Bush Threatens To Complete World-Record Quagmire Hat Trick With Invasion Of Iran

[BasketCase]

How many wars has the Ayatollah started in the last few years?

Ack. Me and Eyrei mixin' it up again.

Since Osama dealt the first blow, one could say Osama started the war between the U.S. and Afghanistan.

Since Iraq War #1 was fought with the approval of the UN, and since Saddam repeatedly violated the peace treaty he signed at the end of it, one could say Iraq War #2 was simply a continuation of Iraq War #1--which was started by Saddam, not the U.S.


The above aren't necessarily my opinions. Well, one of them is. Anyway, if asked what it is that makes a war bad, a lot of people are going to give the very sensible answer that it's because people get killed.

However, wars kill fewer people than some of life's other disasters, and people are frequently also willing to start wars over problems that do not kill people. The U.S. revolution against Britain killed more people than the British government killed before we revolted.....

 

[wit>trope]

You just throw a racist comment in there and think that it makes you right "Oh yeah they got turbans bomb em oh yeah turbans bomb him good" I think Georage bush has his Tie tied to hard and its causing him overheat and invade Iran.

also im not sure but while america was losing veitnam didn't some president (nixon i think) invade cambodia to make it look like they were wining

How was his comment even "racist" when people of all races are Muslims and people of all races wear turbans? He was obviously making a comment about the fanatical religious bent and not about the race. I for one love the Persian race. There are many beautiful Persian women Persians are actually "Aryans" and it was these Aryans whom historians say invaded or settled India resulting in the mix of the Aryans and the presumably Australoid indigenous people.

Getting back to the topic, I think invading Iran with ground troops and having a full scale occupation would be a bad idea and to be avoided at all costs except as a very last resort (well second to last, obviously something like a preemptive nuclear strike would be the absolute last resort). A much better option would be a naval and/or air blockade and/or special forces and/or air strikes possibly with the new mini nukes aka small nukes aka smart nukes specifically designed for deep underground "bunker busting." Ideally Israel would act alone so that all the heat would be on Israel. Some former Israel military officials have already said that Israel will for sure not let Iran get the bomb and that if the US doesn't take on Iran, that Israel will. We should quickly and quietly give Israel all the tech and equipment it needs and let Israel be the brave one

 

[aaglo]

Why Iran shouldn't have nukes, if it actually could develop them, when there are already so many nukes around?

 

[boogaboo]

As an Israeli, Iran developing nukes means only one thing - the disappearance of about a million israelis (including myself), namely - Tel-Aviv.
I cannot see it developing nukes for "peaceful" purposes.

If you think war with Iran is worse, I must disagree, although the US could do without us.

The scenario logic is this :
Iran develops nukes (90%)---> Tel-Aviv is nuked (100%)---> Iran is totally nuked by Israel, sparing some deep bunkers..

If the last scenario is worse for the US than a US-Iran war is for Georgeboy and history to decide.
Just remember I might not be there for insight

 

[aaglo]

As an Israeli, Iran developing nukes means only one thing - the disappearance of about a million israelis (including myself), namely - Tel-Aviv.

Whoa! What have you done to them to make them so mad at you?

I cannot see it developing nukes for "peaceful" purposes.

I can't see it either, but that's what the americans did in the early 1940's - with anything but a peaceful outcome.

 

[Ramius75]

As an Israeli, Iran developing nukes means only one thing - the disappearance of about a million israelis (including myself), namely - Tel-Aviv.
I cannot see it developing nukes for "peaceful" purposes.

If you think war with Iran is worse, I must disagree, although the US could do without us.

The scenario logic is this :
Iran develops nukes (90%)---> Tel-Aviv is nuked (100%)---> Iran is totally nuked by Israel, sparing some deep bunkers..

If the last scenario is worse for the US than a US-Iran war is for Georgeboy and history to decide.
Just remember I might not be there for insight

But the question is. what incentive does Iran has to attack israel ?? Did Iran ever attack Israel directly ? I think just as Israel fear a proxy war from Iran. Doesnt Iran fear a proxy war from Israel ? As a matter of fact, giving the geographic situation, i dont think Iran will ever need to guard against Israel unless of coz, hypothectically, Israel launch a first strike against Iran nuclear facilities, causing a fallout and drawing First blood.

