Well....Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons
But HC told us things "were going as well as could be expected"..
A number of us did expect just this sort of thing. So I suppose, in a way, HC is correct...
True. :wink:Well....But HC told us things "were going as well as could be expected"..
A number of us did expect just this sort of thing. So I suppose, in a way, HC is correct...
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
See the pyramids on the Nile...
Ms. Karen Hughes embarks on C.A.R.R.H.A.E.
Aladdin 2005
Mede-iation
A modest proposal
Polls: Sharon beats Labor, secures third term as PM
If Sharon secures a final settlement with Palestine won't that make him something like Israel's "grey champion" and drive a stake through the notion that artist generations must recede from view during a crisis? Perhaps the better way of seeing crisis leadership is that as long as you're on the "right" side of history it doesn't matter how old or young you are.
"Jan, cut the crap."
"It's just a donut."
Israel: an old Silent warhorse goes centrist
Ariel Sharon, who we used to think of as a hard-nosed hawk, has quit the Likud to form a new, more centrist party. This leaves Netanyahu to carry on the warmongering (pardon the inflammatory language).
Hmmm... Sharon, 78, IS a Silent on both our timeline and Israel's.
Re: Israel: an old Silent warhorse goes centrist
Sharon is fighting against a hardening attitude as younger, less tolerant Idealists rise. In the meantime, tensions are rising internationally.
The following is linked and quoted for purposes of information without intention of infringement or profit.
Israel Prepares for Possible Strikes on Iran
Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv, and Sarah Baxter, Washington
ISRAEL’S armed forces have been ordered by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran, military sources have revealed.
The order came after Israeli intelligence warned the government that Iran was operating enrichment facilities, believed to be small and concealed in civilian locations.
Iran’s stand-off with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over nuclear inspections and aggressive rhetoric from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, who said last week that Israel should be moved to Europe, are causing mounting concern.
The crisis is set to come to a head in early March, when Mohamed El-Baradei, the head of the IAEA, will present his next report on Iran. El-Baradei, who received the Nobel peace prize yesterday, warned that the world was “losing patience” with Iran.
A senior White House source said the threat of a nuclear Iran was moving to the top of the international agenda and the issue now was: “What next?” That question would have to be answered in the next few months, he said.
Defence sources in Israel believe the end of March to be the “point of no return” after which Iran will have the technical expertise to enrich uranium in sufficient quantities to build a nuclear warhead in two to four years.
“Israel — and not only Israel — cannot accept a nuclear Iran,” Sharon warned recently. “We have the ability to deal with this and we’re making all the necessary preparations to be ready for such a situation.”
The order to prepare for a possible attack went through the Israeli defence ministry to the chief of staff. Sources inside special forces command confirmed that “G” readiness — the highest stage — for an operation was announced last week.
Gholamreza Aghazadeah, head of the Atomic Organisation of Iran, warned yesterday that his country would produce nuclear fuel. “There is no doubt that we have to carry out uranium enrichment,” he said.
He promised it would not be done during forthcoming talks with European negotiators. But although Iran insists it wants only nuclear energy, Israeli intelligence has concluded it is deceiving the world and has no intention of giving up what it believes is its right to develop nuclear weapons.
A “massive” Israeli intelligence operation has been underway since Iran was designated the “top priority for 2005”, according to security sources.
Cross-border operations and signal intelligence from a base established by the Israelis in northern Iraq are said to have identified a number of Iranian uranium enrichment sites unknown to the the IAEA.
Since Israel destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, “it has been understood that the lesson is, don’t have one site, have 50 sites”, a White House source said.
If a military operation is approved, Israel will use air and ground forces against several nuclear targets in the hope of stalling Tehran’s nuclear programme for years, according to Israeli military sources.
It is believed Israel would call on its top special forces brigade, Unit 262 — the equivalent of the SAS — and the F-15I strategic 69 Squadron, which can strike Iran and return to Israel without refuelling.
Re: Israel: an old Silent warhorse goes centrist
Firebrands on all sides, as the local equivalent of Baby Boomers approach Elderhood, and incompatible agendas clash.Sharon is fighting against a hardening attitude as younger, less tolerant Idealists rise. In the meantime, tensions are rising internationally.
The following is linked and quoted for purposes of information without intention of infringement or profit.
