Comments Posted By Leo
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 45 Comments
LEBANON BESIEGED BY IRAN-SYRIA AXIS
As it seems,
Rick Moran,
you are neither capable nor willing to argue with a liberal, when it comes to direct confrontation.
You can argue as long you can have your monologue, and you can rant, but dialogue ... that is another thing.You call me ignorant and stupid. Well ...
I suppose I know about as much as you concerning Lebanon.
We see things from different angles, but that should result in interesting debate, not in ignoring each other.So, come on, show us your superior knowledge and your informed interpretation of events in Lebanon - and tell your audience why my view of Lebanese politics is so "ignorant" adn "stupid".
(And do you really believe that coerced confessions are reliable and should be taken by the word, as in the case of Merie?)A blogger must not cut and run when there approaches a real challenge.
Comment Posted By leo On 20.07.2007 @ 06:50
You disappoint your own fans, Rick Moran, when you prove to be incapable of refuting my arguments.
What makes you believe that the testimony of this Ahmed Merie is valid?
Isn't it likely that they just tortured him to produce convenient "intelligence"?
It is a general rule for sober observers not to believe such coerced witnesses and their coerced testimonies, Rick Moran.
Indeed, it is not likely that Syria is behind Fatah al-Islam.
Fatah al-Islam represents a Sunni extremism that does not dwell well with the Syrian Baathist and secular rulers.
And it's Fatah al-Islam's Salafi ideology that will render them unwilling and incapable to accept Syrian (= heretic) backing, even if it were offered.Would it be possible today (!) that the USA starts to cooperate with AlQaida to fight Iran? "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" - that rule does often, but not always apply.
Seen with Iranian eyes, f.e., USA and AlQaida do cooperate ...
Silly, for sure - as silly as to assume an alliance of AlQaida and Syria or AlQaida and Iran.As for the (!): You all know that the USA (Reagan administration) supported a certain Osama binLaden at the beginning of his career ...
I believe US Conservatives are right and authentic when they claim today (!): We can rule out such a cooperation for now or the future.They will always merge their enemies into ONE, but any psychology of transforming an enemy like AlQaida into a friend ... is not viable.
And that also applies to AlQaida and AlQaida-like groups: They will never ally with the USA, or Israel.Although, I think, in Iraq, in this desperate Sunni fight for existence against a huge Shiite majority empowered by the Americans and Iranians, there may be quite some cooperation between Baathist and Salafi resistance fighters. Both are Sunni.
In Lebanon's lethal mosaic, it is more likely that Fatah al-Islam got, at first, some support by the Siniora government --until it ran amok. The Sunnites in Lebanon may have liked the idea of a counterforce against Shiite Hesbollah. But they may have miscalculated, and Fatah al-Islam began to play their own murderous and self-destructive game.
That is speculation, I admit. But more likely than the Syria Connection.
Comment Posted By leo On 19.07.2007 @ 16:49
Rick Moran,
you say the Democrats play the blame game and don't have a viable solution for Iraq.
With that you are right, of course.
But does that not also apply to the Republicans?
Why not attack both sides, when your critique attacks playing the blame game and lack of a viable policy for Iraq?
The blame game is inevitable - as long as you are willing to concede that there has to be responsibility and accountability in politics. Those who led the USA into the predicament should be held to account.
But it is NOT ONLY the blame game.
Almost 70% of the US voters do back now what the Democrats presented to the Senate. Why should the Democrats not demand the Republican Senators to vote pro or against partial withdrawal? That is legitimate politics, I dare say.
The Democrats' proposal certainly is not about "Dunkirk evacuation". There is not so much pressure on the "enduring bases" that this might become necessary soon. It is about a partial withdrawal, and a new strategy. Democrat Senators, different to part of their own basis, do not opt in favour of a complete withdrawal - at least not right now.
There is not any really good solution to the Iraq desaster. Most Americans now - and me and you, too - would prefer one or other version of the Baker-Hamilton plan. Some Republican Senators do so, too. So there might be a majority, 60 or more votes in the Senate for that option.
Why are these Republicans not willing to allow a majority vote in the Senate?
