mis-information that makes the people follow their leaders. Did you never think about that the media you get isn't absolutely free? I've been to the US for a long time, and the informations I read and saw in the media were completely different than in Europe. I don't say the European News are better or more correct. It just says, don't trust everything what YOUR media says. Media is definitely the most powerful weapon in the 21st century. Look what happened in that "cartoon struggle", or with the speach of the Pope. The leaders of some Muslim Countries only showed their people through the media what they wanted them to see. This brought up riots all over the world. Or once when Al-Djasira (wasn't it Al-Djasira? I don't remember exactly) gave informations that guards in Guantanamo-Prison flush down the Koran in toilets. You know what information and mis-information can lead to. Everything you are talking about is based upon facts you get from YOUR media, and because every new fact you get from it, you are assured more and more in your opinion, and then of course articles like the last published by the BBC seem to be the biggest bullshit, or, as you say, "from a propagandist viewpoint". Then what is your viewpoint supposed to be?
What makes me optimistic a very little bit are the democratic movements that were succesful over the last years in some countries, without ANY military support. Of course those people have to realise that also democracy doesn't solve any problem. But now these countries are Democratic States, where the media can at least claim to be free, or more free than under the dictators before. I hope you wake up and realise that there are more options to solve a conflict than only military ones one day. I don't say military strikes are NOT an option. But your dark vision about nuclear mushrooms above every large city is so far from becoming reality and only enforces the fears and retentions.

If you don't believe so, it's really sad. This means you only believe in the bad side of human being, especially when you classify your life (or the life of anyone) higher than other ones, like when you say one has to accept the "collateral casualties" in wars like the last Lebanon War. This is not the solution, and this war has proven again that it has lead to nothing. Maybe the day will come when the politicians of our countries decide that there is no better solution than attacking Iran. Maybe. I don't want Ahmadinedjad to have the bomb. Just on the other hand you have to understand that even the reasonable muslims don't want to accept that the US claims to have the right of owning a large nuclear capability, and their countries not.

Uh, I could continue with this for hours, but I have to go learning. I know that you will come with a detailed answer, explaining why WWIII is inevitable. You are better in discussing in English than me, cuz it's your mother tongue, I know that. That's the point why I once said I won't continue arguing, and not because I'm afraid of it or because your arguments are better. At least I know that I'm not the only one, contrariwise, I know that WE are the majority. That's what makes me feel a little bit optimistic for the future. You guys who don't believe we will find solutions are the minority. Now we only must get politicians in the position of where the hardliners rule at the moment.

[NeonVomit]

*sigh* never mind. I'll get started on digging up my back yard for that bunker...

Got enough room in there to hide the Pope? They've just issued a fatwa against him.

Good, I wish they'd do that sort of thing more often. Religious nuts attacking other religious nuts. Leave the common people out of it.

[NeonVomit]

And of course, while everyone's busy looking at Iran...

Lil' Kim gets at it again...

Until Iran does something similar, I'll be happy enough worrying mostly about these guys. You know, the ones working on ballistic missiles that could hit America...

[stratobabius]

Something irrelevant, or not so much...

Non-realtions were never something good.
One of the reasons the Byzantine empire fell, was because the Orthodox and the Catholics had stopped "talking", because of something that happened 400 years ago... I don't say it will take 400 years for something to happen if it continues this way, cause news travel fast...

Ok, to something relevant to give this post a meaning...
I agree with NeonVomit.

[Carcass]

It's interesting, from a propogandist's viewpoint, I suppose. Iran allegedly claims that it wanted to play nice after all these years (probably because they were shitting their pants, and for good reason!), but Washington gets the blame once again (of course), for refusing to negotiate with the world's primary practitioners of state-sponsored terror.

I agree, some of the terms of the letter were more than a bit suspect, but you can't deny it was an attempt to reach out. They are rather big in the mouth in that country. And yes, they were indeed shitting their pants for a very good reason. I don't see that as a reason why not to negotiate, the fact that a state is a "practitioner of state-sponsored terror" haven't stopped you in the past. The support of the Greek military junta is a fine example.

So essentially what the article is saying, is that the Washington itself was the last hope of a successful conclusion of negotations to dismantle Iran's nuclear program, and that any future attempts by the EU-led initiatives will be utterly doomed to fail. Perhaps what the BBC is really saying is that the US, to quote Chamberlain, "missed the bus", and seeks to merely make Bush a convenient scapegoat.