Israel Prepares for Possible Strikes on Iran
[color=darkred]
Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv, and Sarah Baxter, Washington[b]
ISRAEL’S armed forces have been ordered by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran, military sources have revealed.
The order came after Israeli intelligence warned the government that Iran was operating enrichment facilities, believed to be small and concealed in civilian locations.
Iran’s stand-off with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over nuclear inspections and aggressive rhetoric from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, who said last week that Israel should be moved to Europe, are causing mounting concern.
The question is not whether the Israelies would use force if they thought it called for, they've done it before. Being where they are, and surrounded by enemies on all sides, they don't have the luxury of 'rising above it all'. If they have to choose between outraging the world and compromising their security, they have a track record of choosing to outrage the world, as in the case of the Osirak facility (among other things).
Iran and the West have been dancing a peculiar dance for a long time on this subject, with the EU trying to demonstrate the superiority of 'soft power' by convincing the Iranians to desist by persuasion. Unfortunately, from the Iranian POV, it isn't Brussels they watch when the chips are down, it's Jerusalem and Washington. They aren't afraid of Brussels alone, and the Europeans and Americans have been too irritated with each other to carry off a convincing 'good cop bad cop' approach, which might have had a chance of working.
A senior White House source said the threat of a nuclear Iran was moving to the top of the international agenda and the issue now was: “What next?” That question would have to be answered in the next few months, he said.
Defence sources in Israel believe the end of March to be the “point of no return” after which Iran will have the technical expertise to enrich uranium in sufficient quantities to build a nuclear warhead in two to four years.
“Israel — and not only Israel — cannot accept a nuclear Iran,” Sharon warned recently. “We have the ability to deal with this and we’re making all the necessary preparations to be ready for such a situation.”
The Russians and the Chinese are more-or-less sympathetic to Iran, or more accurately they see their interests lying in conflict with those of the West. Under international law, El-Baradei is supposed to inform the UN Security Council that Iran is doing what it's doing (or what everyone thinks it's doing, anyway). The Security Council, as the action arm of the UN, would then (theoretically) do something.The crisis is set to come to a head in early March, when Mohamed El-Baradei, the head of the IAEA, will present his next report on Iran. El-Baradei, who received the Nobel peace prize yesterday, warned that the world was “losing patience” with Iran.
In practice, El-Baradei and Co. have been reluctant to make that referral for months, since the SC would almost certainly find itself paralyzed by Russian and/or Chinese vetoes. Even if the Permanents can agree that Iran is going too far, it's not clear that a consensus exists to actually do anthing that the mullahs would care about.
So exactly what it means that 'the world is losing patience' isn't quite clear. It isn't the world as a whole that worries Tehran.
In the meantime, the Israelies are watching, and waiting.
The following is posted/quoted for purposes of discussion only, without intention of profit or infringement.
Iranian President Calls Holocaust a Myth
Iran's Ahmadinejad says Holocaust a myth
By Christian Oliver
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday that the Holocaust was a myth, triggering a fresh wave of international condemnation.
Last week Ahmadinejad first aired his doubts on the veracity of the Holocaust, in which six million Jews were killed by the Nazis. His comments drew a rebuke from the U.N. Security Council.
"They have fabricated a legend under the name 'Massacre of the Jews', and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves," he told a crowd in the southeastern city of Zahedan on Wednesday.
The speech was broadcast live on state television.
European countries called the remarks unacceptable and said they could undermine plans for talks with Tehran on its controversial nuclear program.
Israel said the comments showed Iran's "rogue regime" was acting outside acceptable international norms.
Ahmadinejad, a former Revolutionary Guardsman who was elected president in June, in October called Israel a "tumor" which must be "wiped off the map", provoking a diplomatic storm and stoking up fears about Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Washington accuses Tehran of seeking nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is only for generating electricity.
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said the Holocaust remarks could weigh on European Union efforts to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear program.
"The recent remarks by the Iranian president ... are certainly shocking and unacceptable," he told reporters. "I cannot deny that they may weigh on our bilateral relations and naturally also on the chances for the negotiations on (Iran's) so-called nuclear dossier."
Iran's hardline press largely rallied round the president's first Holocaust remarks but the Islamic Iran Participation Front, Iran's leading reformist party, printed a critical statement in the liberal Sharq daily on Wednesday.