I dont think the "other" foreign countries will ever look favouably at Israel after that.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think its a bit far fetched to say israel/Iran will go to war. They need each other to much as each provides a convenient scapegoat for everything that goes wrong. Terrorism- Iran. Imperialistic Zionist Invaders- Israel.

Heck if Israel got blown up in a nuclear fireball the Arab leaders and Iran would have to be responsable for their owen screw ups.

 

[brennan]

Iran develops nukes (90%)---> Tel-Aviv is nuked (100%

Wow. And remember, tomorrow the sky will fall on our heads.

Please explain why a country would give the rest of the world a good reason to blast it out of existence.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

Bah? Presidents always say all options are on the table. A more likely reason for confrontation is Iran's support of terrorism.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Less disinformation, more truth!

How was his comment even "racist" when people of all races are Muslims and people of all races wear turbans? He was obviously making a comment about the fanatical religious bent and not about the race.

Wearing the turban is a sign of devotion? I wasn't aware that this was true for Muslims. You may be confusing them with the Sikhs. Actually, now I think of it, in Sikhism as well the turban has little religious significance. It is instead a symbol of the "universal caste" which was intended to make all followers equal (since the turban was previously a mark of high birth or even royalty). In Arab countries on the other hand the turban has cultural significance and practical significance (the same as a Stetson hat in the deserts of the American West, really) but not much religious significance.

Generally, I think rmsharpe's comment just demonstrated a common misunderstanding but not an egregious one

I for one love the Persian race.

Certainly there is much to admire about Persian culture. The language, Farsi, is one of the most beautiful in the region and the Zoroastrian religion is probably the oldest monotheism on Earth.

Persians are actually "Aryans" and it was these Aryans whom historians say invaded or settled India resulting in the mix of the Aryans and the presumably Australoid indigenous people.

Ah, now we see why you like them Well, you're mixed up about "Aryan" I think.

The word aryan (Sanskrit arya) refers to the proto-Persian culture/language/lineage/nation uniquely, and thus also to its descendants, the Iranian and various Indian cultures. It is a mistake to use "aryan" as a synonym with "Indo-European" in the same way it is a mistake to equate "French" with "Romance language" - the aryan identity branched off the general Indo-European heritage.

The mistake arises from the interpretation of some German historians of the 19th century (Völkerwanderung, German lit. "wandering peoples") which hypothesized that the aryan identity and all Indo-European identities branched off of the same ancient Germanic peoples which produced the Goths and the Vandals. Although this interpretation was tenuous (and has been rejected by research since 1800) it lead directly to, well, a certain arrogance on the part of the German people.

Oh yeah, and the Holocaust.

Heck, the entire theory of an "Aryan invasion" of India is hotly disputed. We know there is a clear division between North India and South India culturally, and to a certain extent in ethnicity - but is the northern group the result of an invasion? Remember, there was already extant in North India at that time the single mightiest and largest civilization outside of China - the Indus Valley group. That kind of civilization does not come crashing down without leaving signs, and archeological evidence is scarse.

It makes me extremely uncomfortable that the original theory was proposed at a time when Europe was seeking to retroactively justify colonization, and that the basic evidence for the first exposition of the theory was entirely linguistic, with little archeology involved. I found it difficult to find neutral POV information on this but it looks like a more current theory is that the "invaders" were really peaceful migrants who settled and comingled with the existing Indus peoples.

Really, the whole historical question has been needlessly and politically charged by what I see as Aryan (not aryan) pseudoscience. As for claims that you feel communion or companionship with the Persian people based on the fact that they are "also Aryans" I don't know if any of my Farsi-speaking friends would agree with you

 

[wit>trope]

Certainly there is much to admire about Persian culture. The language, Farsi, is one of the most beautiful in the region and the Zoroastrian religion is probably the oldest monotheism on Earth.

