[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But what about rights? Does Iran have the right to build and develop nuclear weapons? If not, why?
I don’t think weapons will stabilized anything. I am not sure I even understand what stabilization means in this regard.[/quote]
No. Only Americans and Israelis lives have value. Only Americans and Israelis have rights you pinko commie lib tree hugger hippy homo anti-Semite. I hereby sentence you to 12 hours a day of Fox News until you get with the program.
[quote]GreenMountains wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But what about rights? Does Iran have the right to build and develop nuclear weapons? If not, why?
I don’t think weapons will stabilized anything. I am not sure I even understand what stabilization means in this regard.
No. Only Americans and Israelis lives have value. Only Americans and Israelis have rights you pinko commie lib tree hugger hippy homo anti-Semite. I hereby sentence you to 12 hours a day of Fox News until you get with the program.
[/quote]
You’re onto something there: watching a lot of Foxnews will change your life!!!
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
one attack has changed the US and the US standing in the world significantly.
You’re truly a fucking idiot!
[/quote]
So you also know better than me how the picture of the US outside the US has changed.
Bravo!
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Here’s a novel idea: Why don’t you let Americans worry about America, and you go back to whatever it is that Austrians do (when they’re not busy saving the world from America’s evil).[/quote]
Please, let’s not insult the Austrians by not knowing their history. We know full well that if the Evil American Empire were to really threaten the Austrians, they would not try to save anybody, least of all themselves. They would roll out their American flags from hiding and throw in with us, and then
spend the next half century pretending that we conquered them when they were found out.
Vernichtung durch Arbeit, anyone?
Austrian identity and the “victim theory”
After World War II, many Austrians sought comfort in the idea of Austria as “the Nazis’ first victim”. Although the Nazi party was promptly banned, Austria did not have the same thorough process of de-Nazification at the top of government which was imposed on Germany for a time. Lacking outside pressure for political reform, factions of Austrian society tried for a long time to advance the view that the Anschluss was only an annexation at the point of a bayonet.
This view of the events of 1938 has deep roots in the ten years of Allied occupation and the struggle to regain Austrian sovereignty: The victim theory played an essential role in the negotiations on the Austrian State Treaty with the Soviets, and by pointing to the Moscow Declaration, Austrian politicians heavily relied on it to achieve a solution for Austria different from the Germany’s division into East and West. The State Treaty, alongside with the subsequent Austrian declaration of permanent neutrality, marked important milestones for the solidification of Austria’s independent national identity during the course of following decades.
As Austrian politicians of the Left and Right attempted to reconcile their differences in order to avoid the violent conflict that had dominated the First Republic, discussions of both Austrian-Nazism and Austria’s role during the Nazi-era were largely avoided. Still, the Austrian People’s Party (�?VP) had advanced, and still advances, the argument that the establishment of the Dollfuss dictatorship was necessary in order to maintain Austrian independence; while the Austrian Social Democratic Party, (SP�?), argues that the Dollfuss dictatorship stripped the country of the democratic resources necessary to repel Hitler; yet it ignores that Hitler himself was indigenous to Austria.
Political events
For decades, the victim theory established in the Austrian mind remained largely undisputed. The Austrian public was only rarely forced to confront the legacy of the Third Reich (most notably during the events of 1965 concerning Taras Borodajkewycz, a professor of economic history notorious for anti-Semitic remarks, when Ernst Kirchweger, a concentration camp survivor, was killed by a right-wing protester during riots). It was not until the 1980s that Austrians were finally massively confronted with their past.
The main catalyst for the start of a Vergangenheitsbewältigung was the so-called Waldheim affair. The Austrian reply to allegations during the 1986 Presidential election campaign that successful candidate and former UN Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim had been a member of the Nazi party and of the infamous SA (he was later absolved of direct involvement in war crimes) was that scrutiny was an unwelcome intervention in the country’s internal affairs. Despite the politicians’ reactions to international criticism of Waldheim, the Waldheim affair started the first serious major discussion on Austria’s past and the Anschluss.
Another main factor for Austria and its coming to terms with the past emerged in the 1980s: Jörg Haider and the rise of the Freedom Party of Austria (FP�?). The party had combined elements of the pan-German right with free-market liberalism since its foundation in 1955, but after Haider had ascended to the party chairmanship in 1986, the liberal elements became increasingly marginalized while Haider began to openly use nationalist and anti-immigrant rhetoric. He was often criticised for tactics such as the völkisch (ethnic) definition of national interest (“Austria for Austrians”) and his apologism for Austria’s past, notably calling members of the Waffen-SS “men of honour”. Following an enormous electoral rise in the 1990s peaking in the 1999 elections, the FP�?, now purged of its liberal elements, entered a coalition with the Austrian People’s Party (�?VP) led by Wolfgang Schüssel that met international condemnation in 2000. This coalition triggered the regular Donnerstagsdemonstrationen (Thursday demonstrations) in protest against the government, which took place on the Heldenplatz, where Hitler had greeted the masses during the Anschluss. Haider’s tactics and rhetoric, which were often criticised as sympathetic to Nazism, again forced Austrians to reconsider their relationship to the past.
