Power and Weakness - The Truth about European Attitudes in the Modern World

Ed if you want to try and rehash those old arguments then that's fine; but the 'wipe Israel and Israelis off the map' stuff has been challenged long ago
(and recent interviews do not support the claim either).

You can also pretend that the only people ever to do anything questionable in regard to 'terrorism' are the Iranians if you like but you're in a minority there.
You can also pretend that history does not show the USA into a similar light many times but again you'll be turning your face away from the historic truth.

In any event 'we' European are not doing 'nothing'.

That's what is so laughable about all of this.

'We' had go anywhere anytime inspections (which really did included all the Iranian installations); we had the 24/7 monitoring.
We kept everyone that would talking directly
(something the USA might considering actually trying instead of spoofing off about thinking about doing, it might help).

But 'we' are not going to attack anyone on a simple evidence-free 'say so'.

'We're' not going to cause the illegal, inhuman, totally unnecessary and avoidable wider damage that attacks on the legal Iranian nuclear power plants and research centres would inflict on the innocent Iranian population just because of some dodgy intel information no-one except the USA has (or should I say claims to have).

......and this revoltingly callous and idiotic idea that mere bombing can achieve anything productive is as laughable as it is insanely dangerous.

The truth is that in most cases bombing the Iranian nuclear installations would, in effect, be like a dirty nuclear bomb attack on Iranian civillians and population centres.....in fact it could easily spread out well beyond Iran to be effectively an attack on huge areas of the ME and the nearby sub-continent.

You must be so proud to advocating and contemplating that.....and pretty blind to imagine that would or could ever be the end of it.

So, particularly after the Iraqi debacle, we'll stick to the facts, the actual evidence, international inspections and on-going dialogue.

Your idea that some reported scary comments/words are, alone and in themselves, a serious basis for war - or such potentially and disgracefully inhuman and careless series of attacks - is not something 'Europe' will ever be receptive to; not even the UK, thankfully.

Personally I'm very glad about that.



[edit on 4-10-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by edsinger
What? Iran has STATED they want Isreal WIPED off the map. How more plain can that be? Iran actively funds terrorism around the WORLD. What about the recent activities in Lebanon?

Yet WE ourselves have done the exact damm same, mabye you've forgotten your countries support to the IRA.

Invade? Not at all - no need to. It would be helpful if the Europeans would quit pussyfooting around and start stinging the Mullah's back a bit.

And do what? Bomb them? Didnt we learn that doesnt work, WW1= didnt work.
GW1= didnt work. Notice a patern?

It would seem that the Russians and the Chinese have other plans though, so the UN is AGAIN worthless and HELPLESS to do anything.

Yet again those damm reds huh, best get the good old colour plans out ed.
Get the davey crocket out while your at it.

Invade? thats funny..........

HINT: STONE AGE COMMENT TO PAKISTAN......

Hint: WW1 we destroyed the german armed forces until we reached the border and they surrendered, 20 years later and germany yet again invades.

Ok Ok your right...lets just stick our heads in the sand and do NOTHING, Lets just sit around, have a few beers and talk about it. When nothing happens, we can talk some more.....

Then when Tel-Aviv lights up, I guess we can ........???? Yes talk about it. Maybe them guys will be nice and not support terror anymore.

One thing that can be said for the whole Iraq thing, Saddam is no longer paying 25k for bombers, no longer supporting terrorism, no longer killing his own people, and the list goes on. If it was up to the UN or the Europeans we would still be talking and the Chinese and Russians would still be dealing under the table. I exclude some European nations from this because a few still have balls.....

"Why can't we all just get along?"

Originally posted by edsinger
Ok Ok your right...lets just stick our heads in the sand and do NOTHING, Lets just sit around, have a few beers and talk about it. When nothing happens, we can talk some more.....

Yes stick our heads in the sand, yes that old jibe...come on ed cant you buff up your material once in a while that ones getting old.
We are not suggesting we "stick our heads in the sand" we suggest a course diffrent from : "Do as we say or this 1000 pound bomb WILL fly into your childrens window, or was that the suspected terrorists house I forget.

