Rumors of War: Is Bush Gearing Up to Attack Iran? [Archive]

SMM

Jun 6, 2008, 05:05 PM

From AlterNet: (http://www.alternet.org/audits/87079/)

Something is afoot. Just what is not clear, but recent moves by the White House strongly suggest that Bush will attack Iran in the near future.

The May 8 letter from U.S. Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., chair of the House Judiciary Committee, to George W. Bush received virtually no media coverage, in spite of the fact that it warned the president that an attack on Iran without Congressional approval would be grounds for impeachment. Rumor has it several senators have been briefed about the possibility of war with Iran.

Something is afoot.

Just what is not clear, but over the past several months, several moves by the White House strongly suggest that the Bush administration will attack Iran sometime in the near future. According to the Asia Times, "a former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community" said an air attack will target the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force garrisons. Not even the White House is bonkers enough to put troops on the ground amid 65 million Iranians.

From The Washington Post: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/06/04/BL2008060401706.html)

Pushing Bush to Attack Iran

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is expected to use his White House visit today to push President Bush to take a more aggressive approach toward Iran -- and there are some signs that he'll have a receptive audience.

Both Olmert and Bush are badly wounded and looking for salvation. Olmert is facing corruption allegations that could drive him from office. Bush is wildly unpopular, desperate to salvage his legacy and fighting irrelevance as the general election begins in earnest -- with even the Republican candidate trying to keep him at a distance.

It's in this environment that the Jewish Telegraph Agency reports: "Ehud Olmert will urge President Bush to prepare an attack on Iran, an Israeli newspaper reported.

So, who benefits? Once again it is our 'friends' the Israelis and Oil. America has no legitimate interest here. The top 16 Intelligence Agencies, is their NIE, all concur that Iran has abandoned their nuclear weapons program (several years ago). They are no threat to us.

Before we attacked Iraq, Israel and the American Israeli lobby tried desperately to talk the Defense Policy Board into attacking Iran instead. But, Cheney shot it down. He said that the case for Hussein was already well underway.

I would support helping Israel defend itself, if they were actually being attacked, and needed our help. But, this strategy is from the right-wing extremists in Israel. Spending billions of dollars, and an unknown number of American casualties, just to further Israel's current aggressive policies, is insane. Even a majority of Israelis do not like the policies of the current regime. They are just pouring fuel on the fire, and pushing any change for peace in the region, further and further away. But, the American lobby is powerful. As soon as someone challenges them, their attack dogs come running.

obeygiant

Jun 6, 2008, 05:17 PM

The US will not attack Iran before Bush leaves office. Don't loose any sleep over it. :)

skunk

Jun 6, 2008, 05:33 PM

The US will not attack Iran before Bush leaves office. Don't loose any sleep over it. :)And you know this how?
Israeli minister threatens Iran
A top Israeli official has said that if Iran continues with its alleged nuclear arms programme, Israel will attack it.

Speaking to Yediot Ahronot newspaper, Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz said sanctions on Iran were ineffective.

Mr Mofaz is one of three deputy prime ministers and the transport minister.

Earlier this week, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Iran's nuclear programme must be stopped by what he termed all possible means.

"The international community has a duty and responsibility to clarify to Iran, through drastic measures, that the repercussions of their continued pursuit of nuclear weapons will be devastating," Mr Olmert said.

Iran insists that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes but it is defying a demand from the UN Security Council to stop the enrichment of uranium.

'Attack unavoidable'

"If Iran continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective," Mr Mofaz told Yediot Ahronot.

"Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable," he said.

The former chief of the army and defence minister is one of several senior figures in the governing Kadima party who may challenge the leadership of Mr Olmert, who faces allegations of corruption.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7440472.stm
Sure, no chance of Bush and Olmert falling into this one, is there?

savanahrose

Jun 6, 2008, 05:38 PM

I am afraid that he is stupid enough to do that. Especially if he sees Obama winning in the polls.
He wouldn't even think about our military in the endeavor. Which by the way (in my own opinion) is being spread too thin now. Could the draft be brought back for this?
Heaven help us and our military. Didn't I hear that they were pulling about 4000 troops from Iraq? Could it be so that they can go home and recoup and then be shipped to Iran?

Cleverboy

Jun 6, 2008, 06:34 PM

And you know this how?
[/indent]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7440472.stm
Sure, no chance of Bush and Olmert falling into this one, is there? I'd just heard this too on the news. I think it is foolish to believe that Bush wouldn't attempt to put something into motion. The fallacy is in believing that Bush is operating from a series of poorly conceived plans and not a disturbingly flawed sense of judgment and hardened ideological mindset. The judgment is still in the White House running the country.

~ CB

ayeying

Jun 6, 2008, 07:07 PM

Can we put bush on trial for crimes against humanity? Seriously, all he wants is to attack the middle east.

blackfox

Jun 6, 2008, 07:47 PM

I'm sorry - but with what exactly are we going to attack with?

Without actual soldiers - you can't do much but piss a lot of people off.

iJohnHenry

Jun 6, 2008, 07:57 PM

Tactical nuclear weapons, particularly the good ol' neutron bomb.