That's your view. I think the article is just trying to say, as the title implies, that if the reach out had been taken seriously this issue could have been solved - maybe. I can't remember the exact words, but if the articel indeed assumed that the whole issue could have been solved, I think the writer was very wrong. But a chance to improve realtions was certainly missed. What would the motivation be to send that letter if Tehran wasn't willing to make concessions? To waste the time of US diplomats by inviting them to the table and then tell them to bugger off?

Unlike you seem to think, European countries have not given up the hope yet. Negotiations are still going on. There is no immediate danger of Iran launching a nuclear missile, give the negotiations is a chance before thinking about sending the planes.

Luckilly, US is very reluctant to launch a military operation, it's military is knee deep in shit in Iraq and attacking Iran would be even more recourse consuming as their military is more modern than what Iraq's was. Not enough with this, Hezbollah would most probably begin a new full scale campaign against Israel.

This was not a "news" story in the traditional sense, but more or less, a thinly disguised op-ed column that actually belonged in the editorial section, and should not be oficially passed off as the news.

True. That's why it's in the features section.

The US Undersecretary of State can say whatever he wants, but he alone does not set the policy of the State Department. If his boss, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Colin Powell had properly dealt with Saddam and his gang during Gulf War I, then Gulf War II would have been unnecessary.

So this is your motivation to dismiss what he said?

The BBC can parrot as much material as it wants from al-Jazeera and Iran's propoganda ministry, but most Americans are probably not buying into such ridiculous notions and accusations. Iran will continue with its malicious mischief, until, if you'll pardon the pun, the fallout from its actions comes back to haunt it.

Stratohawk already answered on this one for me.

[miditek]

Well yes, if you really long for that third Wolrd War, then wait for it and do whatever you like. I'm not a naive optimist, but a realist, and we are still far away from this Apocalypse that you are promising.

Let's put a bit of Biblical perspective on this dilemma for just a moment, okay?

Matthew 24:3 "And as He sat upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, ' Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?' And Jesus answered and said unto them, 'Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, "I am the Christ"; and shall deceive many. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

'For nation shall rise against nation , and kingdom against kingdom : and there shall be famines , and pestilences, and earthquakes , in diverse places. All these are the beginning of sorrows.'

No one (other than God Himself) knows when that time will actually come to pass. Perhaps if this were only a fairly tale, as some would like you to believe, then perhaps the events described in Matt 24:3 would not be coming to pass. However, as Matthew also notes, in 24:37, many will be taken completely by surprise.

If the EU's bureaucrats were as terribly clever as they purported to be, then WWI would have been the "War to End All Wars", and Europe would have brokered the peace agreements that it seeks to impose in the Middle East.

Numerous other examples of Biblical eschatology (end times prophecy), from both the Old and New Testaments have already been fulfilled, and I challenge anyone to disprove that a great deal of what was written thousands of years ago has already been fulfilled. Essentially, the problems that mankind is currently facing today are well beyond our ability as mere mortals to resolve.

Of course Iran's leadership makes steps that might lead to an escalation, but even they won't be so stupid to attack Israel, with whatever weapons they have.

Not stupid enough to launch a nuclear armed missile across the border- as they are well aware of the implications of the Samson Option, but that is probably not their plan. However, having a small team of jihadists detonating a nuclear device or a dirty bomb from within Israel (or the US for that matter) is a significantly more realistic goal.

The problem of nowadays situation is the chaos, small terrorist cells all over the world, which are not even linked together.

So whom did Hezbollah get its Katyuhsa rockets, not to mention, anti-ship and anti-tank missiles from? Santa Claus? Where does Hamas get its weapons from, the Dali Lama? Who's arming the Taliban, the Pope?
Was it Saddam Hussein or Jacques Chirac that offered $25,000 bounties to the surviving family members of PLO suicide bombers? Who is funding these groups? Who is hiding their money? Who is facilitating their transportation, communication, and other logistical needs?

For journalists to suggest that terror groups are not linked together and supported by states such as Iran and Syria is a very myopic worldview, and is truly a study in naïvetivity.

