Well said. That group, however is too powerful and influential with the Republican party. In that sense, you could say this war was waged for religious dominance. Nothing, but a modern day crusade. It's funny how the people who are on God's side, want to annihilate anyone who doesn't believe in their god.
Yeah, they're so powerful that John McCain will likely be the runaway nominee. I pray I'm on God's side...I'm just not arrogant enough to believe He's always on mine!
I was just about to say that. The Evangelical vote is often overstated, they represent no more than a fifth of the electorate and even THEN -- the way the system is designed -- they need to form political alliances to get what they want done/work through the system. There are probably as many leftists in America who balance them out by their strong dislike for Israeli policies (the type that view Israel as a militarist state and think the U.S. should stop being their enabler). Just because they happen to be the most vocal doesn't mean they hold all the cards.
They are voting for Huckabee because he is the Christian pastor in the race. They're not voting for McCain.
And Huckabee ain't winning. And it's really not even close. Which makes my point, albeit sarcastically, that they're not all that powerful and/or influential in the Republican party.
I understood your point and your sarcasm. I just thought you meant they were voting for McCain and he still wasn't winning big.
You do realize that Democrats are just as pro-Israel as Republicans and evangelical Christians have almost no influence in the Dem party.
I agree, but there's a difference between being pro-Israel and being pro-war. Democrats do not want a war. Both parties stink. We have to change the political system to a system which directly responds to the constituency and not pro-war industrial complex or pharmaceutical companies who do not want to compete, but instead rely on government patents to avoid competition.
Both parties stink to the point I despise each. At the same time, I've given up the idea that the "system" will change. You have two major parties that are by 6-7 major "pressure groups" on each side. These pressure groups care more about their own agenda than they do about the country as a whole. That's the way it is. If there was a realistic way to change things for the better, I'd be all for it. I don't really understand your comment about pharmaceutical companies and patents. Maybe you could start another thread. If you are saying big pharma is a major cause of health care problems, I agree.
What do you mean so what? You said Iran has never attacked anyone, and certainly not Americans. The Iran Hostage Crises (as should be apparent from the name) was Iran attacking Americans. Hezballah, in addition to being a political party in Lebanon, is a terrorist organization funded and supplied by Iran. They have attacked Americans and our allies. Your entire point is based on made up bull****. Iran has attacked us. Iran has attacked our allies. Iran has shown a willingness to supply terrorists with weapons. Iran is developing nuclear technology that can be used for weapons. Iran was offered nuclear technology that would accomplish their stated goal of power generation, but could not be used for nuclear weapons, and they turned it down. Iran has a history of secret weapons programs. To claim that Iran has never attacked us and is not a threat to American interests is just either burying your head in the sand or worse is being a shill for Iran.
The following seemed worth posting. I don't think Russia is a US stooge, so for them to weigh in on the balance makes me think that concerns about Iran are more than just hot air. Iran is definitely, beyond doubt, working on an ICBM program. Irrespective of how much they spend, if we assume for a second that they are working towards nuclear warheads plus ICBM's, that is much more dangerous/aggressive than anything that Israel currently has or plans. I'm not particularly interested in taking sides against Iran here, but I'm not sure this is 100% valid way to measure militancy. But I think that it would be interesting to do more than look at straight dollar amounts. For instance, are the costs of building and maintaining the walls (which I appreciate many people dislike but could not be considered aggressive weapons) factored into the number for Israel? Is $1000 dollars spent on a wall equal to $1000 spent on assault rifles? Given the size of the Revolutionary Forces' business interests in Iran, how are their profits accounted for? And for that matter, neither of these countries are exactly known for their military transparency. Exactly how accurate are the figures they give? Etc. Etc. source [rquoter] Russia's Lavrov denounces Iranian nuclear 'intentions': agencies MOSCOW (AFP) — Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov denounced Iran on Wednesday for constantly showing its intentions to develop rocket technologies and enrich uranium, agencies said. "We don't approve of Iran's permanent demonstration of its intentions to develop its rocket sector and continue to enrich uranium," Lavrov was quoted by the RIA Novosti and Interfax