Then when Tel-Aviv lights up, I guess we can ........???? Yes talk about it. Maybe them guys will be nice and not support terror anymore.

Tel-Aviv lights up? What is there a smoking ban or something?

One thing that can be said for the whole Iraq thing, Saddam is no longer paying 25k for bombers, no longer supporting terrorism, no longer killing his own people, and the list goes on.

No sadamm is living in a nice cell protected and in an never ending trial while the people of iraq suffer death, pestillance and terror everyday a foriegn soldier stays on thier land. Yeah nice job buddy.

If it was up to the UN or the Europeans we would still be talking and the Chinese and Russians would still be dealing under the table. I exclude some European nations from this because a few still have balls.....

"Why can't we all just get along?"

If it was up to the europeans (BTW I am a european.) we wouldnt be in iraq, over a hundred of my countrymen would be alive and we wouldnt have this mess called iraq because no one thought of an exit strategy.

Mabye you've forgotten that yours AND my intelligence agencies LIED yes LIED about WMD's, sadam HAD WMD's yes your right there but not those that he wasnt allowed. Not one of the weapons the CIA said where there ARE there. Not one of the weapons programs that MI6 suggested MIGHT be there ARE there.
So why did we actually go in ed? To free iraq from a dictator? What right do you have to bring death to a country in the name of freedom and democracy?

Originally posted by edsinger
Ok Ok your right...lets just stick our heads in the sand and do NOTHING

- Yeah right.
Of course.
It's just a regular case of one or the other to you, right?
OK ed, have it your way, you seem to think that's what we were talking about.


On-going go anywhere anytime inspections are just "nothing" to you.
24/7 remote monitoring is just "nothing" to you.
Maintaining serious high-level contact to question and inform each other is just "nothing" to you.

......obviously to you the only thing that's an acceptable 'something' is an attack on the completely legal civilian nuclear program.
Clearly you could care less that this is likely to poison large parts of Iran and cause great suffering and long-term injury to the innocent population of Iran and the peoples of the surrounding countries.

Not exactly the most intelligent or practical suggestion, I'd suggest.
Way to ensure an entire region/ethnic/sectarian group completely turn against you for just about forever.

......and you can fool yourself that you would never reap what you sowed.
May God forgive and help you.

Then when Tel-Aviv lights up

- Your imagination really is vivid, if somewhat divorced from any credible reality.

Even if Iran were to gain a functioning nuclear weapon (and the means to deliver it) what do you imagine Israel and the USA's response would be to a nuclear attack, hmmm?

We (and therefore Iran) know Israel has submarine based nuclear missiles.
The delusion that Iran not only could have one or two functional (but kept secret so untested) nuclear weapons but also could hoard so many of these weapons to 'knock Israel out' in a sneak attack is laughable fantasy.

You'll find no serious intel to that effect anywhere outside the most deluded gung-ho US 'minds'........and even in the US (hard as they've tried chipping away at it) the latest estimates are (if it is happening at all) that Iran is many years away from such a (single) weapon.

Obviously the conceit that 'they' just aren't 'like us' ( spot the standard dehumanising tactics, huh?) and are so crazy as to ignore the inevitable and 100% certain overwhelming response in kind (annihilating Iran and the Iranian people and having grotesque side effects on people surrounding them) is just the fantasy you prefer.

Saddam is no longer paying 25k for bombers

- Saddam paid money to the families of those who lost relatives in the 'war' against Israel, not quite the same thing.

.....and this has just what exactly to do with your claims about an Iranian nuclear program/weapon?

no longer supporting terrorism

- Back to that black and white hat wearing one-dimensional view of the world where the only people ever to 'support' the 'terrorists' are the others huh?

.....and this has just what exactly to do with your claims about an Iranian nuclear program/weapon?

no longer killing his own people

- It's funny if somewhat sad how this sort of thing seems to only concern you guys so much when you fall out with someone like Saddam and yet the instances of US friendliness - right now - towards similar brutal dictators elsewhere is no big deal, eh?

.....and, again, this has just what exactly to do with your claims about an Iranian nuclear program/weapon?

I exclude some European nations from this because a few still have balls.

