What Are We Going To Do About Iran??? Will We Eventually Need a DRAFT???
Posted by Catherine Morgan on January 31, 2007
It seems more and more that Iran is becoming a large part of our problem in Iraq. What are we going to do? We are not exactly in a position, to take on another war? Is there going to have to be a draft? Is this war leading us to a “mandatory” military?
As a mother, these questions are very scary to me. I’m afraid, not of Iraq, or Iran, or even the terrorists. What scares me, is that my son or daughter may be sent to fight in a war, and possibly lose their life, because our government refuses to look at peaceful options to our foreign policy problems. Does anyone think, that even without involvement with Iran, our military can be sustained as an all volunteer program?
I’m not normally a conspiracy person, and maybe it is just that I am so overwhelmed with the thought of a draft. With that said, it seems to me that all along, this administration has ultimately wanted to shift our military from volunteer to mandatory. WHAT DO YOU THINK? These has been my feelings since reading this;
from THE PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY — THE STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES
June 3, 1997
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America’s role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital — both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements — built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation’s ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration’s success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
—————————————————————————————————–
Am I the only one that thinks this seems suspicious? Is this statement a conspiracy or is it real? Does anyone know more about this? Like I said, I am just a mom, I don’t know much about the military, I just know I don’t like war. This statement seems to imply that there was never going to be an attempt at peace. Was the goal of this statement to eventually institute a mandatory military? Is that what is ultimately going to happen? I would very much like to hear both sides of this issue. — Please be kind.
For the record: Although I am against the idea of a draft or mandatory military, I also believe that it is not fair for the current voluntary military, to be used over the capacity that they originally signed on for….seems like that isn’t voluntary anymore….kind of a draft within the military.
SITE WITH LINKS ON NON-VIOLENT CONFLICT RESOLUCTION
————————————————————————-
Let us know what you think on some of the other issues in politics today…..just go the the WHAT DO YOU THINK? link.
————————————————————————-
56 Responses to “What Are We Going To Do About Iran??? Will We Eventually Need a DRAFT???”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.









Catherine Morgan said
Please let me know what you think. Thanks.
afterechoes said
http://afterechoes.wordpress.com/2007/01/30/iran-policy-pragmatism-and-reality/
Just some ideas
Catherine Morgan said
Thanks, I’ll check it out.
jeremiasx said
There is a conspiracy that operates “within plane sight”…I’ve been posting about it for a long time. Glad you’re catching on.
Catherine Morgan said
Thanks “Jeremiasx”. I’m not generally big on the conspiracy theories, but when it is going to affect my children, I want to get the whole story.
beer7 said
Reading your blog made me laugh bitterly. I am also a mom (although I would never use this fact to define who I am in total), an Israeli mom. As you might know our kids serve in the army, sons for 3 years, girls “only” 2 years and our husbands are called up to reserve duty.
Three young Israli soldiers have been kidnapped in August 06 and we never had a sign whether they are alive since then. They are also someone’s sons.
You know what sort of e-mail exchanges I have with my friends? We wonder if we will be able to discern early enough when the nuclear warheads from Iran will be coming to send the kids out of the country. We ask whether even if we knew early enough whether this would be a good option for them. We remember people who committed suicide, nearly all the family members together, before the Nazis could send them to concentration camps.
You sound an egoiste. The whole world can go up in flames as long as your suburb is still fine you do not care.
Catherine Morgan said
“Beer7″ — Thank you for your comment. In response:
["You sound an egoiste. The whole world can go up in flames as long as your suburb is still fine you do not care."]
I did not intend to come off as someone who only cares about myself and my “suburb”, and I certainly do not want to “see the world go up in flames”. This post was a reflection of my feeling regarding the American government and the draft. I would hope that if you read some of my other postings you would have a different opinion, of your personal feelings towards me. Yes, this particular post was about “me” and my fears for my children. However, I in no way meant to be disrespectful to any other mother, and if I was, I do appologize.