news agencies as saying. "It's impossible to ignore the fact that problems with Iran's nuclear programme have arisen in recent years. While they haven't been resolved it would be better to refrain from actions that raise tensions and create the impression Iran is ignoring the international community," he said. Lavrov, who was speaking en route from an EU-Russia meeting in Ljubljana, said it was necessary for all sides in talks on Iran to concentrate on resolving the matter at hand rather than being guided by "considerations connected to the political agenda of the day," ITAR-TASS reported. Earlier this month Iran fired a rocket into space to mark the opening of its first space center, hailing the base's inauguration as a step in its battle against what it sees as Western dominance. Meanwhile Tehran has continued to enrich uranium, despite the fact that Russia is supply uranium for the Bushehr nuclear power station being built by Moscow in the south of the Islamic republic. Western countries suspect that Iran's stated aim of developing nuclear power may be a cover for an atomic weapons programme, something Tehran denies. Russia is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and has relatively close ties to Iran. [/rquoter]
Yeah, I am a shill for Iran. Let me call my buddy Ahmedinejad and see what's up. The Iranian hostage crisis was a completely peaceful protest against American presence in Iran. They could have chosen a coup d'etat/a military operation, but instead they chose to not kill anyone. No hostages were killed. They achieved indepedence and were able to pick their own government. An attack is nothing less than a declaration of war. So, Iran has never even done anything remotely close to an attack on the US, nor would they want to nor do they have the capability. They want to benefit from an economic relationship with us, they're very poor. The reason they don't is that we have imposed economic sanctions. As far as attacking our allies, which allies are you referring to? We change allies like Britney Spears changes boyfriends. We were allies with Osama Bin Ladin and Shah of Iran. Now they are our enemies. Every country in the world has been the enemy of the United States at some point in time. We have nuclear weapons, Iran should be allowed to have them as well. We can't say do as we say, not as we do. They are the weakest and poorest large nation in the region and they should be able to defend their country as they see fit. We have no right to interfere with their internal affairs. We caused the Iran mess in the first palce, by installing the Shah.
Yes you are, if it wasn't apparent before, it is now. Taking people hostage is not peaceful. Eight American soldiers were killed trying to rescue the hostages, which is also not peaceful. in that case, the US has not attacked Iraq, didn't attack Vietnam, didn't attack Korea, and in fact has only been involved in 5 attacks since the country was established, none since WWII. The reason we have imposed economic sanctions are that Iran has attacked us, has threatened our allies, has continually sponsored terrorists, and have been trying to develop nuclear weapons. If they just quit the last three, the sanctions would most likely be lifted. Unfortunately, despite your oh so convincing statements to the contrary, they are not as interested in trading with us as they are in being terrorist sponsors and nuclear weapon developers. I am referring to allies that they attack, while the country is our ally. The easiest example is Israel. They have also supplied weapons, agents, and training that has been used against the MNF Iraq that is made up of allies of the US. There was also some indication that they were arming our enemies in Afghanistan, who also attack American allies. I disagree. Just because we have nuclear weapons, that is no reason for us to want other countries to have them. We should do everything in our power to stop any nation that tries to acquire nuclear weapons. We have every right to interfere with their internal affairs. I don't know where you come up with these pie in the sky notions that we should let everyone else do whatever they want, and everything is going to end up puppy dogs and rainbows. Maybe if we had made sure the Shah stayed in power, none of this would be happening (although I don't think we should have installed the Shah in the first place, I didn't have much say in the matter since I was not even born.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imad_Mugniyah Mughniyah has been implicated in many of terrorist attacks in the 1980s and 1990s, primarily American and Israeli targets. These include the April 18, 1983 bombing of the United States embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, which killed 63 people including 17 Americans. He was later blamed for the October 23, 1983 simultaneous truck bombings against French paratroopers and the U.S. Marine barracks. The attacks killed 58 French soldiers and 241 Marines. On September 20, 1984, he attacked the US embassy annex building. The United States indicted him (and his collaborator, Hassan Izz al-Din) for the June 14, 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847, which resulted in the death of U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem.[10] He was also linked to numerous kidnappings of Westerners in Beirut through the 1980s, most notably that of Terry Anderson. Some of these individuals were later killed, such as U.S. Army Colonel William Francis Buckley. Iran has condemed the killing In mid-February 1997, the pro-Israeli South Lebanese Army radio station reported that Iran's intelligence service had dispatched Mughniyah to Lebanon to directly supervise the reorganization of Hezbollah's security apparatus concerned with Palestinian affairs in Lebanon and to work as a security liaison between Hezbollah and Iranian intelligence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah "I am against any reconciliation with Israel. I do not even recognize the presence of a state that is called 'Israel.' ---leader of Hezbollah Hezbollah is accused of being responsible for a number of attacks and kidnappings carried out since its founding in the early 1980s.[86][87][88] These include: April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing [89] 1983 Beirut barracks bombing,[86][88][89] kidnappings of Western, especially American, targets in the 80s,[88], mostly alleged by the US, Israel, and Canada, while others allege that other groups were responsible the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 in 1985[86] by a group with alleged links to Hezbollah Between 1982 to 1986, 41 Hezbollah suicide attackers killed 659 people, including 241 US Marines as they slept.[90] In the American Conservative Robert Pape details 38 of the bombers as 8 Muslim, 27 Communists/Socialists and 3 Christian.[91] the 1992 Israeli Embassy attack in Buenos Aires, Argentina[86][88] the 1994 AMIA bombing of a Jewish cultural centre, also in Argentina.[86] the January 15, 2008, bombing of a U.S. Embassy vehicle in Beirut. Hezbollah has close relations with Iran.[144] It also has ties with the Alawite leadership in Syria, specifically with President Hafez al-Assad (until his death in 2000) and his son and successor Bashar al-Assad.[145] Although Hezbollah and Hamas are not organizationally linked, Hezbollah provides military training as well as financial and moral support to the Sunni Palestinian group.[146] Furthermore, Hezbollah is a strong supporter of the ongoing Al-Aqsa Intifada.[8]
It's not an accurate measure, no. I was mainly interested in the contrast between Iran's military spending and those of their Arab neighbors. The title was mostly in jest. It may not be a good measure for 'militancy', but it provides some insight into how countries in the region choose to spend their money (or our money, in some cases).
Absolutely, I've made no claims about either party here, just that Evangelicals are the only sizable pro-Israel voting bloc in the electorate, and they happen to be on the right. The two parties/political and ruling elites are consistently pro-Israel, but that's not reflective of reality or general sentiments, just the pressure/interest groups that happen to be the most vocal about this particular issue.
Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama strongly supports the U.S.-Israel relationship, believes that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East. Obama supports this closeness, stating that that the United States would never distance itself from Israel. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
idk... maybe God? (originally) "And it shall be when the LORD shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee, a land flowing with milk and honey, that thou shalt keep this service in this month." -Exodus 13:5 (referring to the area presently known as Israel -which Jacob (son of Isaac, grandson of Abraham) had his named changed to by God) It goes waaaaaaaaaaaaay back.
it cuts both ways - in 1953 the cia overthrew their democratically elected government and installed a brutal dictator who killed and disappeared hundreds of thousands. how would you feel if the kgb had overthrown our government, forced the president into house arrest and publicly executed congress? during the iran-iraq war we armed saddam and provided him with logistical support in a war which killed over a million (not to mention that we were also covertly arming the iranians and using the profits to fund terrorist groups in latin america). many other countries have done far worse when it comes to developing/acquiring nukes and we dont do anything. north korea was part of the "axis of evil", but they got nukes and our government doesnt seem to mind. pakistan has nukes and our government gives them billions in aid. israel has nukes and has violated hundreds of un resolutions, but it doesnt matter. and saudi arabia is doing just as much if not more in arming insurgents, yet they are our allies. and abc news reported that our government is right now funding terrorist groups inside iran (the jundullah). why the double standard? israel doesnt need our help in dealing w/ iran. if iran ever did anything to them, israel could destroy the country in minutes. to say that iran poses any kind of threat to the us or israel it a joke.