- I wouldn't bother trying to delude yourself with that kind of nonsense ed.

There is absolutely zero appetite for a new attack in Iran or Syria in any of the European countries.
The UK included.

Like I have said to you before the truth is that you really have got yourselves an administration that has managed to turn genuine and heart-felt world-wide sympathy and support following 9/11 into an almost complete isolation today.
That took some doing.

"Why can't we all just get along?"

- Wouldn't it be good if some of your guys attempted a little more of that instead of the present pig-headed unilateral approach currently being insisted upon which is isolating you from even those who share basic values with you?

It might even have come in useful when your guys were fermenting religious extremists, funding and training them in terrorism (or maybe it was called 'urban warfare' or 'asymetric warfare'? How come no-one ever asks Oliver North what he told Osama?) when they thought them useful and it suited them.

Naaa, don't worry ed, no point even giving that a moments thought.
Comfort yourself with silly notions that we're just 'morally corrupt' or some such self-justifying ridiculous nonsense.
Everyone else is always wrong ed.

Haven't really got much to add, as usual the stirling work by Sminkey far outstrips any contribution that I could make.

However, I came across this and thought it may add something to the debate.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's hard-line president has ordered nuclear facilities opened to foreign tourists to prove that the nation's disputed atomic program is peaceful, state-run television reported on Wednesday.

"After an order by the president ... foreign tourists can visit Iran's nuclear facilities," the head of Iran's tourism division, Esfandiar Rahim Mashai, was quoted as saying.

Mashai said President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad issued the order to show that Iran's nuclear program it aims to generate fuel, not weapons.

Iran opens nuke plants to tourists

Now I'm just gonna grab some popcorn, sit back, and carry on enjoying the fun of this thread

[edit on 5-10-2006 by ridcully]

Nah, lets just keep talking with them, its worked so far right?

Originally posted by edsinger
Nah, lets just keep talking with them, its worked so far right?

Well bombing the crap out of iraq didnt work last time did it?

Air power has never won a war by itself. Air strikes against Irans Nuclear facilities would be a stop gap measure Iran would renew its Nuclear program as soon as the Air strikes came to a halt. IMO Irans Nuclear program provideds the American public with a reason to lanuch an air war against that countrie the real reason and targets will be the insurgents supply lines and commication networks e.t.c .

Military action against the likes of Iran will be a by product of the war in Iraq.

[edit on 5-10-2006 by xpert11]

No need to bomb the sites, just bomb infrastructure until they wise up. I think the government would fall in a very brief amount of time anyway. It would de-stabilize them and the Mullahs would loose power.

They are close now anyway as the people are getting tired of the mullahs and the crap that they do. The Iranian people just want to join the 21st century without being held back.

The US is NOT as hated there as the press would have you believe.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
It does seem that Europe has put its cards away, folded up the table, took their marbles and went home.

I think that's a problem since Europe should be a major player now that it's an economic superpower and could be on par with the U.S. as far as a stabilizer or even better improving the world, yet they seem to care only about themselves now and criticize us for being too engaged in the world.

What is the right approach? I don't claim to be smart enough to know, but historically it seems when the U.S. was isolationist, the rest of the world went to hell. The same thing might happen if Europe follows that same path.


[edit on 10/1/2006 by djohnsto77]

No, it is actually the other way around.. WE need to be more like EUROPE and care about our selves instead of the rest of the world. Maybe give those billions spent on a drawn out war on education? Maybe a little on healthcare? how about our aging infistructure? No... because we need to help Iraqis and anyone else who seems in distress, even if they arnt, put them in a state of distress and then come to their aid after toppling the government. Right, help the world. Meanhwile Americas interior just deteriorates. How many school shootings in the past 2 weeks?

Originally posted by edsinger
No need to bomb the sites, just bomb infrastructure until they wise up.

Ok, so your the good guys...right?

I think the government would fall in a very brief amount of time anyway. It would de-stabilize them and the Mullahs would loose power.

Going for a second attempt?

They are close now anyway as the people are getting tired of the mullahs and the crap that they do. The Iranian people just want to join the 21st century without being held back.

Right, and who says this? Them or you?

The US is NOT as hated there as the press would have you believe.