But, I can not be “politically correct” 100% of the time. In fact, that is what this site is about. This is “my” blog and I feel I should be able to address my feeling and concerns here. The idea of a draft or mandatory military scares me very much. We have had a voluntary military in this country for some time, I’m afraid that may be changing, and it scares me.
I am very sorry for your pain and hardships, and I only wish you the very best.
beer7 said
Thanks for your response. Of course, you are free to write about your fears on your own blog. I am not interested in politcal correctness at all. Obviously I am also free to voice my impression.
I cannot say that I am following the “draft conspiracy”, my feeling is that the idea is not pushed by anybody who could make it happen but only by people who would like to oppose it: another way of reliving the Vietnam struggle.
I wonder can you imagine any cause worth dying for?
Catherine Morgan said
Hi “Beer7″ — Thank you for you kind and understanding response.
As to: [I wonder can you imagine any cause worth dying for?]
At the risk of sounding naive, and I certainly don’t want to seem disrespectful to anyone….But, “personally”, I can not imagine any “cause” worth dying for, or at least worth sending my kids off to die for.
It just seems to me, that over all, war does more harm than good. However, I also know there have been exceptions to this. I just think, as a “world”, we need to just stop. Unless war is really some sick way to control the worlds population, we need to stop.
It seems that, fighting wars is the easy choice for “leaders”, they decide, they send troops to get killed….while they are safe behind their desks. Peace, on the other hand, is obviously the harder choice, not as easy, in fact may seem near impossible, and often political suicide. But ultimitaly, our “world” would be better served, if our leaders would make a more serious effort, to choose peace over war.
Again, just my opinion, I do not mean any disrespect. I know this is a much more complicated issue than can be address by one person, on one blog….I just “personally” can’t give up the hope for someday seeing peace on earth. I believe, that there has to be a “time”, that the “world” will collectively realize, that war is not the answer, and that we all agree to live in peace. I know that time is not now. But, if a serious effort is not made soon, I beleive, we will ultimitaly end up with nothing to fight over, because we will have destroyed our “world”.
Thank you again, for your comment and question. I hope I did not offend?
beer7 said
You are not offending, still I am scratching my head at your position.
You should know that Israel exists because it has a mighty army and was and is willing to fight for its existence. And you have to know that the Jewish people were not so long ago the object of genocide and are threatened by genocide today. And you know, because I told you, that I am Israeli living in Israel. And still you cannot imagine that obviously for the Israeli people there is a cause worth dying for: The continued existence of our people in an independent and free country. Is it so hard to out yourselves for a moment in our shoes? How can it not enter your head for second that the freedom and independence of the US has also been obtained by war and has to be defended by the willingness and the capability to fight?
Wishful thinking is not a political strategy. Jews have probably written the earliest pacifist text: “They shall beat their sword into plough-shares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” Isaiah 2:4, but we could not make it happen. Neither will you.
Do you know Ghandi’s position on the holocaust? He recommended that Jews let the Nazis kill them with a moral superior attitude.
“Germany is showing to the world how efficiently violence can be worked when it is not hampered by any hypocrisy or weakness masquerading as humanitarianism. It is also showing how hideous, terrible and terrifying it looks in its nakedness.
Can the Jews resist this organized and shameless persecution? Is there a way to preserve their self-respect, and not to feel helpless, neglected and forlorn? I submit there is…If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest gentile German may, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment. And for doing this, I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance but would have confidence that in the end the rest are bound to follow my example. If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now. And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy which no number of resolutions of sympathy passed in the world outside Germany can. Indeed, even if Britain, France and America were to declare hostilities against Germany, they can bring no inner joy, no inner strength. The calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the godfearing death has no terror. It is a joyful sleep to be followed by a waking that would be all the more refreshing for the long sleep.”
You know it is awfully easy to recommend this sort of pacifism to other people and it is also very hypocritical.
afterechoes said
Did you know that according to some NEOCON fear mongers that the evil islamo-fascist empire of doom may have as many as 140 million, maybe 300 million faithful Jihadists…..
http://afterechoes.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/what-are-you-thinking/
I think we are going to need to add several more zeros to the “surge” number in order to get the adaquate force ratio to defeat the evil islamo-fascist empire of doom
http://afterechoes.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/surge-is-just-a-wripple-in-an-ocean/
Personally I would rather be sleepwalking through reality in a pleasent dream like state – having faith in the ideals of America –
Than obsessed in a nightmare where everyone in the wolrd is out to get us and topple Western Civilization. That – is a paranoid delusion that is vastly more dangerous than paccifism
Here are a few thoughts from our founding fathers.
Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.
John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
But the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest, is but too often drowned, before public bodies as well as individuals, by the clamors of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain.
James Madison, Federalist No. 42, January 22, 1788
You are free to speak your mind – but you will be resisted in dragging our great nation into the abyss of unending war, in the name of some obsessed paranoid delusion.
Justin V said
I gosh, I hope that we don’t need a draft. I never did understand the draft in the first place. It’s just something about making people go fight in a war, against their will, that just doesn’t set right with me. Anywho, these are troublesome times.
War doesn’t determine who is right, War determines who is left.
Catherine Morgan said
“Justin V” —
["War doesn’t determine who is right, War determines who is left."]
Thank you for your comment, I agree.
beer7 said
Afterechoes,
Do I get you right? Anything distrubing your pleasant reality must be a paranoid delusion? Neocons and Jews (or is that the same thing to you) are trying to drag the US into war because of their obsessions?
beer7 said
Why exactly are you worrying about the draft?
I have found this statement on the Selective Service System site (http://www.sss.gov/)
“NO DRAFT ON HORIZON!
Currently there is a flurry of newspaper articles about Selective Service planning to conduct an exercise of its field structure in 2009. However, the public should not be alarmed. No draft for the military is about to be reinstated. Rather, Selective Service is planning to test its policies, plans and procedures as it has done routinely over the years if resources are available. Given the decline in agency funding, this exercise may be postponed again as it has been in the past. As always, Selective Service continues to do its job of being ready to conduct a draft and to manage a program for civilian alternative service for men classified as conscientious objectors when directed by the Nation’s elected officials: the president and Congress.”
Even if obsessed Neocons would try to reinstate the draft how could they possibly proceed the Congress now being held by Democrats?
Or do you extend your conspiracy theory wide enough to assume there might be coup before, something like what Chavez is pulling off in Venezuela?
clevelandcliff said
do we need a draft? no. we have plenty of troups just a lot of opposition to sending more to irag and any to iran
PW Bird said
Israel’s nuclear deterrent of 100+ missiles is considered, by Israeli military sources themselves, as a clear deterrent to any potential attack by Iran.
re: Dr. Ephraim Kam, Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University; former analyst for the Israeli Defense Forces.
Dr. Kam also wrote that Iran is certain to understand that such an attack (though highly unlikely) would be met with massive retialiation by the US (and possibly some EU member states).
The primary reasons for Israel’s fear of a nuclear Iran were set forth by Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh: “the fear is not that such weapons would be launched against Israel but that the existence of nuclear capability would interfere with Israel’s recruitment of new immigrants and cause more Israelis to emigrate to other countries.” interview; Jerusalem Post.
beer7 said
PW Bird
Your argument is based on the assumption that Teheran can be deterred. Bernard Lewis thinks deterrence will not work. The people in charge are end-of-the-world fanatics who might see mutual assured destruction (MAD) as an incentive instead of a deterrent.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3358555,00.html
opit said
You got some real hummers for replies.
To answer your overall question first : no, I don’t expect the draft to be reinstated anytime soon.
That doesn’t mean I think all is well with the world.
First of all, I’m Canadian. Attacking and occupying Iraq indefinitely had nothing to do with the Saudi terror attacks of 9/11. Those conspirators died in the crashes or were chased down in Afghanistan (mainly).
So you’ve found the appalling PNAC briefs. Good. Anyone stating what he thought plainly to someone not familiar with them would be taken as a nut.
Leaving the more extreme explanations aside, I think some visits to U.S. political discussion groups might be instructive.
You can find links on my board. I suggest you try Blue Girl, Red State and go through her excellent articles ( Red is excitable but seems smart and to have her head on straight ) and continue from there, perhaps at Washington Monthly ( which has to be the most intense forum for diatribe, false propositions and general antics : and it’s moderated ! ).