"Provocation ... and starting this sort of talk, which benefits neither Iranians nor oppressed Palestinians, will only increase consensus on supporting the (Israeli) regime and will unify the approach against Iran," it said.
SEEKING DIPLOMATIC CLOUT
Israel's foreign ministry said Ahmadinejad's comments on Wednesday showed "a warped understanding".
"The combination of extremist ideology, a warped understanding of reality and nuclear weapons is a combination that no-one in the international community can accept," said spokesman Mark Regev.
European Commission spokeswoman Emma Udwin also described the remarks as "completely unacceptable".
"Such interventions will do nothing to rebuild confidence in Iran's intentions," she said.
Commentators have said that Ahmadinejad sees himself as a popular, pan-Islamic leader in the mold of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the aftermath of the 1979 Islamic revolution.
Tehran-based political analyst Mahmoud Alinejad said the president perhaps feels his speeches were winning Iran diplomatic clout.
"There is a perception, based on past experience that only when Iran threatens and pushes does the West back off," he said.
Ahmadinejad accused the Israeli government and its allies of hypocrisy and reiterated his view that Israel should be moved from "dear Palestine" to Europe, America or Canada.
"If your civilization consists of unjust acts, oppression and poverty for the majority of the globe to provide your own people welfare, then we shout at the top of our voices that we hate your frail civilization," he added.
This was greeted by rapturous cries of "God is the Greatest" from the crowd.
(Additional reporting Matt Spetalnick in Jerusalem, Paul Hughes in Tehran, Sebastian Alison in Brussels and Markus Krah in Berlin)
[quote="HopefulCynic68"]The following is posted/quoted for purposes of discussion only, without intention of profit or infringement.
Iranian President Calls Holocaust a Myth
Somehow I get the impression that some in the EU diplomatic community don't quite understand the situation. There's no evidence that the Iranians care about the talks at this point.
European countries called the remarks unacceptable and said they could undermine plans for talks with Tehran on its controversial nuclear program.
Israel said the comments showed Iran's "rogue regime" was acting outside acceptable international norms.
Ahmadinejad, a former Revolutionary Guardsman who was elected president in June, in October called Israel a "tumor" which must be "wiped off the map", provoking a diplomatic storm and stoking up fears about Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Washington accuses Tehran of seeking nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is only for generating electricity.
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said the Holocaust remarks could weigh on European Union efforts to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear program.
"The recent remarks by the Iranian president ... are certainly shocking and unacceptable," he told reporters. "I cannot deny that they may weigh on our bilateral relations and naturally also on the chances for the negotiations on (Iran's) so-called nuclear dossier."
Reformers
The Western Eurasians killed millions of their fellows a bit over a half century ago. A Central Eurasian now says they didn't.
And, Central North Americans are going to straighten these people out? :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:
Actually the solution can be found in Eastern Eurasia (i.e., Birobidzhan), no? :lol:
But maybe if the putative Robin Hoods stopped trying to take from law-abiding citizens and give to criminals, take from men and give to women, take from believers and give to anti-believers, take from citizens and give to "undocumented" immigrants, and take from heterosexuals and give to homosexuals, they might have a lot more success in taking from the rich and giving to everyone else.
Don't blame me - I'm a Baby Buster!
The demos of Hamas
New servants of King Numbers :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:
Middle Eurasian Will of the People
Sharon back at work, may undergo further treatment
One of the ironies of this situation is that Sharon, though passionately hated by the Paestinians (as a group), for what they consider to be valid reasons, is now their best friend, in practice. There were celebrations in Gaza and the West Bank when Sharon had his stroke, but his death would be the worst thing that could happen to them at this point, since he represents the compromising element of Israeli politics, albeit for his own reasons.
In both Israel and Palestine, the willingness to compromise seems to decrease with age, that is, the younger people on both sides are less prepared to make pragmatic compromises than their elders. Sharon may be the only man keeping things and able to keep things (relatively) calm.
Isn't that exactly what "Generations" is all about?
Sharon and Arafat were "Heroes." The "young
guard" is led by Nomads. Is it really so
surprising that they're less wiling to
compromise?
Sincerely,
John
It isn't surprising at all. I was making a point about the ironies of the situation, in that the man the Palestinians most hate is the person they actually most need to continue in power, and how few of them realize it.Isn't that exactly what "Generations" is all about?
