|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:46 am Post subject: Ahmedinjahed is a troll, ignore him! |
 |
|
Fareed Zakaria tells us to take a deep breath.
| Quote: |
Sept. 11, 2006 issue - It's 1938, says the liberal columnist Richard Cohen, evoking images of Hitler's armies massing in the face of an appeasing West. No, no, says Newt Gingrich, the Third World War has already begun. Neoconservatives, who can be counted on to escalate, argue that we're actually in the thick of the Fourth World War. The historian Bernard Lewis warned a few weeks ago that Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, could be planning to annihilate Israel (and perhaps even the United States) on Aug. 22 because it was a significant day for Muslims.
Can everyone please take a deep breath? |
Is Ahmedinjahed actually a troll? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Is Ahmedinjahed actually a troll?
|
I think you've definitely hit on something here. I'm pretty sure that middle eastern despots, in the privacy of their offices and chambers, have been musing about annihilating Israel since Israel was founded. But Ahmedinjahed does it on TV and it gets talked up as if his finger is already half an inch away from the launch button.
Yeah, yeah I know. He's trying to develop nukes and oh my god what if he uses them. Well, with Israel already armed to the teeth with nukes, I'm pretty sure the MAD logic would apply to the middle east. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| ...I'm pretty sure the MAD logic would apply to the middle east. |
I am not sure whether the man is a populist/troll. He could very well be.
But there is undoubtedly a domestic audience (and a regional audience), for example, for his Holocaust-denial and let's-annihilate-Israel speeches -- and even if some Iranians are becoming increasingly concerned about the consequences for them with respect to Western economic sanctions, these speeches seem to resonate well with the Iranian people. So whether he is a populist/troll or not, these obective conditions (based on a long-time and deep-conditioned hated for Israel) remain highly visible in Iran (and elsewhere in the Middle East). So, whether trolling or not, he would seem to be voicing the opinions of quite a few Iranians.
Also, I just read a report that he is moving to purge moderate professors from Iranian universities, and this will complete his overall purge of moderate professionals from govt and foreign service positions all over the bureaucracy...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/05/iran.universities.ap/index.html
...and this is not exactly the kind of thing someone who is merely trolling might do. This is an actual purge related to an overarching move to consolidate political power for (possibly or apparently) some strategic purpose. Why is he sweeping all moderates aside (and on multiple levels)? What will he do once this is done, and, presumably, after he wins increased support via the upcoming municipal elections?
Zakaria seems to entirely gloss over these issues and questions, by the way.
And, finally, on the MAD logic you ref to above: are you assuming rationality in a hate-infested region, on a hate-filled issue (the Arab-Israeli Conflict)?
Last edited by Gopher on Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:59 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On the other hand wrote:
...I'm pretty sure the MAD logic would apply to the middle east.
I am not sure whether the man is a troll. He could very well be. (What does he get out of it, though? He cannot very well run again, can he?)
But there is undoubtedly a domestic audience (and a regional audience), for example, for his Holocaust-denial and let's-annihilate-Israel speeches- and even if some Iranians are becoming increasingly concerned about the consequences for them with respect to Western economic sanctions, these speeches seem to resonate well with the Iranian people. So whether he is a troll or not, these obective conditions (based on a long-time and deep-conditioned hated for Israel) remain highly visible in Iran (and elsewhere in the Middle East).
|
That's more what I meant. Not that he's a troll in the sense of a guy who says crazy things as a recreational pursuit. Just that his speeches are calculated to provoke animosity from the west and appeal to a domestic market at home, in order to advance his own career.
| Quote: |
| And, finally, on the MAD logic you ref to above: are you assuming rationality in a hate-infested region, on a hate-filled issue (the Arab-Israeli Conflict)? |
Yes. Do you have evidence that the Iranian leadership acts in something other than its own self-interest? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| And, finally, on the MAD logic you ref to above: are you assuming rationality in a hate-infested region, on a hate-filled issue (the Arab-Israeli Conflict)? |
Yes. Do you have evidence that the Iranian leadership acts in something other than its own self-interest? |
Negative. Like most other nation-states, I think Iran acts in what it believes are its national interests.
But this probably gets to the heart of our nagging suspicions (at least some of us) on the Iranian regime: how exactly does it define its national interests at this time? What does it feel it needs to do (besides develop nuclear power and probably weapons on par with Great Britain, France, and the U.S. for example)? Is annihilating Israel actually in Iran's national self-interest or is this just a troll/gambit for something else?
How would we really know?