Feel free to use comments if you have questions. That’s what they are there for.
http://opit.wordpress.com/
opit@operamail.com
Catherine Morgan said
“Opit” — Thanks for the info. — I’ll check out your site as soon as I get a chance.
Jason357 said
I need to start documenting sources, but I’ve heard the neocons, say more than once that something of this magnitude would proceed for decades, maybe 40 years. Then, we have the idiots who compare Iraq to the US in its infancy and they use 11 years, and even over 200 years as they say complete maturity is very slow. In other words, it’ll NEVER end if neocons have their way. It’ll be infinite and just as counterproductive as the “war on drugs”.
I think the hunger for endless war would quickly fade if all 18 year old males and females were drafted for 4 years military service, and no Limbaugh or Cheney dodges allowed.
Catherine Morgan said
Hi Jason,
Not to seem stupid…but, I don’t know what a “neocon” is. I think I understand what you are saying though, but with a 15 and 12 year old, the idea of a mandatory military is very scary to me.
Jason357 said
Beer7:
Iranians are end-of-the world fanatics??
Have you listened to Fox News Channel lately, or Hannity, or Bill Krystol, or Limbaugh, or Glen Beck, or Laura Ingrahm, and virtually every GOP politician?? Talk about “sky is falling” fearmongers…sheesh. Who has more right to decide about Iraq, the US or the countries that have to actually live near Iraq. What the heck business does George W. Bush have telling people to agree with him, or get attacked??
beer7 said
Jason,
actually I am listening to Ahmadinejad and Iranian news. The Iranian regime may be trying to sow fear but then what does it mean if that is their strategy?
beer7 said
Catherine,
with a blog called “informedvoters” shouldn’t you be better informed?
“10. The term neoconservative suggests:
a) Erstwhile leftie radicals who grew disenchanted with the welfare state.
b) A cabal of pro-Israel intellectuals who have hijacked our foreign policy.
c) A code word for “Jews” used by the people who answered (b).”
lifted from http://www.slate.com/id/2158962 the SLATE Quiz: Are You a Liberal Anti-Semite?
Catherine Morgan said
Hi “Beer7″ — By INFORMED VOTERS, I am in no way suggesting that I have all the answers. I just think we need to ask the important questions, have the debate, get some answers…..all are necessary before we should vote. A lot of people in the United States vote, just by watching smear commercials on the TV. I wanted this site, to be a place to see the issues, and talk about them….so when people do vote they are “informed”.
But, the truth is, I have more questions than answers.
I do appreciate you comment though. Thank you.
Rebe said
to Afterechoes-
I couldn’t tell what your stance on this issue was, but I thought I’d share my viewpoint anyway.
In response to:
[Did you know that according to some NEOCON fear mongers that the evil islamo-fascist empire of doom may have as many as 140 million, maybe 300 million faithful Jihadists]
Every follower of Islam should be a jihadist-it is an essential part of the belief system. “Jihad” means “holy war” as I’m sure you know, but the practice is about avoiding anything that threatens Islam. There are “greater threats” and “lesser threats.” The “greater threats” refer to any personal beliefs/weaknesses that an individual may have that could threaten his/her loyalty to Islam and they are of far greater importance than the “lesser threats,” which are external. Some Islamic fundamentalists have interpreted greater and lesser threats in their own way, thus giving the term “jihad” a bad name. Your statistic could be way off because every muslim should be a jihadist.
Unfortunately, misinterpretations like this are common, whether from holy books or between cultures. I just hope that we can learn to seek out the facts before we judge others based on what we think we see. Fortunately, none of us are perfect.
As Jesus said (I like this one):
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
On another note, do I think the draft is coming? It’ll have to if the deployment number keeps increasing as it has been. Do I want it to? I never want to kill anyone, especially not innocent civilians. I never want to perpetuate war by participating in it, and I will make few exceptions. War=the rich man’s game.
After Clinton attacked those “terrorist villages” in Afghanistan, is it a wonder that our government expected 9/11 (a terrorist attack)? Now we’re doing the same thing again. I’m seeing a pattern. From our point of view, 9/11 was terrorism, from theirs it was a retaliation. Could our retaliation be seen as terrorism to the Iraqi people?
