Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Welcome to kingsnake.com's message board system. Here you may share and discuss information with others about your favorite reptile and amphibian related topics such as care and feeding, caging requirements, permits and licenses, and more. Launched in 1997, the kingsnake.com message board system is one of the oldest and largest systems on the internet.

Click here to visit Classifieds

The next consequence of the war on Iraq (more...)

H+E Stoeckl Sep 14, 2004 07:50 AM

The U.S. supported Saddam several years in order to prevent the Mullahs in Iran to become #1 military power in this region.

Now the Iraq is down (for reasons we all know) and the guys in Iran do their best to support riot in Iraq in order to keep the U.S. busy and to make way for the Iraqi Mullahs to take over.

I read an interesting line several days ago in this forum:

"If you want to be left alone, get a nuke".

That's what the Mullahs in Iran are up to now. And in contrast to all other things they do, in this intention they are supported by all the citizens (which are normally not glad about their religious leaders).

So what will be the next gambit of the mighty U.S.? War on Iraq to prevent the islamic nuke?

I sense bad times for the U.S. tax payers (not to mention the soldiers and civilians on either side that will suffer and die).

And another thing: One can not trust agreements with muslims. Because it is regarded as a fancy thing to lie to the crusaders when it comes to negotiations.

Replies (4)

rearfang Sep 14, 2004 08:17 AM

"one cannot trust agreements with Muslims. Because it is regarded as a fancy thing to lie to the crusaders when it comes to negotiations."

It's sad how few westerners understand the truth of it. Muslims never agree to ANYTHING unless they can use that agreement to their advantage. The intent not being to agree with the terms. Usually its to stall or buy time for their next operation.

Honor (as we know it) is a western concept...not a Muslim one. And they know how to use that against us.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

sobek Sep 16, 2004 06:33 PM

>>Muslims never agree to ANYTHING unless they can use that agreement to their advantage.

Come on! That is just a silly comment. Like ANYONE agrees to something in which they are put at a DIS-ADVANTAGE.

>>Honor (as we know it) is a western concept...

Thats just rude. Ex: Japans samurai?

>>not a Muslim one. And they know how to use that against us.

Is it a Christian one?

rearfang Sep 17, 2004 08:18 AM

Before you call someone rude try (again) reading history. Also try living with Moslems (which I have). Expecting every one in the world to think the same way is wrong. We are a vastly different culture from Moslems or Japanese. One of our biggest weaknesses is that lack of understanding.

Our sense of honor is governed by Christian morality. While Christians have (covertly) done plenty of nasty things, it is not the way we envision ourselves politically. When it comes to diplomacy we tend to be more strait forward and perhaps even miopic when it comes to what we expect others to respond to. It all goes back to Magna Carta and our respect of what was called Chivalry. We expect an agreement to be held to.

Of course anyone agrees to what gives them the advantage. The difference is that we agree to something and try to hold to it. The Moslem agrees (to take advantage of concessions we grant)and then breaks the agreement so he can manuver for still more advantage. We are learning this game, but we are still amateurs.

The ancestors of the Moslems learned the subtle art of politics from the Chinnese they conquered. Murder, kidnapping, terror tactics, etc is all considered normal "moral" politics.

The Japanese Samurae had the Bu[bleep]o code to live by which is a strict guide to behaviour. There is no comparison between the two cultures.

We still hold to standards of behavior that the Moslem mind considers foolish, because they limit advantage. We have the mistaken concept that They think like we do and will act according to our moral patterns. This is not true.

Examples:

That radical (as we call him) cleric in Iraq who keeps arranging for ceasefires (which we fall for) everytime he wants a small break to rearm or relocate his fighters. How many cease fires has he broken so far?

Saddam: How many games did he play to stall UN inspections (to his advantage? He played the game of agree then withdraw and so delayed his fall from power by ten years.

The Iran hostage incident: 440 days of yanking the US around and then delaying the hostage release so they could embarrass Jimmy Carter by allowing his successor (Reagan) the (appearance of winning their release).

Much more subtle than we would be.

try reading about Ghengis Khan, Bibars, Timor the Lame, and other great Pre-Moslem and Moslem leaders.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

rearfang Sep 17, 2004 08:30 AM

Seems I misplet Bushido I was censored for the "T".

OOPS>>>>

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Site Tools