sometimes ed occam's razor comes into play.....actually, more often than not - the notion of lex parsimoniae
the simplest explanation is: iran is run by a hostile, unstable regime, one that stays in power through fear & violence, and does not like it's neighbor or its allies - they want to develop nuclear weapons, and are doing anything in their power to do so, including attempting to hide that from the rest of world, hoping they can hold off until they actually have weapons capability, when it will be too late to do anything other than accept them as a nuclear power
conspiracy "theories" (i hate to call them theories, as that implies scientific reasoning) sell, but often the simplest explanation is the most truthful, especially when all the evidence points towards that explanation - iran IS pursuing nuclear capability, it DOES support terrorist organizations, it DOES perpetuate violence, it DOES use violence to maintain power within its own borders, its leaders HAVE come out saying they will bring about armageddon in line with their scripture, their leaders HAVE stated Israel & the US are enemies of their state.......seems pretty simple to me to look at the knowns and draw a reasonable conclusion
So are these the only two choices, either you are deluded and paranoid or we should attack Iran?
I would like to offer a 3rd alternative. That you are still deluded and paranoid and we won't attack Iran.
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
Oooh that sounds like a Super Hero. I like it. My super power is the ability to call idiots on their shiite.
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
There is nothing that can help this discussion. Besides Ed you are not interested in a discussion. You want to preach and call us all sheep.
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
So tell us what your viewpoint is, George, should we attack Iran?
We should indeed attack Iran, but only if they attack us first. We also should continue with sanctions and other non-violent pressure until they agree to open all their facilities to inspectors.
So, Ed, do you agree with that or not?
The GOP big tent now is the size of a pup tent, its floor splattered with guano.
We should indeed attack Iran, but only if they attack us first. We also should continue with sanctions and other non-violent pressure until they agree to open all their facilities to inspectors.
So, Ed, do you agree with that or not?
I agree that we should not attack Iran first. Sanctions don't work other than to hurt the Iranian people.
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
I agree that we should not attack Iran first. Sanctions don't work other than to hurt the Iranian people.
So why did they allow inspectors back in, and why are they threatening to attack first if sanctions don't hurt the government. Even you could not possibly believe that the goons in power give a rat's **** about "the Iranian people".
The GOP big tent now is the size of a pup tent, its floor splattered with guano.
So why did they allow inspectors back in, and why are they threatening to attack first if sanctions don't hurt the government. Even you could not possibly believe that the goons in power give a rat's **** about "the Iranian people".
I don't know, do you George? Which goons in power George?
Ed try and get a grip on reality. We do not have troops in Syria. This is not a neocon plan this is Syria trying to rid themselves or a tyrant. Had "W" used Facebook and Tweeter instead of blood and bullets we may have saved ourselves thousands of troops and billions of dollars.
do you honestly believe you attempt to engage in honest, two way discussion?
do you honestly believe you've never attacked anyone?
if you answer "yes" to either of those questions, you're more out of touch with reality than i initially thought......and i've always believed that grip was tenuous at best
That's the neocon plan, Syria first then Iran. You're not one of them warmongers are you? No, I'm sure you're not.
Neo-Cons???, Seriously Ed who in this current government is a neo-con? You're obviously lost somewhere in the 2004's. Sometimes you make no sense at all.
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
Neo-Cons???, Seriously Ed who in this current government is a neo-con? You're obviously lost somewhere in the 2004's. Sometimes you make no sense at all.
Perhaps this from the Brookings Institute will help you be better informed. There is plenty of neocon influence in the Obama administration.
Brookings: Neocons Still Influential in Obama Administration
Because we overinflated the impact of neoconservatives during the Bush administration and paid little attention to them before that, we're missing the fact that neocons are having the same influence in the Obama administration they've always had, according to a report issued by the Brookings Institution.
Justin Vaïsse, senior fellow in Foreign Policy and director of research in the Brookings Center on the United States and Europe, writes in his policy paper, "Why Neoconservatism Still Matters," that a key to the continued importance of neoconservatism is the seemingly inherent resilience of the movement.
No small part of that resilience is the ability to connect new generations to neocon concerns.
The Neoconservative Obama Administration
by Sheldon Richman, Posted March 22, 2011
President Barack Obama was far from candid when he announced the end of combat operations in Iraq in August — 50,000 troops and a large number of mercenaries remain — but in his speech he did nothing to hide his neoconservative outlook on the American empire.
This was not lost on leading neoconservatives, who tend to prefer Republicans. William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, told a colleague that while he would have phrased the speech differently, “his basic response was: ‘All hail Obama!’”
John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine, wrote in his New York Post column, “President Obama did something amazing. He delivered — dare I say it? — a rather neoconservative speech, in the sense that neoconservatism has argued for aggressive American involvement in the world both for the world’s sake and for the sake of extending American freedoms in order to enhance and preserve American security.”
Just to be clear, the neocons were among the key architects of the war against Iraq in 1991, followed by the embargo that killed half a million children. That war and embargo set the stage for the 9/11 attacks, which were then used to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq (an ambition long predating 9/11) and the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, American’s longest military engagement — all of which have killed more than a million people, wreaked political havoc, and made life in those countries (and elsewhere) miserable. Let’s not forget the drone assassination and special ops programs being run in a dozen Muslim countries. The neocon achievement also has helped drive the American people deep into debt.
Nice crowd Obama is hanging with these days. And that’s no exaggeration. Frederick Kagan, one of the top neocon brains and a signatory of the Project of the New American Century imperial manifesto, now works for Gen. David Petraeus.