Comment Posted By leo On 19.07.2007 @ 04:18
Steve wrote:
"With Petreaus’ plan, our troops are wiping out the Sunni and Shi’ite terrorist groups and Democrats are terrified Bush is going pull this off."SlimGuy assisted:
"After funding the surge and appointing General P to handle it, they must be sensing the war in Iraq is turning our way ..."We will have a chance to see whether this will come true. GWBush will "stay the course", so we all will see whether the war is (once again!) turning, whether terror groups are "wiped out" ...
What will people like SlimGuy or Steve tell us when General Petraeus's strategy will not succeed? (And there is little chance that it will!)
They will never ever give up the language of victory. They cannot but believe in victory. Defeat is no option. And cannot and will not happen.
What kind of mindset it that?
Defeat is something normal in life. It's always an advantage to be a good loser. It helps to avoid complete ruin (because you can stop early enough), it helps to overcome the stress of losing, it helps to learn from defeat, it helps to understand life and to adapt to reality.
Only very weak and desperate characters feel coerced to INSIST in winning, no matter how costly, no matter how unlikely winning might become.
Comment Posted By leo On 18.07.2007 @ 16:09
DevX,
why do you think the Iranian Mullah regime wants to commit suicide?
Your assumption that they intend or will nuke Tel Aviv is - paranoid.
As well as your idea that this would not be the last target.Any nuclear strike coming from Iran would lead to a nuclear answer - and finish the nation's capability to go on striking.
For a nation like Iran nuclear weapons can only be meaningful as a defense: deter others to nuke them.
As Israel has nukes, Iran needs nukes to deter Israel.
The only nation that might use nuclear weapons in an offense are the USA - provided they can manage to rule out a nuclear counter-strike. The USA is working on that project, as we know.
Comment Posted By leo On 23.07.2007 @ 03:56
Chris,
do you know SIIC and Badr Corps (SIIC's strong militia)?
They are one of the big Iraqi Shiite parties, backbone of the government there, and so also backbone of US hopes to get a viable government in Baghdad - and at the same time they are close to Iran, very close - close to the Mullah regime there, and do not hide it. Iran supports SIIC and Badr Corps with weapons, with training.So, I dare say: USA support Iran. Somehow. And Iran supports USA. Somehow.
Weird thing!
There is more truth (although it is not the complete truth) to a claim like "USA supports Ahmadinejad" than to a claim "Ahmadinejad supports AlQaida".
As for binLaden Jr in Iran:
Seems to be quite an obscure thing. Does the NIC mention it and infer anything from it? Please quote!
As far as I know: There are plenty of members of this family in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the world. In itself it has little significance to say that this or that member of the binLadens is here or there. Osama is the terrorist, but some of his many-membered family are part of the Saudi establishment.
For example: do you mean THIS son of binLaden, Chris?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=467599&in_page_id=1770= Omar binLaden, 27, son of Osama binLaden, has married in Berlin, Germany, recently ...
Osama binLaden has 17 children ... Give us some hints about the Iranian one!
Comment Posted By leo On 18.07.2007 @ 03:06
All these "informations" about AlQaida in Iran are simply LIES, dear Chris.
As all the US government's "informations" about Iraq's WMD had been LIES (not errors - the CIA was not so stupid to believe that "Curveball" was a reliable source, f.e.; etc.).
Faked intelligence.
Hyped intelligence.
Deliberately misread intelligence.
Fixed intelligence (fixed to meet the policy).It is as likely that Cheney & Bush will ally with AlQaida to fight Iran,
as Iran will ally with AlQaida to fight the USA.
- Both alliances will not happen.Chris, you immediately believe in ANY information about cooperation of AlQaida & Iran, and immediately dismiss or refuse to hear at all ANY information about the lethal antagonism between AlQaida and Iran.
In 2002/2003 you believed in ANY information about Iraq's WMD given by your government, didn't you?
You wanted to be fooled then, and you want to be fooled again now.
The DEVIL is always ONE, and so Devil Iran and Devil AlQaida must go together, act together in a lethal hidden conspiracy against the forces of The Good.
Such is an irresistable pre-conception for many people.