Catherine,
this is a wonderful blog. You are very respectful of others’ intolerance and I admire that. Keep it up! Everyone has great opinions.
Jason357 said
Catherine:
See what you think of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocon
If one observes the usage of the term, saying neocon is code for jewish is silly. That’s a typical tactic to try and discredit someone, accuse them of having their reason blinded by “hate”. It’s getting old, but neocons have to do something, their actions surely don’t do much to gain supporters.
Jason357 said
No one sows fear more than the neocons. Have we forgotten already about the color-coded terror alerts that were overused to the extent that major cities just refused to acknowledge them.
Catherine Morgan said
Hi Jason…..I’ll check it out soon….I just have something else going on right now….I don’t want you to think I didn’t see your comment.
Thanks.
beer7 said
Jason,
I think it funny, that you refer to Wikipedia on “neocon” (which accidentally gives answer a) from what I copied) according to which Neocons are not a well-defined and clear-cut group. And then you state as an obvious fact that neocons sow more fear than anybody (including Ahmadinejad) and you even pin the color-coded terror alerts on them. I wonder how you can link between the alert system and neocons?
Catherine Morgan said
Hi “Beer7″ and “Jason” — I’ve been kind of busy, and not really following this as much as I would like. But, is this still a discussion style debate??? Or, is this an all out war between you two???
I’m not really sure….but my goal is to keep it respectable here, I don’t want anyone to feel like they are under attack because of their views….if you know what I mean.
Let me know…..thanks.
beer7 said
Catherine,
at least that’s the discussion style I am used from university: You define a concept and then you use the concept accordingly. I cannot see how the use Jason is making of the term “neocon” fits the definition he verntures for the concept. Can you?
beer7 said
And by the way, in a discussion views are supposed to be challenged.
Catherine Morgan said
I understand that “Beer7″, I just want to make sure no one is getting upset. I like that you guys are debating the issue….I just wanted to make sure that you both are o.k. with were the debate is going.
I mean no disrespect, like I said, I just haven’t been keeping up with it, because of other posts I am working on at the moment. As long as you guys are o.k. with how it is going, I’m fine with it.
I hope you understand. I’m glad you are both able to have this discussion.
opit said
Chill, Catherine. Internet debate is fast, furious and intemperate. Rules of engagement include concepts like citing sources when you put forth an assertion.
Since no personal contact occurs, people do nutty stuff like post under multiple names, impersonate each other, mock …
Maybe I should have sent you to Ezra Klein at Typepad after Blue Girl : they tend to college age and idealism. Even so, there are “trolls” who “bait” people hoping to outrage them.
“Neo” is a prefix meaning “new” ( or false )
“Cons” is a cute pun. Con as in against and as the start of conservative.
After all that I take it as fake ( sometimes faux ) conservatives : imposters.
Catherine Morgan said
“Opit” — Thanks for the comment. I am new to all this. Before I started this blog, I hadn’t even been on a blog. Maybe I bit off more that I can chew. I guess I thought if I came at it honestly, others would too. But, thanks for the insight.
beer7 said
I am reallt astonished that you Americans have so little knowledge about a term which is rather centrally used in political debates in the USA.
It would be easy enough to look it up on the internet:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Neo-conservative
“Neo” is new in Greek, the opposite of “Paleo”. It has never had the meaning of fake, no more has paleo ever had the meaning of original.
The term was coined by political adversaries of the so-called neo-cons and they have adopted it in a gesture of defiance.
opit said
Beer 7 Good research even though it sidesteps a vagarity of English in that literal meaning often varies from common usage.