I don't know Farsi though I have heard it once and it didn't strike me as especially beautiful (perhaps its beautiful relative to the region as you say). The fuss over Zoroastrainism seems to me to be PC talk so I tend to discount it. Judaism is the oldest monotheistic religion on earth. But the best thing Persians have going for them is their beautiful women

Ah, now we see why you like them Well, you're mixed up about "Aryan" I think.

I don't think I am. I said the Persians are Aryans and that's true.

The word aryan (Sanskrit arya) refers to the proto-Persian culture/language/lineage/nation uniquely,

OK, but isn't that kind of what I said when I said the PERSIANS are Aryans?

and thus also to its descendants, the Iranian

This is were you are slightly off because PRESENT DAY "Iranians" often refer to themselves as PERSIANS. So it's not like they aren't Persians anymore. Many of them, especially those that are not of a fanatical Islamic bent, still refer to themselves as Persians and even decidedly avoid referring to themselves as Iranians.

and various Indian cultures. It is a mistake to use "aryan" as a synonym with "Indo-European"

OK, but that's not what I was doing

The mistake arises from the interpretation of some German historians of the 19th century (Völkerwanderung, German lit. "wandering peoples") which hypothesized that the aryan identity and all Indo-European identities branched off of the same ancient Germanic peoples which produced the Goths and the Vandals. Although this interpretation was tenuous (and has been rejected by research since 1800) it lead directly to, well, a certain arrogance on the part of the German people.

Oh yeah, and the Holocaust.

Holy cow! Somehow everything for you is about the Germans, World War II and the Holocaust I didn't mention any one of these things but somehow you end up talking about them ... just like in the other thread someone responded to Dida's comments by bringing up white women being raped and God and Jesus (when Dida didn't even mention anything white or anything women or anything about sex and when Dida is not only not a Christian but an ATHEIST!) ... also for someone who is so against "prejudice" you sure seem to be prejudiced yourself by saying the German people have been led to possess a certain "arrogance."

Heck, the entire theory of an "Aryan invasion" of India is hotly disputed.

It's the majority view though, isn't it?

We know there is a clear division between North India and South India culturally, and to a certain extent in ethnicity - but is the northern group the result of an invasion? Remember, there was already extant in North India at that time the single mightiest and largest civilization outside of China - the Indus Valley group. That kind of civilization does not come crashing down without leaving signs, and archeological evidence is scarse.

Newsflash regarding China. They found ancient Caucasian people's remains in China in a relatively recent archealogical dig. This suggests that the founding of the great Chinese civilization was actually the result of these Caucasians . From AFP (a FRENCH news agency) and KHALEEJ Times and PBS (photo):

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/Display...ysfeatures_April37.xml&section=todaysfeatures

Genetic testing reveals awkward truth about Xinjiang’s famous mummies
(AFP)

19 April 2005

URUMQI, China - After years of controversy and political intrigue, archaeologists using genetic testing have proven that Caucasians roamed China’s Tarim Basin 1,000 years before East Asian people arrived.

The research, which the Chinese government has appeared to have delayed making public out of concerns of fueling Uighur Muslim separatism in its western-most Xinjiang region, is based on a cache of ancient dried-out corpses that have been found around the Tarim Basin in recent decades.

“It is unfortunate that the issue has been so politicized because it has created a lot of difficulties,” Victor Mair, a specialist in the ancient corpses and co-author of “Mummies of the Tarim Basin”, told AFP.

“It would be better for everyone to approach this from a purely scientific and historical perspective.”

The discoveries in the 1980s of the undisturbed 4,000-year-old ”Beauty of Loulan” and the younger 3,000-year-old body of the ”Charchan Man” are legendary in world archaeological circles for the fine state of their preservation and for the wealth of knowledge they bring to modern research.

New findings and discoveries

In historic and scientific circles the discoveries along the ancient Silk Road were on a par with finding the Egyptian mummies.

But China’s concern over its rule in restive Xinjiang has widely been perceived as impeding faster research into them and greater publicity of the findings.