[quote]BH6 wrote:
Now imagine a biological attack that is next to impossible to prevent and/or trace back and 1984 will look like Disneyland.
If that happens they will have destroyed the US all but in name by using the American government and the fear of the American public.
Orion you are hung up on the biological attack scenario, which actually sounds more neo-con than admitting it isn’t a realistic threat. We can spend billions of dollars in government money building and installing biological monitoring systems if we convince everyone it is viable threat.
Biological weapons are hard to make and harder to employ successfully. It takes training and resources to make and employ a bio-weapon, and the world intelligence agencies and law-enforcement have been monitoring this issue for a very long time. If it was so easy, why hasn’t Isreal been attacked by a bio-weapon? That would be a reasonable target.
A successful bio-weapon attack, such as smallpox, is a worldwide threat and is treated as such by the intelligence agencies and law-enforcement agencies around the world. Even in Austria.
The United States wouldn’t be ruined by such an attack. The IRA couldn’t take down Britian, Hamas can’t take down Isreal, the FARC can’t take down Columbia, and Aum Shiriko couldn’t take down Japan with their chemical attack in Tokyo.
Every attack is traceable. Terrorist don’t attack without claiming it or exploiting the attack for thier purposes. Terrorist attacks without media exploitation are not effective. The anthrax mailing incidents in the US were never claimed and those incident have generally been forgotten by the public. That is considered a failure.
Bio-weapons are a threat that must be considered, but that scenario has acutally been thought out and planned for long before 9/11.
[/quote]
I am not so hung up on Bio weapons, I just know that the technology to produce WMDs gets cheaper by the day.
I am also not impressed with terrorists so far, because even though they do some damage they always seem to be thinking along the same lines since the 19 century anarchists.
I am worried that some of them will wake up and realize that they live in the 21st century.
If they do we are all fucked.
There is no amount of surveillance that could stop them.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:
If that happens they will have destroyed the US all but in name by using the American government and the fear of the American public.
WTF do you care? Clearly that’s your preference.
Here’s a novel idea: Why don’t you let Americans worry about America, and you go back to whatever it is that Austrians do (when they’re not busy saving the world from America’s evil).[/quote]
That is all we ever do-
It is a fulltime job.
That and jodeling.
In Lederhosen.
[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Here’s a novel idea: Why don’t you let Americans worry about America, and you go back to whatever it is that Austrians do (when they’re not busy saving the world from America’s evil).
Please, let’s not insult the Austrians by not knowing their history. We know full well that if the Evil American Empire were to really threaten the Austrians, they would not try to save anybody, least of all themselves. They would roll out their American flags from hiding and throw in with us, and then
spend the next half century pretending that we conquered them when they were found out.
Vernichtung durch Arbeit, anyone?
Austrian identity and the “victim theory”
After World War II, many Austrians sought comfort in the idea of Austria as “the Nazis’ first victim”. Although the Nazi party was promptly banned, Austria did not have the same thorough process of de-Nazification at the top of government which was imposed on Germany for a time. Lacking outside pressure for political reform, factions of Austrian society tried for a long time to advance the view that the Anschluss was only an annexation at the point of a bayonet.
This view of the events of 1938 has deep roots in the ten years of Allied occupation and the struggle to regain Austrian sovereignty: The victim theory played an essential role in the negotiations on the Austrian State Treaty with the Soviets, and by pointing to the Moscow Declaration, Austrian politicians heavily relied on it to achieve a solution for Austria different from the Germany’s division into East and West. The State Treaty, alongside with the subsequent Austrian declaration of permanent neutrality, marked important milestones for the solidification of Austria’s independent national identity during the course of following decades.
As Austrian politicians of the Left and Right attempted to reconcile their differences in order to avoid the violent conflict that had dominated the First Republic, discussions of both Austrian-Nazism and Austria’s role during the Nazi-era were largely avoided. Still, the Austrian People’s Party (�?VP) had advanced, and still advances, the argument that the establishment of the Dollfuss dictatorship was necessary in order to maintain Austrian independence; while the Austrian Social Democratic Party, (SP�?), argues that the Dollfuss dictatorship stripped the country of the democratic resources necessary to repel Hitler; yet it ignores that Hitler himself was indigenous to Austria.
Political events
For decades, the victim theory established in the Austrian mind remained largely undisputed. The Austrian public was only rarely forced to confront the legacy of the Third Reich (most notably during the events of 1965 concerning Taras Borodajkewycz, a professor of economic history notorious for anti-Semitic remarks, when Ernst Kirchweger, a concentration camp survivor, was killed by a right-wing protester during riots). It was not until the 1980s that Austrians were finally massively confronted with their past.