Since you’re recognizing the silliness of neo-con fearmongering, where do you get the idea that Iran is a threat of nuclear attack when Israel is more likely than not equipped with missiles and nukes, while Iran has clearly disavowed intent to arm and does not have the tech ?
beer7 said
I do not recognize anything and I feel genuinely threatened by Iran. Iran may disavow the intent to arm from time to time but it also spouts its intention to wipe Israel off the map.
beer7 said
Opit, it looks that even the EU does not sleep to sound about Iran going nuclear. Are you sure, you are not in denial? http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3364389,00.html
EU document sounds Iran nuclear bomb warning
European Union admits Iranian bomb underway, negotiations futile. ‘The problems with Iran will not be resolved through economic sanctions alone,’ says document complied by Solana
opit said
The population and the mullahs have reined in the Iranian motormouth – who doesn’t have much real power – to a considerable extent. The Germans in particular started noting that he was being radically misquoted. “Reclaiming Space” – Ann at peoplesgeography in Lebanon – has an article outlining this issue. See the Blogroll : http://opit.wordpress.com/ I also posted her link some time past, but finding that would be a greater hassle than Google.
beer7 said
Opit,
you should know that Rafsandshani’s position on Israel (a one-nuke-country) is not much different from Ahmadinejad.
I can see the beauty of denial for yourselves. However, in Israel the drawback is too great.
opit said
I’m not real great on denial, Beer 7. Fact is, there is so much hate and suspicion going on in your corner of the world that it has always constituted one great insoluble mess. That means when propaganda is initiated to alarm people it is a real no-brainer and dead easy.
Check Ha’aretz last April. Washington used its not inconsiderable influence to set up a realignment of priorities that set up the Lebanon fiasco. Your own generals realize that with friends like America, one doesn’t need enemies.
There is a great propaganda war going on in the U.S. which has affected people’s perceptions worldwide. When one is new to the game, the directed lying is scarce believable.Alarm covers radical actions which cause more grief, suffering and unrest, not less.
Iran may not still be the friend of the Jew these days. Painting them as a grave danger by the people who cause death and destruction seemingly at whim might lead you to at least consider the source.
opit said
Lebanon. I can be such a schmuck at times. Palestine. Anyway, I’ll look around my May links from 2006 to see if I can’t spot that article on changes in the political landscape in Israel. That’ll have to wait for a bit as I’m going to be tied up with work.
You might check out http://eurotrib.com/story/2006/4/9/85222/23557
for an idea how dysfunctional U.S. policy has been re: nukes.
It was odd looking at my Newslinks article 2006/4/30 and seeing how far ahead this “crisis” has developed.
beer7 said
Opit,
you seem to be into conspiracy theories. You are quite right, our corner of the world is full of mutual distrust. To draw the conclusion that there is no real reason for being suspicious, however, does not really follow. As far as the Jews are concerned, I cannot remember any case in history when the people who threatened Jews did not try (rather more successfully than less) to follow through.
opit said
Beer7 I’m full of conspiracy theories ! You haven’t heard what’s out here ! I’m moderate.
If I say doofus was misquoted – I think maliciously – by the country that has been invading others in your general geographic vicinity : you might think who has been threatening all and sundry while your neighbour has signed onto nuclear non-proliferation. For whatever minor consideration that’s worth, others haven’t even bothered with lip service, without any penalty.
It doesn’t align very well with their constant denial of nuclear ambition. One known nuke superpower ( and one suspected ) are on their case as a threat.
Some plausible scenario. No way.
Oil ? Energy ? Hell, yes.
By the way. What do you think your suspicions of Iran are if not a conspiracy theory ? Chopped liver ?
opit said
I’m frustrated. Haaretz’ article Aug 5/2006 Ending the Neoconservative Nightmare is not online. ( Wow, was I out on the date. ) Short of being puckish and sending you to “Today’s Alternative News” just for the culture shock, the best idea I have off the top of my head is to check http://www.tikkun.org/ for a browse around people with more similar backgrounds coming up with quite different opinions of the way things are.
And it’s impolite to pick I know, but it’s the U.S. that’s doing the most complaining about the danger of Iran. Russia has not been quiet in the past when it saw problems developing. Why not now ?
opit said
http://ahmadinejadquotes.blogspot.com/
Brent said
I’m not sure if we need a draft or not. We still have a lot of our forces deployed all over the world to use. We’ve had a whole lot of troops in Europe and Asia since WWII.