The desiccated corpses, which avoided natural decomposition due to the dry atmosphere and alkaline soils in the Tarim Basin, have not only given scientists a look into their physical biologies, but their clothes, tools and burial rituals have given historians a glimpse into life in the Bronze Age.

Mair, who played a pivotal role in bringing the discoveries to Western scholars in the 1990s, has worked tirelessly to get Chinese approval to take samples out of China for definitive genetic testing.

One expedition in recent years succeeded in collecting 52 samples with the aide of Chinese researchers, but later Mair’s hosts had a change of heart and only let five of them out of the country.

“I spent six months in Sweden last year doing nothing but genetic research,” Mair said from his home in the United States where he teaches at the University of Pennsylvania.

“My research has shown that in the second millennium BC, the oldest mummies, like the Loulan Beauty, were the earliest settlers in the Tarim Basin.

“From the evidence available, we have found that during the first 1,000 years after the Loulan Beauty, the only settlers in the Tarim Basin were Caucasoid.”

East Asian peoples only began showing up in the eastern portions of the Tarim Basin about 3,000 years ago, Mair said, while the Uighur peoples arrived after the collapse of the Orkon Uighur Kingdom, largely based in modern day Mongolia, around the year 842.

“Modern DNA and ancient DNA show that Uighurs, Kazaks, Krygyzs, the peoples of Central Asia are all mixed Caucasian and East Asian. The modern and ancient DNA tell the same story,” he said.

Mair hopes to publish his new findings in the coming months.

China has only allowed the genetic studies in the last few years, with a 2004 study carried out by Jilin University also finding that the mummies’ DNA had Europoid genes, further proving that the earliest settlers of Western China were not East Asians.

Mixed opinions…

In the preface to the 2002 book, “Ancient Corpses of Xinjiang,” written by Chinese archeologist Wang Huabing, the Chinese historian and Sanskrit specialist Ji Xianlin soundly denounced the use of the mummies by Uighur separatists as proof that Xinjiang should not belong to China.

“What has stirred up the most excitement in academic circles, both in the East and the West, is the fact that the ancient corpses of “white (Caucasoid/Europid) people’ have been excavated,” Jin wrote.

“However, within China a small group of ethnic separatists have taken advantage of this opportunity to stir up trouble and are acting like buffoons, (styling) themselves the descendants of these ancient “white people’ with the aim of dividing the motherland.”

Further on, in an apparent swipe at the government’s lack of eagerness to acknowledge the science and publicize it to the world, Ji wrote, “a scientist may not distort facts for political reasons, religious reasons, or any other reason”.

Meanwhile, Yingpan Man, a nearly perfectly preserved 2,000-year-old Caucasoid mummy, was only this month allowed to leave China for the first time, and is being displayed at the Tokyo Edo Museum.

The Yingpan Man, discovered in 1995 in the region that bears his name, has been seen as the best preserved of all the undisturbed mummies that have so far been found.

Yingpan Man not only had a gold foil death mask -- a Greek tradition -- covering his blonde bearded face, but also wore elaborate golden embroidered red and maroon garments with seemingly Western European designs.

His nearly 2.00 meter (six-foot, six-inch) long body is the tallest of all the mummies found so far and the clothes and artifacts discovered in the surrounding tombs suggest the highest level of Caucasoid civilization in the ancient Tarim Basin region.

When the Yingpan Man returns from Tokyo to Urumqi where he has long been kept out of public eye, he is expected to be finally put on display when the new Xinjiang Museum opens this year.

China has hundreds of the mummies in various degrees of dessication and decomposition, including the prominent Han Chinese warrior Zhang Xiong and other Uighur mummies.

However, only a dozen or so are on permanent display in a makeshift building until the new museum is completed.

Photo Courtesy: pbs.org

It makes me extremely uncomfortable that the original theory was proposed at a time when Europe was seeking to retroactively justify colonization, and that the basic evidence for the first exposition of the theory was entirely linguistic, with little archeology involved. I found it difficult to find neutral POV information on this but it looks like a more current theory is that the "invaders" were really peaceful migrants who settled and comingled with the existing Indus peoples.