What, then, are Iran's true intentions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 3:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| ...I'm pretty sure the MAD logic would apply to the middle east. |
I am not sure whether the man is a populist/troll. He could very well be.
But there is undoubtedly a domestic audience (and a regional audience), for example, for his Holocaust-denial and let's-annihilate-Israel speeches -- and even if some Iranians are becoming increasingly concerned about the consequences for them with respect to Western economic sanctions, these speeches seem to resonate well with the Iranian people. So whether he is a populist/troll or not, these obective conditions (based on a long-time and deep-conditioned hated for Israel) remain highly visible in Iran (and elsewhere in the Middle East). So, whether trolling or not, he would seem to be voicing the opinions of quite a few Iranians.
Also, I just read a report that he is moving to purge moderate professors from Iranian universities, and this will complete his overall purge of moderate professionals from govt and foreign service positions all over the bureaucracy...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/05/iran.universities.ap/index.html
...and this is not exactly the kind of thing someone who is merely trolling might do. This is an actual purge related to an overarching move to consolidate political power for (possibly or apparently) some strategic purpose. Why is he sweeping all moderates aside (and on multiple levels)? What will he do once this is done, and, presumably, after he wins increased support via the upcoming municipal elections?
Zakaria seems to entirely gloss over these issues and questions, by the way.
And, finally, on the MAD logic you ref to above: are you assuming rationality in a hate-infested region, on a hate-filled issue (the Arab-Israeli Conflict)? |
Well, obviously he's not simply a troll. To accompany what OTOH has said, I'm wondering if we shouldn't treat Ahmedinejad in a way similar to the way Clinton (and Bush up until now when he is considering sanctions) did, by just ignoring him.
Zakaria does gloss over the questions you raised, but that may be more for matter of the space available in his column than ignorance. I would say he addressed the next question of the issues you raised, namely, given what you have said, what can we do about it?
Now, as I've stated before, I'm perfectly comfortable with invading Iran, as long as the ends justify the means. As I've stated before, the ends cannot justify the means in Iraq, because the ends are fiasco. Given the incomplete victory of air strikes on Hezbollah, one has to muse that the possible ends to invading Iran do not look promising.
I guess on the one hand I agree with you, Gopher. His actions, purging the universities, his previous purge of the diplomatic corps, his hyping the nuclear card, his rhetoric (EFLTrainer?), point to plans a bit more ambitious than hollow populism. What disturbs me is his consolidation of the population in large cities, since I don't think this is a kind of benevolent utopian project to bring everyone utilities and reduce distribution headaches and infrastructure development costs. It's more likely he has a totalitarian project in mind.
On the other hand, what can we do about it all? It seems as if the United States doesn't understand its limits of late. We do well with containment and response policies, but I think pre-emption policies have proven beyond our scope. At a certain point, bombing does not prevent the development of nuclear weapons, at a certain point somebody we don't want having it (hasn't this already happened?) is going to have it, and we have to deal with them having it.
I'm not happy with Ahmedinejad. This guy has violated international agreements in ways similar to that which the US claimed Saddam had, except its completely and utterly verifiable, admitted even by El-Baradei, that they have enriched uranium. (Fred Kaplan has his solution to the problem here) This is what disturbs me, the open talk about the Jews just highlights the kind of attitude he has towards the West that underlies his stance with the IAEA. As BB says, Ahmedinejad knows the West is gutless. He has a winning hand if he doesn't overplay it.
I've been rooting for the US this entire time, but I'd like to see us do something truly original. This would be a good moment for us to surprise everyone and do something a little original. I thought Bush's moment with Iran (clearly inspired by the State department, IMHO), surprising everyone by offering dialogue and uranium enrichment in exchange for inspections, was beautiful. But now Iran has basically told the international community to go F itself, and Russia and China, since they care even less about the international community than the US administration does (although are careful to care more about the perception that they do care about the international community than the US administration does), are caving.
That leaves us in a spot quite the opposite of Iraq. Well, everyone understands that Iran is in the wrong, but are asking what can we (the US or the international community or both together) do about it?
My answer is that bombing them probably won't work. My answer is that diplomacy won't work. I don't even see a platform for economic warfare. China and Russia want the oil too much, and if we bomb their oil derricks, that will still inspire the suicide bombers.
I guess my solution would be to use international pressure to try to engage in multilateral agreements, as opposed to a grand international agreement, to quit buying Iranian oil. Attack the economy, and thereby attack the source of promised financial aid to his people by which Ahmedinejad got elected. It's not as flashy as bombing, and it probably won't even work. But the ends can't justify the means if we don't have any good means to pick from. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:10 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| these speeches seem to resonate well with the Iranian people. |
Based on what?