That's also one of the reasons why Bush and his Clan WILL NEVER WIN A WAR AGAINST TERRORISM! It's not possible in a military way!! The only way is to solve those burning conflicts (especially the conflict in Middle East) and to get the rich nations to help the poor countries out of their desperate situation.

I believe that the reality of the situation easily discredits that statement. The majority of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi nationals, and many had either baccalaureate or master's degrees at the university level. Bin Laden himself is a Saudi national.

Billions upon billions of dollars in foreign aid have been poured into the so-called "Palestinian" territories, and the end result has been a continued state of war against Israel, which has resulted in widespread misery and destruction.

Ask yourself this question, would there be so much desperation in Gaza or the West Bank if the intifadas had been called off? If Fatah and Hamas were actually concerned about their people, they would not be siphoning off foreign aid to enrich themselves and to purchase weapons.

This is not about economics, not by a longshot. It is a religious war, and it will be the Final Crusade. The Imams have declared that both the wars on terror, as well as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan, are indeed, wars against Islam.

I tell you once again, that the terrorists that striked on 9/11 almost achieved a situation they never wanted: A world standing together to face a new and deadly threat.

The world is far from united in the war on terror. The UN and EU are still wringing their hands and sweating bullets over the mere thought of imposing sanctions on Iran. Morevover, France, Germany, and Russia were the ringleaders on holding Iraq accountable for the violation of numerous UN resolutions, and not to mention the ceasefire of Gulf War I. We've already discussed Moscow's sponsorship of Iran's nuclear program, but it is worth another mention.

But of course ignorance and egoism made the politicians forget too soon again. Now everybody is aiming again on his own advantage. Nobody seems to be willing to make sacrifices, even if it would help the own people.

If something is of strategic or tactical value to the United States or Israel, or even the Western world itself, for that matter, you can pretty much bet the farm that Paris, Berlin, and Moscow will do anything that they can to make our lives more difficult with their obstructionist policies in order to appease and pacify their Islamic masters at the UN!

Not all the people want a new World War, major part wants to live in peace and friendship with its neighbours.

Try telling that to Damascus and Tehran, and not to mention hundreds of thousands of pro-Hezbollah protestors in Beirut.

It's the leaders that mis-lead their people. It's the censorship and the mis-information that makes the people follow their leaders.

What about the imams in the mosques and schools?

Did you never think about that the media you get isn't absolutely free? I've been to the US for a long time, and the informations I read and saw in the media were completely different than in Europe.

It's a widely known fact that the left-wing pretty much dominates the print and television news media here in the States, and I'd be rather surprised if you thought that I subscribed to garbage of that ilk!

I don't say the European News are better or more correct. It just says, don't trust everything what YOUR media says.

The European media can scarcely conceal its glee that the transatlantic alliance is in total disarray. It is irretrievably broken, not that it's a bad thing. Tens of millions of Americans are positively sick and tired of Europe's whining and super-power wannabe tricks in Brussels (of which even Putin himself was mocking earlier this week), and its left-wing propoganda machinery.

Media is definitely the most powerful weapon in the 21st century. Look what happened in that "cartoon struggle", or with the speach of the Pope. The leaders of some Muslim Countries only showed their people through the media what they wanted them to see. This brought up riots all over the world. Or once when Al-Djasira (wasn't it Al-Djasira? I don't remember exactly) gave informations that guards in Guantanamo-Prison flush down the Koran in toilets. You know what information and mis-information can lead to.

And new stories get invented by the left on a daily basis. Dan Rather was forced to step down from CBS due to his fabrications of Bush's military service, which were utltimately proved to be fake (in short, the US Air Force used typewriters, not Microsoft Word fonts, during the time of Bush's service in the air national guard). If what the left said were actually true, then America would not have an enemy that it is itself not responsible for!

Everything you are talking about is based upon facts you get from YOUR media, and because every new fact you get from it, you are assured more and more in your opinion, and then of course articles like the last published by the BBC seem to be the biggest bullshit, or, as you say, "from a propagandist viewpoint". Then what is your viewpoint supposed to be?

If everything that I was talking about came from facts offered by, let's say, Ted Turner, I would be saying;

"Bush Lied"
"Micheal Moore is our new messiah"
"Hillary in 2008!"
"9/11 was a plot by the Bush White House"
"Global warming is Bush's fault"
"Terrorism is America's fault"
"Why can't we have more socialism like Europe?"

and other ridiculous phrases that are offered by the mainstream media here, which is often parroted endlessly by their celebrity allies in Hollyweird!