Sharon and Arafat were "Heroes." The "young
guard" is led by Nomads. Is it really so
surprising that they're less wiling to
compromise?
Sincerely,
John
Does this mean that your hopeful cynicism is giving way toIt isn't surprising at all. I was making a point about the ironies of the situation, in that the man the Palestinians most hate is the person they actually most need to continue in power, and how few of them realize it.Isn't that exactly what "Generations" is all about?
Sharon and Arafat were "Heroes." The "young
guard" is led by Nomads. Is it really so
surprising that they're less wiling to
compromise?
Sincerely,
John
hopeless despair? And will you be changing your handle
to "HopelessDespair68"?
Sincerely,
John
Bump. I can't believe, with Iraq sliding down the slippery slope to ciivil war, that this has not had posts lately.
There are plenty of posts on this, just not in the "Beyond America" forum. Try the "Politics and Economics" and "Special Topics" forums. :wink:
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
That slippery slope is decending so fast, even William Buckley feels compelled to write about it:
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley.asp
When I agree with Buckley, it's either very good or very bad :"The ice men moving in the shadows." What a line! I'm afraid that gifted writers like Buckley will have many opportunities to write such lines as we move deeper in or into, depending on where you think we are, the 4t.
February 24, 2006, 2:51 p.m.
It Didn’t Work
"I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes — it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America."
One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. The same edition of the paper quotes a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Reuel Marc Gerecht backed the American intervention. He now speaks of the bombing of the especially sacred Shiite mosque in Samara and what that has precipitated in the way of revenge. He concludes that “The bombing has completely demolished” what was being attempted — to bring Sunnis into the defense and interior ministries.
Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols.
The Iraqis we hear about are first indignant, and then infuriated, that Americans aren't on the scene to protect them and to punish the aggressors. And so they join the clothing merchant who says that everything is the fault of the Americans.
The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, elucidates on the complaint against Americans. It is not only that the invaders are American, it is that they are "Zionists." It would not be surprising to learn from an anonymously cited American soldier that he can understand why Saddam Hussein was needed to keep the Sunnis and the Shiites from each others' throats.
A problem for American policymakers — for President Bush, ultimately — is to cope with the postulates and decide how to proceed.
One of these postulates, from the beginning, was that the Iraqi people, whatever their tribal differences, would suspend internal divisions in order to get on with life in a political structure that guaranteed them religious freedom.
The accompanying postulate was that the invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymkers to cope with insurgents bent on violence.
This last did not happen. And the administration has, now, to cope with failure. It can defend itself historically, standing by the inherent reasonableness of the postulates. After all, they govern our policies in Latin America, in Africa, and in much of Asia. The failure in Iraq does not force us to generalize that violence and antidemocratic movements always prevail. It does call on us to adjust to the question, What do we do when we see that the postulates do not prevail — in the absence of interventionist measures (we used these against Hirohito and Hitler) which we simply are not prepared to take? It is healthier for the disillusioned American to concede that in one theater in the Mideast, the postulates didn't work. The alternative would be to abandon the postulates. To do that would be to register a kind of philosophical despair. The killer insurgents are not entitled to blow up the shrine of American idealism.
Mr. Bush has a very difficult internal problem here because to make the kind of concession that is strategically appropriate requires a mitigation of policies he has several times affirmed in high-flown pronouncements. His challenge is to persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy.
He will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies.
Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat.
Zing! :twisted:
Your local general nuisance
"I am not an alter ego. I am an unaltered id!"
Hopeful Cynicism vs. Hopeless Despairm, & Iraq
Aren't the NeoCons Boomers? Hopefull Cynic-with that handle-must be a Nomad rather than a Prophet. So why should he turn to Hopeless Despair when the Idealistic assumptions of his next elders turn out to be built on sand?
Re: Hopeful Cynicism vs. Hopeless Despairm, & Iraq
Perhaps because he senses that if this leads to Boomer Leftists coming to power in 2009, they will want their vengeance on their defeated enemies, and his having posted here as a right-winger will tend to put the spotlight on him more than on others just like him who did not post here, just as it would me (note my current handle).
Growing War on Terror threatens to go against whole Muslim World:
http://www.cleveland.com/search/inde...l?ocsul&coll=2
Ethnic cleansing begins in Iraq:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11612294/