What we experience today is the preparation for the coming assault on Iran.
Comment Posted By leo On 17.07.2007 @ 17:34
And it is done again with reckless deception of the public.
And little consideration concerning the aftermath.
To Chris:
There is no AlQaida-Iran cooperation.
Who tells us that there is? Reliable sources?I could tell you that I've heard this: Right now AlQaida is paid by the US government ... and the US government might give nuclear weapons to AlQaida.
Would you believe it?
You wouldn't!
Why not?
Because it cannot but be bullshit.And you were right. You wouldn't need any research to come to that conclusion, and only very strong, very reliable indications might start you consider such a claim.
So do I in the case of AlQaida-Iran.
Look at all the blatant government lies about Iranian support for Sunni insurgency and civil war efforts. Why should the Shiite Iranians help those who kill their Shiite Iraqi allies and Iranian pilgrims? Iran supports the US efforts to crush the Sunni attempt to restore Sunni power in Iraq. SIIC & Badr Corps are US allies AND Iran's allies - allies of both!
Goebbels and Hitler once famously stated: You've got to give the people always only ONE enemy. - So they merged all their enemies into ONE: Jews, Communists, Capitalist - all ONE capital enemy, the three conspirating together against the German people.
This is a psychological mechanism that works everywhere, also among lefties.
Sober people know to differ between their enemies, keep them apart - and use the antagonisms or different interests among them to fight them successfully.
By the way, the NYTimes is NOT a reliable source when it comes to the MidEast. Gordon, their journalist in charge of this area, is a warmonger, mostly just parrotting US government and army propaganda. Like disgraced Judy Miller in 2003.
Comment Posted By leo On 17.07.2007 @ 04:33
Those who assume that Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel - before Israel would use her's on Iran - seem to assume also: Iran (the Mullah regime there) is ready to commit suicide.
What ever you may object to this regime - they are no suiciders.
Even if they lost their power through domestic reform or revolution - quite possible in the coming decade, as a majority of the Iranians is against the Theocrats - the Mullahs would not go mad, but try to launch a come-back to power the usual way. Shiites can take defeats, and have a long breath, as you can learn from their history.
So, although it is never agreable to have ANOTHER nuclear power, and Iran in particular, I would not be too scared.
Anyway, if it were so horrible for Israel that Iran might get nuclear weapons - why not make a deal with them: Israel scraps all HER own about 200 nuclear weapons - and Iran, in return, gives up the civil nuclear program they try to establish right now ...
It also is absolutely unlikely that a nuclear armed Iran would give nuclear weapons to AlQaida - these Sunnite extremists are their lethal enemies, and it would be the very last thing Shiite Iran would do: empowering those who want to annihilate them - AlQaida sees Shiites as heretics who have to be extinguished.
The nuclear danger Iran poses to us or Israel is HYPED.
There are interested powers and people who hype it. The Cheney Gang, mainly.
And most of the rest of the Americans, once again, follows suit. As it was in the case of Iraq's WMD.So, let's cool down this time BEFORE the desaster starts, and have a sober look on REALITY!
Comment Posted By leo On 16.07.2007 @ 19:33
Moose wrote:
"Rick you seem to have lost the will to win and the lefties are going to eat you up for lunch,nomatter how much the bravado."Indeed, a dilemma. A tricky psychological situation for Rick Moran.
Someone who gambles or speculates in money is on a losing streak and asks himself: Should I go on and invest more money? Throw more good money into the abyss?
You may turn the corner, if lucky, or go broke completely.
Grown-up and levelheaded people usually stop early enough. They know that mere will-power will not coerce reality.
It was Karl Rove, I think, who famously said: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality ... we'll act again, creating other new realities ... We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
That is the mindset: Create your own reality by the power of your own will. The "Moose mindset": You win if you have the will to win.
It doesn't work. Reality should always be treated humbly. Superior to our will.
It is not "lefties" who eat you up, Rick Moran, it is reality.
And you know: The "Moose mindset" would ruin your nation, if the nation followed it, as it has ruined plenty of gamblers and speculators, and as it had ruined Germany twice.
Comment Posted By leo On 16.07.2007 @ 03:45