Then why do we need to attack?

Ed what are you going to do if someone tried the same tactics on America, you know the lets bomb them till they wise up. Minds are like parachutes, they only work when fully open.

Originally posted by edsinger
No need to bomb the sites, just bomb infrastructure until they wise up. I think the government would fall in a very brief amount of time anyway. It would de-stabilize them and the Mullahs would loose power.

Really ideological boundries go beyond physical means of commication.

The US is NOT as hated there as the press would have you believe.

Have you learnt nothing from Iraq ?
People like you said the same thing about the people of Iraq and look what happened.

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Minds are like parachutes, they only work when fully open.

*rotflmao*

Funny. The whole style of argumentation of the article reminded me of the PNAC publication "Rebuilding America's Defenses"... then sminkeypinkey tells us Kagan is a PNAC member.

The article was a good read, because it explained a lot of the differences between Europe and America (especially those since the Iraq war). But I must admit I don't understand the logic behind - let me paraphrase - "we're powerful, so we have the right to exert our power".

Also, Kagan seems to be ignorant of the fact that humans have established laws millennia ago, maybe even in the stone age, to keep the peace and to protect the many weak individuals from the few strong individuals, so that the strong can't do what they want - because the weak would simply unite forces. So far they haven't, because in one way or another, America and Europe are still close friends when it comes to questions like peace and freedom and stuff like that (it makes them unique in the world). But recently, America has ignored many of these laws - by threatening and attacking other countries and torturing enemy combatants - or re-interpreted them, thus put itself over the law (allegedly to keep the peace) more than once AGAINST the well-meant adivises from its closest friend. That's why friendships can break sometimes.

There's no need to worry, though. The ties are still very close - the German Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz, for example, had to admit they have closely cooperated with the CIA and interrogated turkish Guanatamo Bay detainee Murat Kurnaz (who lived in Bremen) in Camp Delta. They obviously knew of the torture going on there. The Bundesnachrichtendienst also knew of the CIA plane transports of "enemy combatants" (destination torture cell) over European territory. After all, it seems like Europe is knee deep in the same crap with America and just lets big brother do the dirty work.

That's hypocritical, and we, the people both of America and Europe, should end this before we loathe each other for what our governments do in our names.

Akareyon, amazing post, I applaud you.

Originally posted by edsinger
Nah, lets just keep talking with them, its worked so far right?

- Well if you still want to keep insisting that a 2yr suspension of uranium enrichment activities and a host of conditions far beyond the terms of the NPT (like the go anywhere anytime inspections, the 24/7/365 monitoring, the on-going high-level contact etc) are an example of "nothing" or of failure then yeah, you're right.

But it does leave you having to explain why they did the things they did if dialogue is so completely useless.

......and this kind of continuous complaint isn't actually the slightest 'proof' (or satisfactory substitute for it) of any nuclear weapons program, either.

No need to bomb the sites, just bomb infrastructure until they wise up.

- Jayzuss wept, you really do actually want a rerun of some of the Iraq 'strategy'.

Oh right; avoid the nuclear nightmare and just a rerun of the on-going years of the Iraqi humanitarian disaster then?
Well that worked out so well, huh?
Way to win hearts and minds, consolidate a nation/whole region against you and generally create death, injury and suffering on a vast scale.
No sanitation, water or power.

Perhaps you'd like to recommend Cheney's companies et al to go and profit from the catastrophe later on too?

I think the government would fall in a very brief amount of time anyway. It would destabilize them and the Mullahs would loose power.

- That's the pathetically sad thing about all of this.

'The Mullahs' were on their way out.
What actually happened was that they gained huge public electoral support thanks to all the threats and intimidation.

Not exactly the brightest foreign policy at work if you ask me.

They are close now anyway as the people are getting tired of the mullahs and the crap that they do.

- Does this stuff just pop into your head or does someone actually tell you this nonsense/lies?
What evidence have you for claiming this or is it just a personal 'belief'?

You do know the current Iranian President was elected as recently as June 2005, right?

You do know that the effect of this current situation actually creates and solidifies support for their conservative elements?
You're proving them right and helping them, actually, if you could but see it.