That's kind of like saying that Hussein's speeches resonated well with Iraqis.
While we're at it, does attacking Iran resonate well with you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hepcat
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
"The Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and has another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories."
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm
There are only 193 countries in the world. 130 of 193...
Who is trying to take over the world?
How many nukes does Iran have? 0 The U.S.A.? way too many, thousands, enough to kill every person on Earth many times over. And they have used them, and say they want to use them again.
See U.S. Threatens to Nuke Iran:
Because Nuclear Threats are Inexcusable
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:uFDKudzy4oAJ:www.nukewatch.com/pathfinder/20062summer/page%25201.pdf+u.s+threatens+to+use+nukes&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&client=safari
The U.S.A. has committed more than 250 unprovoked military attacks on other nations since 1947-48 (not including CIA operations, like Chile).
See Gore Vidal's interview here:
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:j5HjZyFgvQoJ:www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/GV070502.pdf+Gore+Vidal+attacks+the+U.S.+has+made+on+other+countries&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&client=safari
So who is more dangerous?
This is from the Gore Vidal interview url'ed above:
| Quote: |
For further details on this history see also William Blum�s edifying and exhaustive Killing Hope: U.S.
Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II with 55 chapters spanning interventions throughout
the world from 1945 to 1994 and three appendices, the third of which lists 40 U.S. government
assassination plots of prominent foreign individuals since the end of WWII and his 1993 work Rogue
State: A Guide to the World�s Only Superpower . In September 2002 in an article entitled " Why
Terrorists Hate America", Blum closed with the words,
If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few
days. Permanently. I would first apologize to all the widows and orphans, the tortured and
impoverished, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I
would announce, in all sincerity, to every corner of the world, that America�s global
interventions have come to an end, and inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of
the USA but now -- oddly enough -- a foreign country. I would then reduce the military
budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims. There would
be more than enough money. One year�s military budget of 330 billion dollars is equal to
more than $18,000 an hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That�s what I�d do
on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I�d be assassinated.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/GV070502.html |
May the Higher Power bestow wisdom on us and our leaders. This is no schoolyard squabble, no little spitting game. We could all be dead this time next year. The name calling in this thread is a waste of time. It's time we began to set aside childhood toys and distractions and begin to grow up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Kuros"]
| Quote: |
| at a certain point somebody we don't want having it (hasn't this already happened?) is going to have it, and we have to deal with them having it. |
We have time on our side: first things (Iraq) first.
U.S. military sees Iran's nuke bomb 5 years away
Wasgington post.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060831-121633-7741r.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Imbroglio
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Location: Behind the wheel of a large automobile
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Persians invented chess. They're protecting their queen (nuclear power program) right now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="hepcat"]"The Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and has another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories."
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm
| Quote: |
There are only 193 countries in the world. 130 of 193...
Who is trying to take over the world? |
Most of those nations want US bases there. Besides many of the bases are cause of the cold war. the US was right to fight the cold war.
| Quote: |
| How many nukes does Iran have? 0 |
How many Nukes did Pol Pot have? How many Nukes did Imperial Japan have. How many nukes did Idi Amin have? Your point is what?
| Quote: |
| The U.S.A.? way too many, thousands, enough to kill every person on Earth many times over. |
Sure cause of the cold war.
Besides there is a difference between an average joe having a lot of guns and Jeffery Dalmher having one gun. No?
| Quote: |
| And they have used them, |
50 years ago in world war II so the US would not have to invade Japan.
| Quote: |
| and say they want to use them again. |
they want to ?
any way for what reason.
What is Iran's goal , what is the US goal ? That question is more important than anything else.
See U.S. Threatens to Nuke Iran:
Because Nuclear Threats are Inexcusable
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:uFDKudzy4oAJ:www.nukewatch.com/pathfinder/20062summer/page%25201.pdf+u.s+threatens+to+use+nukes&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&client=safari
| Quote: |
| The U.S.A. has committed more than 250 unprovoked military attacks on other nations since 1947-48 (not including CIA operations, like Chile). |
were they unprovoked? Was the US wrong to fight the cold war?
Oh great a source of the far left 
| Quote: |
| So who is more dangerous? |
who is more evil? Is "dangerous" power or goals?
Mohammad Ali said " I am dangerous" What did he mean by that?
who is more evil. Who wants to do more evil is the better question.
| Quote: |
| This is from the Gore Vidal interview url'ed above: |
big deal
For further details on this history see also William Blum�s edifying and exhaustive Killing Hope: U.S.
Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II with 55 chapters spanning interventions throughout
the world from 1945 to 1994 and three appendices, the third of which lists 40 U.S. government
assassination plots of prominent foreign individuals since the end of WWII and his 1993 work Rogue
State: A Guide to the World�s Only Superpower . In September 2002 in an article entitled " Why
Terrorists Hate America", Blum closed with the words,
If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few
days. Permanently. I would first apologize to all the widows and orphans, the tortured and
impoverished, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I
would announce, in all sincerity, to every corner of the world, that America�s global
interventions have come to an end, and inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of
the USA but now -- oddly enough -- a foreign country. I would then reduce the military
budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims. There would
be more than enough money. One year�s military budget of 330 billion dollars is equal to
more than $18,000 an hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That�s what I�d do
on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I�d be assassinatedhttp://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/GV070502.html
Blah Blah William Blum is a far left wing disinformation artist.
Question : was the US wrong to fight the cold war?
Going on:
South Korea spends more on its miltary than does North Korea.
Around half of US military spending goes for salaries and benefits.
How much does China spend on those things?
What are labor costs in the US?
How about in China?
Other nations do not accuratly report their true defense spending. See China and Iran. and others.
The best Soviet fighter is much cheaper than the US F-22. Is the F-22 better? If it is then not by much.
Economies of scale.
In LA al for two costs like 40 bucks. How about in Korea? Like 25 bucks. Is that meal in LA so much better?
Your arguement is flawed, your reason is flawed and probably your motive is flawed.
Besides is the goal to be the same or to be able to win?
Good bye Daniel Ortega. Daniel Ortega is a rapist by the way.
By the wayBlum includes the Korean war as one of the American aggressions.
Gee Hep Cat is in Korea. W/O that evil American war well he would not have a job.
Hep Cat go to North Korea I bet they need teachers there.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Wed Sep 20, 2006 8:14 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, Ahmedinejad is just doing what a politician should. He is trying to rally support among his constituants and is spouting rhetoric. He isn't trying to get his country nuked. He's the GWB of the middle east; he's clueless about the real issues but appeals only to the religious-minded morons.
Anyone read the article in Time/Newsweek about him this week? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hepcat wrote: |
| "The Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and has another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories..." There are only 193 countries in the world. 130 of 193...Who is trying to take over the world? |
Hepcat: You are repeating the anti-U.S., pro-Communist propaganda that has been hurled our way by the likes of every enemy we have faced since the Korean War. You are functioning as their tool.
I am going to throw my friend Ddeubel's "line" at you: you need to stop mindlessly accepting others' propaganda and start to think for yourself. It requires "constant guardening" and a neverending questioning of one's assumptions.
We withdrew from world affairs after the First World War, and everything promptly went to hell.
Many complained about it.
We staked out a position in world affairs after the Second World War, and have thus far avoided economic stagnation, depressions or collapse, and subsequent world wars.
Yet, still, many are complaining about it.
I submit that people who complain are just complainers, and nothing would really satisfy them.
In any case, we are here. Everyone would likely be much worse off if we were not. Deal with it.
Also, on Blum and his value-laden, overly preachy "history" of postwar U.S. intervention: you cannot quit your (non-Foreign Service Officer) position at State during the height of the Vietnam War, and quit in dramatic style no less, then denounce the United States and especially the CIA, subsequently collaborate with the likes of Agee in identifying and then publishing names and addresses of specific CIA case officers, employees, and foreign agents (which led to many of them being hunted down and killed), move on to present the U.S. as the cause of all that is unholy in the world, indeed, accuse the U.S. of perpetrating and then covering up a Holocaust, and then, finally, complain that in recent years you have been unable to get a good job in the federal govt or cannot get a new security clearance because official Washington doesn't like or trust you anymore.
Yet this is exactly what Blum is complaining about these days.
Also, Blum's own description and complaint that he has been thus "forced to produce eccentric books for a living" reveals a point about all of this that you and the other far left, antiEstablishment critics out there, I am sure, will bitterly reject to the end: be it Blum, Oliver Stone, The X-Files, or any number of other "sources" about twisted conspiracies, covert operations, and the evilness in U.S. foreign policy, you have clearly been identified and targeted as a regular and reliable consumer group and have been actively marketed to and exploited for decades by "the system" -- that is, by people who drive BMWs, use Bank of America, and live in plush homes. And you just keep buying it up (and uncritically, too)...