I have a better idea for now. I say we implement a mandatory defense training program for all able bodied men in America, to train them to properly use weapons such as rifles, and also teach basic hand to hand combat. For now, I think that this is absolutely necessary, and would not hurt, just to be safe, in case we are attacked here. The concern that I have for Iran is not only it’s military strength which is far weaker than ours, but not exactly mediocre, but also it’s allies. Hezbollah, which has been caught crossing our southern border, along with other dangerous terrorists, are a real threat, as we all know since 9/11. Also Iran has a lot of economic, strategic, and diplomatic ties to other hostile countries to America, including Venezuela, China, Russia, Syria, N. Korea, and others. We need to be extremely careful that we don’t start WWIII. However, if Iran gets a nuke, there is a chance that they will use it, thus starting WWIII. Either way, it is looking more and more likely to happen, and I honestly can’t blame America for the insanity from some of these radicals in the world.
So perhaps a draft will be necessary in the future. The problem is that there is no politician who will want to be responsible for this, because it is HIGHLY politically incorrect, to even speak about this.
It is definitely something to consider.
Another thing to consider for parents especially, is that joining the military, while dangerous, should not be viewed as a negative thing. It is a very high honor for someone to serve his country.
Catherine Morgan said
I agree that being in the military is a very high honor, but the people in the military today are really being taken advantage of. I know someone with a grandson that has been to Iraq twice, and they are now sending him to Afghanistan, he is there right now. And when these troops finally do come home, whether we “win” or “lose” the war…..the troops are heroes, and I think most would agree. The only people that will not be treating them like heroes, is our own government. You can see my recent post on this, and other links and posts on the subject at….
http://informedvoters.wordpress.com/2007/03/14/help-veterans-now-if-our-government-has-billions-to-spend-to-iraq-and-build-bridges-to-nowherewhy-do-veterans-have-to-wait-until-2008-to-get-help/
Dar said
I don’t think any of this will matter unless we start taking a look at our nieghbors.There are so many different walks of life here in the US. Conspiring plans to take us from the inside out this is what I worry about.(Anyone remember Red Dawn?)I will fight to protect what is good in the USA.We the people have failed in our own rights by letting others tell us what we believe in is wrong.I do believe in God and that is what our country was founded on for outsiders to come in and change this is just shamefull.(we are being played like puppets)
opit said
Dar If you think about the way Obama was sworn in – something so well done to defuse hatemongers who claim that what an individual sees as God is a valuation of his worth to men – it should reveal the real meaning of “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”
I have had the privilege to know people who awed me by their compassion and service to humanity who would never agree to being thought “God fearing”. Handsome is as handsome does. I think it more important for people to walk the walk than talk the talk. ( Of course, if you can do both, bonus )
One cannot “fight” stupidity, lying and greed except by educating oneself as to the nature of truth ( If you say all men are liars I won’t feel hurt ) and sharing it freely.
It isn’t “outsiders” doing this but the rot within.
Obama's Foreign Policy Stance said
..]And fourth, there is a focus on Europe in the Democratic view of the world. Roosevelt regarded Germany as the primary threat instead of the Pacific theater in World War II. And in spite of two land wars in Asia during the Cold War, the centerpiece of strategy remained NATO and Europe. The specific details have evolved over the last century, but the Democratic Party — and particularly the Democratic foreign policy establishment — historically has viewed Europe as a permanent interest and partner for the United States…]
Obama's Foreign Policy Stance said
..]First, in all three conflicts, Democrats postponed the initiation of direct combat as long as possible. In only one, World War I, did Wilson decide to join the war without prior direct attack. Roosevelt maneuvered near war but did not enter the war until after Pearl Harbor. Truman also maneuvered near war but did not get into direct combat until after the North Korean invasion of South Korea. Indeed, even Wilson chose to go to war to protect free passage on the Atlantic. More important, he sought to prevent Germany from defeating the Russians and the Anglo-French alliance and to stop the subsequent German domination of Europe, which appeared possible. In other words, the Democratic approach to war was reactive. All three presidents reacted to events on the surface, while trying to shape them underneath the surface…]
seshdotcom said
This made me think a Lot..A Good Post Catherine…