OK, well that may be a reasonable theory. That's why I said invaded/SETTLED.

Really, the whole historical question has been needlessly and politically charged by what I see as Aryan (not aryan) pseudoscience.

It doesn't matter whether it's capitalized or uncapitalized. Sanscrit IIRC doesn't even have a distinction between lower case and upper case letters. It's generally spelled with the capital in English. When talking about Nordic folk, the word used is Nordic, not Aryan -- Aryan means the Persians. And neither Aryans as the Persians nor Nordic traits are pseudoscience -- they are real people just like anyone else!

As for claims that you feel communion or companionship with the Persian people based on the fact that they are "also Aryans" I don't know if any of my Farsi-speaking friends would agree with you

I never used the words "ALSO Aryans" -- I just said they were Aryans. I also never said I feel communion or companionship with them (not that I necessarily don't). My main point was that Persian women were beautiful and you responded by going on a rant about Germans, WWII, and colonialism ... the colonialism part was related but the WWII thing was unrelated

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

I don't know Farsi though I have heard it once and it didn't strike me as especially beautiful (perhaps its beautiful relative to the region as you say).

There's no accounting for taste.

The fuss over Zoroastrainism seems to me to be PC talk so I tend to discount it. Judaism is the oldest monotheistic religion on earth.

The rest of your misinformation can rest to another day but this (as a Jew) I must correct. Judaism originated as a polytheistic religion... evidences of a purged polytheistic past are present in the Torah, such as elohim. Of course in recorded history we have been very strict monotheists. But Zoroastrianism is still much much older. In fact there are indications that it influenced the development of Islam, Judaism and Christianity. It's not a big religion today - there are only about 3 million of them - but it was once big enough to be the state religion of the Sassanids.

Actually Hinduism is theoretically a kind of monotheism, a panentheism (believing in a single God immanent in his creation). And I believe Hinduism predates both Judaism AND Zoroastrianism. So there is no possible argument that Judaism was first on the scene.

It's the majority view though, isn't it?

You seem to have trouble realizing that science is fundamentally undemocratic. Allow me to remind you that at the time your Saviour walked the earth the majority of humanity believed it to be flat.

It doesn't matter whether it's capitalized or uncapitalized. Sanscrit IIRC doesn't even have a distinction between lower case and upper case letters.

I realize that. I meant only to distinguish betwen aryan as used by linguists and Persians and aryan as used by people like you.

 

[brennan]

Hang on, Zoroaster was only about 600-500BC, not that old. Wikipedia gives about 1500-1300BC for Hinduism. It gives no specific dates for Judaism though, but it seems likely to be about 4000 years old in one form or another.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Zoroaster's age is disputed. The date traditionally passed down is 588 BC, however linguistic analysis of the Gathas (Zoroaster's writings) indicate a far earlier date, perhaps as early as 1400 BC. A similar date (around 1000 BC) is given by archeological comparison to the contemporary world described in the Gathas (a nomadic civilization etc). I already mentioned that Zoroastrianism became the official religion of various Persian empires - it's possible that "reinterpreting" Zoroaster as a more recent, nationalist prophet occurred at this time maybe?

Judaism... I don't remember exactly. But I believe Judaism became an official monotheism only at the time of the Deuteronomists. The estimate for that is around 700-650 BC I think.

 

[wit>trope]

The rest of your misinformation can rest to another day but this (as a Jew) I must correct. Judaism originated as a polytheistic religion... evidences of a purged polytheistic past are present in the Torah, such as elohim.

You certainly have a right to your opinion but Orthodox Jews would disagree with your statement as would, according to wikipedia "most religious Jews":

According to Orthodox Judaism and most religious Jews, the Biblical patriarch Abraham was the first Jew.[continue reading]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism#Religious_view_of_the_development_of_Judaism

I know the traditional Jews I have encountered maintain that Judaism did not have any polytheistic origins. With regard to "elohim" -- one explanation for it is that it is a teaching or allusion to the Trinity. Another explanation for it (favored among traditional Jews) is that it evokes simply the majesty of God. For those who don't know "elohim" is the Jewish common word for God (there are other ways to signify God of course) and it is in the plural.