If the Obama administration is full of neocons who beat the drums of war why would you trust the findings of the 16 US Intelligence Agencies that you mentioned at the start of this thread?
If the Obama administration is full of neocons who beat the drums of war why would you trust the findings of the 16 US Intelligence Agencies that you mentioned at the start of this thread?
The lower eschelon intell people reported to the Bushies that Iraq was not a threat and were ignored. They are now reporting that there is no hard evidence Iran is making a nuclear weapon. They were correct about Iraq, maybe they are correct about Iran.
Replies
the simplest explanation is: iran is run by a hostile, unstable regime, one that stays in power through fear & violence, and does not like it's neighbor or its allies - they want to develop nuclear weapons, and are doing anything in their power to do so, including attempting to hide that from the rest of world, hoping they can hold off until they actually have weapons capability, when it will be too late to do anything other than accept them as a nuclear power
conspiracy "theories" (i hate to call them theories, as that implies scientific reasoning) sell, but often the simplest explanation is the most truthful, especially when all the evidence points towards that explanation - iran IS pursuing nuclear capability, it DOES support terrorist organizations, it DOES perpetuate violence, it DOES use violence to maintain power within its own borders, its leaders HAVE come out saying they will bring about armageddon in line with their scripture, their leaders HAVE stated Israel & the US are enemies of their state.......seems pretty simple to me to look at the knowns and draw a reasonable conclusion
So tell us what your viewpoint is, George, should we attack Iran?
I would like to offer a 3rd alternative. That you are still deluded and paranoid and we won't attack Iran.
discussion? when were you EVER interested in a discussion, when have you been helpful, and when have you refrained from attacks????
We should indeed attack Iran, but only if they attack us first. We also should continue with sanctions and other non-violent pressure until they agree to open all their facilities to inspectors.
So, Ed, do you agree with that or not?
Sorry, should have quoted Greenie, was surprised to see two other posts come in between that quickly, even on an Ed thread.
Always.......
I agree that we should not attack Iran first. Sanctions don't work other than to hurt the Iranian people.
Ehhhhh The correct answer is never.
So why did they allow inspectors back in, and why are they threatening to attack first if sanctions don't hurt the government. Even you could not possibly believe that the goons in power give a rat's **** about "the Iranian people".
I don't know, do you George? Which goons in power George?
That's the neocon plan, Syria first then Iran. You're not one of them warmongers are you? No, I'm sure you're not.
You win Ed, I am giving up all hope of engaging you in rational discussion.
That's an irrational statement. Goodnight, George.
you are delusional, ed....seriously
do you honestly believe you attempt to engage in honest, two way discussion?
do you honestly believe you've never attacked anyone?
if you answer "yes" to either of those questions, you're more out of touch with reality than i initially thought......and i've always believed that grip was tenuous at best
Neo-Cons???, Seriously Ed who in this current government is a neo-con? You're obviously lost somewhere in the 2004's. Sometimes you make no sense at all.
And yea if must be all those neocons in Syria who are killing civilians.
Perhaps this from the Brookings Institute will help you be better informed. There is plenty of neocon influence in the Obama administration.
http://www.thinktankedblog.com/think-tanked/2010/05/brookings-neocons-still-influential-in-obama-administration-.html
May 10, 2010
Brookings: Neocons Still Influential in Obama Administration
Because we overinflated the impact of neoconservatives during the Bush administration and paid little attention to them before that, we're missing the fact that neocons are having the same influence in the Obama administration they've always had, according to a report issued by the Brookings Institution.
Justin Vaïsse, senior fellow in Foreign Policy and director of research in the Brookings Center on the United States and Europe, writes in his policy paper, "Why Neoconservatism Still Matters," that a key to the continued importance of neoconservatism is the seemingly inherent resilience of the movement.
No small part of that resilience is the ability to connect new generations to neocon concerns.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd1012b.asp
The Neoconservative Obama Administration
by Sheldon Richman, Posted March 22, 2011
President Barack Obama was far from candid when he announced the end of combat operations in Iraq in August — 50,000 troops and a large number of mercenaries remain — but in his speech he did nothing to hide his neoconservative outlook on the American empire.
This was not lost on leading neoconservatives, who tend to prefer Republicans. William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, told a colleague that while he would have phrased the speech differently, “his basic response was: ‘All hail Obama!’”
John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine, wrote in his New York Post column, “President Obama did something amazing. He delivered — dare I say it? — a rather neoconservative speech, in the sense that neoconservatism has argued for aggressive American involvement in the world both for the world’s sake and for the sake of extending American freedoms in order to enhance and preserve American security.”
Just to be clear, the neocons were among the key architects of the war against Iraq in 1991, followed by the embargo that killed half a million children. That war and embargo set the stage for the 9/11 attacks, which were then used to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq (an ambition long predating 9/11) and the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, American’s longest military engagement — all of which have killed more than a million people, wreaked political havoc, and made life in those countries (and elsewhere) miserable. Let’s not forget the drone assassination and special ops programs being run in a dozen Muslim countries. The neocon achievement also has helped drive the American people deep into debt.
Nice crowd Obama is hanging with these days. And that’s no exaggeration. Frederick Kagan, one of the top neocon brains and a signatory of the Project of the New American Century imperial manifesto, now works for Gen. David Petraeus.
The lower eschelon intell people reported to the Bushies that Iraq was not a threat and were ignored. They are now reporting that there is no hard evidence Iran is making a nuclear weapon. They were correct about Iraq, maybe they are correct about Iran.