(although I have to say I am not convinced this little 'show' isn't in the interests of both parties and more about mutual support, the current US administration is good for the Iranian conservatives and the current Iranian administration is good for the US Bush conservative administration)

The Iranian people just want to join the 21st century without being held back.

- .....but like any sovereign nation when they face threats and intimidation from other countries they tend to turn toward their conservative hard-line element.

Day-dream about this stuff as much as you like ed but Iran is never going back to being a 'US client state'.

The US is NOT as hated there as the press would have you believe.

- .......and you know this how?

Cos an ex-pat group told you so?
(Hello, hello!
When does the penny drop ed?
Don't you ever get tired of being misled by these - so obviously - self-interested agenda driven political ex-pat types......you had all that kind of rubbish pre-Iraq too, remember, the Iraqi people were all to open their arms and love the troops as liberators)

If you honestly imagine Iran is a repressed state that is secretly pro-USA (if only they were 'free' to come out and say it out loud) then you really are fooling yourself ed.

Perhaps you'd have people believe that the SAVAK were all really lovely and never did anything inhuman or wrong ever?
You might like to try rebranding the Gestapo while you're at it too.......?



[edit on 5-10-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

I have talked with Iranian Americans whom still talk to their immediate families in Iran.

As for being elected, yeah and any candidate that did not fall in line with the mullahs was not allowed to run, remember that?

Originally posted by edsinger
I have talked with Iranian Americans whom still talk to their immediate families in Iran.

- OK ed, have it your way.
Iran is a pro-USA state but just can't come out and say it right now.

As for being elected, yeah and any candidate that did not fall in line with the mullahs was not allowed to run, remember that?

- The last people anyone will take too much notice of when being lectured on electoral probity these days is the American right-wing.

You're also side-stepping the issue.
Iran's Presidential election was internationally monitored (and declared to "generally meet international standards") and I think you'll find their turnout was (at 58%) higher than your own last Presidential elections.
en.wikipedia.org...

It's true Iran isn't an American style democracy (but that doesn't seem to be such a big concern or a big deal in say Uzbekistan, does it, hmmmm?)......and what?

You seem to be labouring under the delusion that given the chance Iran would be best buddies with the USA.
Dream on ed; after the US support for the Shah and his 'methods' coupled with the current US 'adventures' and threats it'll be a long long time until the Iranians feel particularly friendly to you guys.

......and, interesting as this diversion has been, you still haven't been able to show anything even remotely resembling a sound reason to attack Iran......

.......or why us 'Europeans' are so wrong to be attempting to resolve the issues of the day by direct contact and dialogue, when it has produced such obvious and tangible benefits previously.

Originally posted by sminkypinky

- OK ed, have it your way.
Iran is a pro-USA state but just can't come out and say it right now.

That's not what I said, there are a great MANY that DO like the WEST and want the Mullahs reign to end, and that is why the government controlled just 'who' ran in the elections....

Originally posted by sminkypinky
You're also side-stepping the issue.
Iran's Presidential election was internationally monitored (and declared to "generally meet international standards") and I think you'll find their turnout was (at 58%) higher than your own last Presidential elections.

See above, the non hard liners could not run......remember that Kim Jung ILL is also elected with a high turnout... Even Lyndon LaRouche can run in the US.

Originally posted by sminkypinky
......and, interesting as this diversion has been, you still haven't been able to show anything even remotely resembling a sound reason to attack Iran......

(1) They have declared internationally that they would like to see Israel blown off the map and are attempting to gain a way to DO IT.
(2) Blatant support for world terrorism
(3)What they are doing in the background in Iraq, they are by proxy attacking the US right now...


How is 3 for you? Should I continue?

Originally posted by sminkypinky
.......or why us 'Europeans' are so wrong to be attempting to resolve the issues of the day by direct contact and dialogue, when it has produced such obvious and tangible benefits previously.

It has?....................................................................


Hmmm, Bosnia? Nope
Sudan?.......Nope.....
N Korea? .....Nope
Saddam? ...... Nope



You cannot appease.....Reagan proved that a position of Strength is the ONLY way to negotiate, period......