Now, I realize that even atheists can be Jews, but I just wanted to share the traditional Jewish view point.

Allow me to remind you that at the time your Saviour walked the earth the majority of humanity believed it to be flat.

I don't believe that is true. Well it might be true if you include every single person in the world in both the Old and New World, but it's not true if you include only the educated classes of the civilized world and probably not true if you even include everyone in the civilized world. It is a common myth that Columbus proved that the world was not round. He didn't. The roundness of the world was known from ancient times and proved from ancient times.

P.S. I love the Jewish people too. Jewish women are often very beautiful and I've had the pleasure of "knowing" some of them a tiny bit in the biblical kind of sense (but as I said only a "tiny bit" far from "all the way") IYKWIM

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

I don't believe that is true. Well it might be true if you include every single person in the world in both the Old and New World, but it's not true if you include only the educated classes of the civilized world and probably not true if you even include everyone in the civilized world. It is a common myth that Columbus proved that the world was not round. He didn't. The roundness of the world was known from ancient times and proved from ancient times.

Why are you dancing around the question? At various times in history people have believed things that were laughably false. Period. Scientific findings don't depend on majority votes, and your constant and irritating appeals to false authority simply show that you don't understand the scientific process.

Regarding Judaism, all I've got to say is that Jews who believe in the Trinity are equivalent to your gay friends who have all these nice organizations to try to straighten them out again and "refrain" from acts of "homosex."

 

[wit>trope]

Regarding Judaism, all I've got to say is that Jews who believe in the Trinity are equivalent to your gay friends who have all these nice organizations to try to straighten them out again and "refrain" from acts of "homosex."

What a COMPLETE DODGE. Only ONE SENTENCE of my post was about people who believed in the Trinity and I wasn't EVEN talking specifically about Jews there. I actually had in mind contrasting the Christian interpretation with the traditional Jewish interpretation -- BOTH of which disagreed with yours. And this was just a sidepoint to the main point which is the fact attested to by wikipedia that Orthodox Jews and most religious Jews disagree with your viewpoint that Judaism is of a polytheistic origin. Now as I already said, I realize that even atheists can be Jews. All I wanted to do was to include OTHER traditional Jewish viewpoints ... and you respond with a swipe and dodge

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

As Jews we can believe whatever we like. As Christians, to take another example, you have a worrying tendency to see Yeshua the Christ as a divine manifestation of God, despite the fact that this interpretation is denied in many of the contemporary gospels (4 out of 80 of which were eventually chosen for inclusion on the basis of their belief in a trinitarian Jesus - the rest burnt and their believers massacred and/or excommunicated).

There is a big, big difference therefore between theological debate and historical debate As far as I'm concerned I have not heard that historians are divided about the idea of a Deuteronomist conversion to monotheism. That places Judaism as much as 5 centuries after the development of Mazdic monotheism and means that we can hypothesize that one was POSSIBLY influenced by the other. Now I don't know why you're getting so hysterical about that

 

[wit>trope]

From your most recent post:

As Jews we can believe whatever we like.

From your next to most recent post:

Regarding Judaism, all I've got to say is that Jews who believe in the Trinity are equivalent to your gay friends who have all these nice organizations to try to straighten them out again and "refrain" from acts of "homosex."

So which is it?

There is a big, big difference therefore between theological debate and historical debate As far as I'm concerned I have not heard that historians are divided about the idea of a Deuteronomist conversion to monotheism. That places Judaism as much as 5 centuries after the development of Mazdic monotheism and means that we can hypothesize that one was POSSIBLY influenced by the other. Now I don't know why you're getting so hysterical about that

Are you talking about the JEPD theory? That theory is not universally accepted and serious doubts have been raised about it.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

No, I'm talking about the apocryphal gospels (stupid term for them - they're as relevant as Luke - but that's what they're called).