The main catalyst for the start of a Vergangenheitsbewältigung was the so-called Waldheim affair. The Austrian reply to allegations during the 1986 Presidential election campaign that successful candidate and former UN Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim had been a member of the Nazi party and of the infamous SA (he was later absolved of direct involvement in war crimes) was that scrutiny was an unwelcome intervention in the country’s internal affairs. Despite the politicians’ reactions to international criticism of Waldheim, the Waldheim affair started the first serious major discussion on Austria’s past and the Anschluss.
Another main factor for Austria and its coming to terms with the past emerged in the 1980s: Jörg Haider and the rise of the Freedom Party of Austria (FP�?). The party had combined elements of the pan-German right with free-market liberalism since its foundation in 1955, but after Haider had ascended to the party chairmanship in 1986, the liberal elements became increasingly marginalized while Haider began to openly use nationalist and anti-immigrant rhetoric. He was often criticised for tactics such as the völkisch (ethnic) definition of national interest (“Austria for Austrians”) and his apologism for Austria’s past, notably calling members of the Waffen-SS “men of honour”. Following an enormous electoral rise in the 1990s peaking in the 1999 elections, the FP�?, now purged of its liberal elements, entered a coalition with the Austrian People’s Party (�?VP) led by Wolfgang Schüssel that met international condemnation in 2000. This coalition triggered the regular Donnerstagsdemonstrationen (Thursday demonstrations) in protest against the government, which took place on the Heldenplatz, where Hitler had greeted the masses during the Anschluss. Haider’s tactics and rhetoric, which were often criticised as sympathetic to Nazism, again forced Austrians to reconsider their relationship to the past.[/quote]
So yes, we had the Waldheim incident.
As your source rightly mentions that lead to a lot of rethinking about previously held beliefs- though nobody in his right mind seriously believed that we were Hitlers “first victim”.
So our reaction to said crisis was to face our history, try to reach some sort of understanding with slave workers and Jews that had to flee leaving their wealth behind.
Which by the way, was done by a coalition including the FPOE.
That is an interesting reaction to criticism isn`t it?
We could of course have lamented about rampant anti-Austrianism and that they hate us for our freedoms but then, we´re smarter than that.
Anything else?
[quote]orion wrote:
As your source rightly mentions that lead to a lot of rethinking about previously held beliefs- though nobody in his right mind seriously believed that we were Hitlers “first victim”.
[/quote]
Thanks for proving my point precisely. For being so “smart” you really are a fucking dimwit.
I banish you to a life of insignifance… Oops, too late!
This is a major concern for whatever “stability” is supposedly desired in the Middle East. Iranians have repeatedly stated that if they’re attacked (Even by just the US), they will bomb Israel.
I’m sure we can all imagine how that’s going to go down.
[quote]Nikiforos wrote:
Iranians have repeatedly stated that if they’re attacked (Even by just the US), they will bomb Israel. [/quote]
I sure never heard that before. Anything to back up your “even by just the US” condition?
[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
orion wrote:
As your source rightly mentions that lead to a lot of rethinking about previously held beliefs- though nobody in his right mind seriously believed that we were Hitlers “first victim”.
Thanks for proving my point precisely. For being so “smart” you really are a fucking dimwit.
I banish you to a life of insignifance… Oops, too late!
[/quote]
As I posted:
Anything else?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Nikiforos wrote:
Iranians have repeatedly stated that if they’re attacked (Even by just the US), they will bomb Israel.
I sure never heard that before. Anything to back up your “even by just the US” condition?[/quote]
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/05/iran_threatens_.html
I’m surprised you haven’t. I had to use google but there was a good article I had bookmarked which had been used as a source for a Wikipedia article on Iran’s WMD program, by Al Jazeera online , but it seems to be a dead link now.
Such statements have been attributed to some military officials from what I gather and although I would doubt the veracity of a lot of things coming out of Iran, this is certainly something plausible.
Anyway given the states involved, signs such as this and the recent Israeli bombing of a Syrian target are worrying.
[quote]Nikiforos wrote:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/05/iran_threatens_.html
[/quote]
Thanks for the reply.
The General’s words do in no way threaten Israel if Iran is attacked by the US alone, as you claimed. I’m being a pain in the neck here, but such distinctions are very important. That Iran would retaliate against aggressors is very different from targeting a country that didn’t attack them. If what you said is true, I’ll certainly change my position vis-a-vis the conflict. It’s one thing to defend yourself, but threatening people on no basis is simply not acceptable.
I beg to differ. The Ayatollah would never allow it. But let’s not dwell into “plausibilities”.
Anyway, if any of you guys find something that validates Niki’s claim, please share.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
one attack has changed the US and the US standing in the world significantly.
You’re truly a fucking idiot!
So you also know better than me how the picture of the US outside the US has changed.
Bravo!
That’s not my point you moron. I think you’ve had this explained to you many times, but I’ll do it just once more because I know your a fucking idiot who rages on about the USA every chance you get. And just for you I’ll type slowly:
W e d o n’ t c a r e w h a t p e o p l e t h i n k w h e n i t c o m e s t o o u r s a f e t y!
Got It WHORION?
[/quote]
So people like you do not get that what people like me think influences your level of safety?
There are words for that, look them up.