Text 22596, 134 rader
Skriven 2008-10-26 01:48:35 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Loyalties
=================
Hello Robert,

On Saturday October 25 2008 08:11, you wrote to me:

 MV>> You are mixing up cause and effect. Both the US and Israel have
 MV>> threatened to attack Iran many times.

 RB> For what reasons?

The reasons do not matter. A threat is a threat irrespective of the reasons
given. And a threat evokes a response. The dog does not care for your reasons
to kick it. I t wil bite anyway if it can.

 RB> And before or after Iran started screaming that it was going to
 RB> "drive the jews into the sea"? And before it started sending terrorist
 RB> cell leaders into Iran?

How far back do you want to go? Th US sided with Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war. I'd
consoder that a threat for starters.

 MV>> And contrary to Iran, they actually have the means to carry out
 MV>> those threats.

 RB> Reality says different,

No, it doesn't. Iran does not have te means to drive Israel into the sea. Both
Israel and the US have the capabilty to drive Iran off the map. Whether they
want to is another matter, but they have the capability.

 RB> Michiel. Israel has to live in the region, and the USA isn't about to
 RB> interfere anymore than now unless absolutely forced to do so. Nuclear
 RB> capability in the hands of wild-talking and wild-dealing fanatics

Like George Bush?

 MV>> Perhaps the hate tirades and the sabre rattling would stop when
 MV>> Israel and the US would stop the threats?

 RB> What came first, the chicken or the egg? I say "Khoumeini".

What about him? What real threat did he ever pose to the world?

 RB>>> If Iran is cornered, it did a fine job of arranging that itself.
 RB>>> Nothing but fanaticiam, murder and hatred since 1973, when the
 RB>>> "great Satan" (Khoumani, who should have been shot when he lived
 RB>>> in Paris) came home.

 MV>> You mean after the people of Iran freed themselves from the US
 MV>> suppored dictatorship of the Sjah and invited Khoumani to become
 MV>> their new leader?

 RB> Sure, everybody knows how much better they have life now.

That is beside the point. They kicked out the Sjah and brought in Khomeiny.
Their choice. You don't have to like to live there, but it is their country.
mot yours.

 RB> Revolutionary Guards instead of Savak, rigid dress codes instead of
 RB> free choice, satellite dishes banned to make sure no outside news gets
 RB> into the country... a real paradise,

It seems they want it that way...

 RB> like under the Taliban in Afghanistan. Oh, yes... let's not forget the
 RB> free elections, freedom of speech and assembly and all the rest. So
 RB> much better nowadays...

Yes, the whole world should be like us shouldn't it? Well that is what started
this mess in the first place.

 MV>> There are two sides to every coin Bob...

 RB> Indeed. That doesn't always make one of them better, though.

"Better" is in the eye of the beholder. You may not want to live in water, but
I can assure you that any of your attempts to free the fish from it, are bound
to fail.

 RB> Bullies feel threatened, too, Michiel. That's why they beat up other
 RB> people. Should we allow that or even praise them for being so
 RB> upstanding? Or should we tell them precisely what will happen to them
 RB> if they take things too far?

 RB> And since I'm sure you'll turn that around to claim the USA is the
 RB> "bully" in this case,

Quite so. Th USA ia a bully. And not just in this case.

 RB> let me just remind you of the developments in Iran since 1973.

You already have. See above.

 MV>> Unlike you I am not brainwashed by the US propaganda machine.

 RB> Instead, you're brainwashed by the anti-US propaganda machine. Like
 RB> you say, two sides to every coin.

But you only see the side where the opponents of the US are the uncoditional
bad guys.

 MV>> Like Mexico has every reason to be mortally frightened of their
 MV>> imperialistic and powerful neighbour up north?

 RB> Apples and grapefruit. How long ago was the last border problem with
 RB> Mexico (1846), how big is Mexico (damn big) and is there any reason
 RB> the States might want to take over the country (no). If Mexico were
 RB> the size of Rhode Island and rich in minerals, you might have a point.

That does not alter the fact that the US has the means to do it and the madman
in charge who would if he thougt it would be of any benefit.

 RB>>> Israel is probably one of the best examples for the need to have
 RB>>> nukes to protect themselves via the threat of retaliation.

 MV>> Any more than say Venuzuela?

 RB> I haven't lately noticed that Venezuela was surrounded by the USA,

One does not have to be surrounded to feel threatened. Venwzuela has oil. Lots
of it. The US has been known to attack and invade countries that have lots of
oil.
 MV>> Try to forget about your preconceived notions of who is the good
 MV>> and who is the bad and try to look at it from the other side's POV
 MV>> for a change.

 RB> Two sides to every coin, like you say.

Yeah, but you only see the one. You are incapable of seeing it from the POV of
the opponents of the country where you were born.

Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)