So then, you cite Vidal who in turn cites Blum as the final word on covert operations? Are you kidding me? Would you find an ex-girlfriend (or ex-boyfriend, however it may be for you) who hated and despised you and allow them to have the final word on you and your character? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Iraq Grave And Deteriorating, Report Warns US
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Iraq's plight is "grave and deteriorating" a top-level US panel warned, saying most combat troops could be withdrawn by early 2008 and urging threats to force the Iraqi government to improve security.
The bipartisan Iraq Study Group also said the United States should launch an "immediate" diplomatic offensive initiative including talks with Iran and Syria but warned there was "no guarantee" changes to US strategy would work.
It said if Iraq continues get worse, its government could collapse and ignite a "humanitarian catastrophe" prompting neighboring countries to intervene and hand a propaganda victory to Al-Qaeda.
The 10-member bipartisan panel headed by political veterans James Baker and Lee Hamilton handed its much-awaited report to President George W. Bush, who said the 79 recommendations would be taken "very seriously" without making any guarantees.
"The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating," warned the report, a copy of which was obtained by AFP ahead of its public release.
"If the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences will be severe," it added.
The report also called on Bush to launch a major effort to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
The Bush administration is also conducting its own internal review of Iraq policy. But the president said: "This report gives a very tough assessment of the situation in Iraq. It is a report that brings some really very interesting proposals, and we will take every proposal seriously, and we will act in a timely fashion."
The report will be officially released to Congress and unveiled to the public later Wednesday. The group was to brief Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in a video conference from the White House.
Its release came on the day Bush's top war ally British Prime Minister Tony Blair flies into Washington, after admitting that he agreed with the assessment of Bush's pick for defense secretary Robert Gates that US forces and their remaining allies were not winning the war.
The report recommends "extensive and substantive" talks with Iran and Syria. Bush has rejected direct talks with two US foes he accuses of meddling in Iraq and fomenting instability in the wider Middle East.
Bush should also shed his reluctance to engage directly in Middle East peacemaking, the report said.
"The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability," read the report.
The Iraq Study Group also proposed a major drawdown of US troops in Iraq.
"By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq."
A US rapid reaction force could be retained to strike against Al-Qaeda and US forces would remain embedded with Iraqi units and in special operations and force protection teams.
White House spokesman Tony pointed out however the report did not include detailed timetables for a retreat -- a condition already rejected by the White House.
"There is a recommendation that we do a surge in terms of increasing as rapidly as possible the number of forces working as embeds," meaning trainers, Snow said.
Bush has vowed US troops will remain in Iraq until their mission is complete.
It remained unclear however, just how many recommendations the Bush administration would pick up -- or if the report could impact deteriorating conditions in Iraq, where tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed in bloody sectarian fighting between factions of the Shiite majority and the once-dominant Sunnis.
Fighters from abroad have also traveled to battle the US-led forces.
The US military death toll in the conflict is beyond the 2,900 mark and public dissatisfaction with the administration's handling of the conflict was cited as the primary factor behind Bush's Republican Party losing control of Congress in November's elections.
Many panel members have concluded that the Iraq war is essentially lost, the Washington Post reported, citing private correspondence and interviews with participants.
The Congress-mandated Iraq Study Group was created in March to study the Iraq crisis. It has conducted scores of interviews, including Bush, Blair, foreign diplomats, officials and academics.
In Iraq, Maliki said he was organizing a conference aimed at bringing together the country's bitterly divided political and sectarian factions.
"We will agree on a charter of honor to end the shedding of Iraqi blood and the sectarian conflict," Maliki told reporters Tuesday.
Sectarian and insurgent violence has continued unabated in Iraq with dozens killed every day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
Is Ahmedinjahed actually a troll?
|
I think you've definitely hit on something here. I'm pretty sure that middle eastern despots, in the privacy of their offices and chambers, have been musing about annihilating Israel since Israel was founded. But Ahmedinjahed does it on TV and it gets talked up as if his finger is already half an inch away from the launch button.
Yeah, yeah I know. He's trying to develop nukes and oh my god what if he uses them. Well, with Israel already armed to the teeth with nukes, I'm pretty sure the MAD logic would apply to the middle east. |
I dont think MAD logic applies to Iran. The grand Ayatollah once said "Who cares if Iran goes up in flames, as long as islam is spread around the world"
The Iranian preident beleives the Isl;amic Savior, or Mahdi will return when the world is in Chaos to install a muslim caliphate. Maybe he feels a nuclear apocalypse with israel/US would be sufficient for this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