And I also think that my viewpoint should be crystal clear by now. The BBC's story was a crock if there ever was one, and the story would not have been out of place in the National Enquirer. And now, on BBC1 at seven this evening, they'll probably be showing "Modern Dhimmism for Englightened Europeans!"

What makes me optimistic a very little bit are the democratic movements that were succesful over the last years in some countries, without ANY military support. Of course those people have to realise that also democracy doesn't solve any problem. But now these countries are Democratic States, where the media can at least claim to be free, or more free than under the dictators before. I hope you wake up and realise that there are more options to solve a conflict than only military ones one day.

Without any direct military support. Had the Soviet Union not gone bankrupt in its arms race with America, it is very likely that the Soviet Union would not have folded at all. If that were the case, there would be no freedom in eastern Europe right now. Is it any coincidence that former Warsaw Pact countries have been keenly interested in NATO membership, as well as making contributions to coalition forces in Iraq?

I don't say military strikes are NOT an option. But your dark vision about nuclear mushrooms above every large city is so far from becoming reality and only enforces the fears and retentions.

I'd like to see where I've said, "every large city". What I have said is that a nuclear terror strike on American soil would result in tens of millions, or even hundreds of millions of dead in retaliation. I don't believe that I said that America would launch nuclear strikes at everyone now, did I?

If you don't believe so, it's really sad. This means you only believe in the bad side of human being, especially when you classify your life (or the life of anyone) higher than other ones, like when you say one has to accept the "collateral casualties" in wars like the last Lebanon War.

It's always too easy to criticize the Jews, isn't it? We all now know that they were the true villians, and not Hezbollah. It's interesting that I cannot recall a single instance of the BBC complaining about collateral damage during Bill Clinton's bombing campaign against the Serbs. Perhaps it was because that the Serbs are Orthodox Christians? Europe's hypocrisy is exposed yet again.

[MaFiaBoY]

"Bush Lied"

Which is a true, iron-solid fact...

Anyway, take off all the nonsense (because some of it actually does make sense) Europe-bashing stuff and I fully agree with you. But what disturbs me is that you're trying to tell us that the US have absolutely no responsability in what's going on, which is purely fantasmagoric.

Firstly, you tell us Bin Laden and other major Al-Qaida chiefs are Saudi citizens. True. But you forget telling us that the US did help them a lot in the past so, like Dr. Frankenstein, they're now facing the monster they contributed to create. Who did train afghan moujahidins buring the 1980s to fight Soviet invasion in Afghanistan ?

Then you tell us that there wouldn't be "so much desperation in Gaza if the intifadas had been called off". True again. But you forget that, as above, Israel is perhaps the main responsible for the Hamas' existence and popularity. What Israel saw in the Hamas at first was a really nice way to get rid of Arafat's Fatah. Really clever move, and it did work indeed. With US help, Israel managed to turn the Fatah into an absolutely impotent organization totally unable to cover the needs of its own people. The people understood the lesson. If the Fatah is impotent and won't do anything for us, let's vote for the Hamas instead.

[Shurik]

If the Fatah is impotent and won't do anything for us, let's vote for the Hamas instead.

And what did Hamas brought them? More misery, hunger and now almost a civil war ... Those people will vote for everyone who declares that they will fight Israel. Widespread support for suicide bombings and rocket attacks against Israeli cities proves that ...
If Fatah was interested in the well-being of Palestinian people, it would spend all the money that was given to them on building schools, hospitals and workplaces instead of stealing it or buying weapons.

[Jabi]

I just nuked Tehran.

http://www.everybody-dies.com

[stratohawk]

miditek, the only thing you do is to collect every anti-European myth you hear of, throw it into this thread and by the way ignoring and preventing any reasonable discussion. I don't say I disagree with everything you write, but your viewpoint is not much less extrem than of the ones you are accusing. I'm frustrated with it...

Still some points I wanted to mention:

I don't defend Schroeder for breaking the transatlantic relationship into pieces, but the dominating and selfish performance of the US already started earlier and irritates the rest of the world for a long time, again and again.

Again, I tell you, fighting blindfold wars only creates more violence and hatred. Yes, if you think the new World War cannot be stopped anyway, I can't help it. I think it's still avoidable.

Yes, Europe's leaders are discordant and headless. Yes, they are not able to act effectively. Still the EU tries to arbitrate in Middle East, and they take BOTH sides as negotiants, which definitely is more effective than supporting only one side.
And what are you always talking about Europe, WWI and WWII? These wars are almost one century behind. You are always accusing Europe and don't see the great effort that Europe made after the first half of the 20th century full of hate and dissension.

Oh, and because you mentioned the NATO-strikes against Milosevics Yugoslavia: You don't live here and don't know anything about the discussions and consequences that followed it. Only thing you know is from your media. But, oh, I forgot, you mentioned that US media is left-winged and writing liberal nonsense.

As long you only throw prejudiced and cliché-afflicted arguments into this discussion, it's useless to continue here (too bad I still follow it, but that's my own fault).

PS:
Kokordilos, you are asking us to prove Bush is a liar. Where do you have a proof that so many Secret Services reported WMDs in Iraq?

[NeonVomit]

If you're going to make the outrageous statement that Bush is a liar,

If you seriously think that Bush or any other head of government regardless of nationality or political alignment is not a liar, then well... ignorance is bliss, they say.

Doesn't Bush have like... really low approval ratings? Most Republicans I've spoken to are absolutely sick and tired of him. "I'm a Republican, but not a Bush fan!" is a phrase I've heard quite often.

There are so many Republican politicians who are intelligent, articulate and have good ideas and a lot of potential to do good in the world. Why on earth support this buffoon? He's more than proved he is utterly incompetant.

And I dare anyone who thinks war is a good solution for anything, to look at each and every one of these. I warn you, the contents of this link are potentially disturbing, so if you are easily upset, I would advise that you do not click on it.

The reality of war.

The camera doesn't lie. Ignore the text in the link, it is obviously biased, but just look. If you can possibly think that war is the first and best solution for anything, instead of the utterly desperate, tragic and eternally regrettable last-minute act that it should be, after looking at the stark reality of war, then I guess there is no point in even continuing.

Don't bother replying to this post until you've looked at each picture.

[browneyedgirl]

I was going along with this until I read the outrageous anti-american text of the last paragraph. You CANNOT ignore the text. "Most" Americans? This person does not know shit about MOST Americans&how they feel!!!
Nationalism? WTF? How come when USAers wave the flag&kiss the ground it is called Nationalism, but whenever someone(especially a famous person) from another country--Finland, for example, does that it is considered "Cool"?

Yes, the pics were horrible. Noone would disagree, but this is an obvious attempt by this guy to play on people's heartstrings&it works. But, the game is easily recognized.

I agree with alot miditek is saying. Just because you don't believe it does not mean it isn't true!

[Carcass]

IHow come when USAers wave the flag&kiss the ground it is called Nationalism, but whenever someone(especially a famous person) from another country--Finland, for example, does that it is considered "Cool"?

More and more people think they are retards, that they are behind their time. Nationlism is not the same force it once was in Europe, lately we have witnessed Eta (Basque nationalist terrorist organization in north of Spain) proclaiming it's ceasefire and IRA putting down it's weapons, for an example. In European countries, or at least in many of them, if you have your national flag on the side of your arm you are considered a skinhead. If a politician would say his country is the greatest and would tell simplified stories about it's great history, the press would certainly notice and in many cases be somewhat baffled. During the World Cup when Germans waived their flags excessively and burned some Italian pizzerias the media and debaters certainly didn't igoner this.

US is maybe the only country who's nationalism and patriotsim have effects on the whole world and has the potentiality to impose them on the world. This is the main root for the bad will the people feel when they see a sea of American flags or hear the same old rants about the Founding Fathers etcetera. Another thing is how American patriotism in intertwined with religion. In Europe, that is more secular, a lot of people feel the religious rhetoric Bush uses frequently is something that is a bit suspect and should be avoided.

To sum up: it's not always so "cool" to be patriotic in Europe. This of course depends a lot where you are in Europe, Finland and Spain are like two different worlds. It's a bit weird how people outside Europe generalise Europeans under one category, this is rather missleading. People outside Europe usually equates EU with Europe as a whole, a huge part of the population in Europe is outside the union.

Europe is not what it was 70 years ago, I guess we are pretty disillusioned after the hell this continent has been through.