Remember that one???

SMM

Jun 6, 2008, 09:23 PM

I have read several reports, which say that the Iranian Guard barracks and bases are primary targets. How in the hell would attacking their military be consistent with just removing their nuclear threat? The answer is easy; It wouldn't. However, it would be a precursor to a regime change. We must assume that anything coming from the WH will be lies.

obeygiant

Jun 6, 2008, 10:05 PM

And you know this how?

There has been a danger of Israel attacking Iran for the last 20 years. I can't see this as the first time they've asked for help. Also, attacking Iran won't save the Bush presidency. GW doesn't even see his numbers are low, so why would he need to save anything? Besides, aren't you anti-nukes anyway?

Something afoot? Hmmm. Something smells a foot maybe.

mrkramer

Jun 6, 2008, 10:24 PM

I'm sorry - but with what exactly are we going to attack with?

Without actual soldiers - you can't do much but piss a lot of people off.

The only ways for us to do it would either be with nuclear weapons, or starting up a draft again. Either of which would make a lot of people mad.

solvs

Jun 7, 2008, 04:41 AM

The US will not attack Iran before Bush leaves office.
Not for lack of trying.

Meanwhile, Cheney was against it before he was for it (http://www.pubrecord.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=83&Itemid=8).

skunk

Jun 7, 2008, 04:50 AM

Besides, aren't you anti-nukes anyway?

Something afoot? Hmmm. Something smells a foot maybe.What exactly are you insinuating here? What bearing does being "anti-nukes" have on the question? Please explain yourself.

I wouldn't put it past Bush to start something in Iran with an air attack on the Quds Force in support of an Israeli attack on Nantaz. Bush is not exactly famous for having - or even wanting - an exit strategy. He's quite happy to leave his messes for others to clean up.

stevento

Jun 7, 2008, 02:36 PM

I dont know where bush thinks he is going to get the money/troops/justification for that...?
wait he doesn't need any of those things; all he needs is to say "9/11...terror...protect america..." and he's done. :mad::mad:

KingYaba

Jun 7, 2008, 02:44 PM

I'm sure the Air Force can handle Iran just fine.

Queso

Jun 7, 2008, 02:53 PM

So the basis of this argument is because Olmert and Bush are deeply unpopular they need to start a war in which tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people could die. Yeah, that ought to get people cheering their names :rolleyes:

Sabre-rattling is one thing, but both the Israeli and American populace have woken up to this now.

Kashchei

Jun 7, 2008, 02:59 PM

Prof.

Jun 7, 2008, 03:12 PM

What did Einstein say? Oh yeah.

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

Thank you sooooo much Mr. Bush.

skunk

Jun 7, 2008, 03:19 PM

I'm sure the Air Force can handle Iran just fine.Sadly, worryingly, there are many in the Pentagon and the Administration who think just like you.

Thomas Veil

Jun 7, 2008, 04:03 PM

The process of leading the country to war with Iraq took months. I think the same process may be repeating itself with Iran, but the goal is most likely somewhat different. Rather than leading to another occupation, I think Bush would instead selectively bomb nuclear sites. Whether or not these sites were actually being used to further Iran's nuclear ambitions would be beside the point; Bush's main objective would be to further entrench this country in a war that the majority of its people no longer want. These attacks would also be done before November and would be used, like the timing of the Guantanamo terrorist trial, to grow support for McCain in the general election.If Bush is planning to attack Iran, yours is the most sensible explanation of why and how.

Which isn't to say it's not problematical. Start bombing Middle East countries again, and just watch the violence in Iraq grow. Why in Iraq? Because (with the exception of the guys flying over Iran) that's where the Americans are. We will effectively rewind the war by a couple of years to where the insurgency was at its strongest.

Sun Baked

Jun 7, 2008, 04:17 PM

Bush nudges Cheney, "Time for you to have another heart attack, we need a 72 hour distraction."

Queso

Jun 7, 2008, 04:18 PM

Bush nudges Cheney, "Time for you to have another heart attack, we need a 72 hour distraction."
Shame those things aren't infectious isn't it? ;)

Sun Baked

Jun 7, 2008, 04:19 PM

Shame those things aren't infectious isn't it? ;)

Only if you nudge the CIA.

solvs

Jun 8, 2008, 04:14 AM

I'm sure the Air Force can handle Iran just fine.
They're already overextended elsewhere. But if you think Iran will be easy to just bomb and be done with it, you don't know Iran. An Iran war would be even worse and harder than Iraq, and we couldn't even handle that. Especially since we're back to losing the 'stans. Just what we need is a whole 'nother war we can't handle that will be sold as easy.

And for the record, no, I don't blame the troops themselves (I know some of them and almost was one myself until one of my friends in the AF convinced me not to among other reasons), I lay all blame at the feet of those making the decisions.

SMM

Jun 9, 2008, 06:04 PM

I have an update from the Israeli Press. I do not think we should interpret this to be definitive, we should not discount it either. Actually, the winds of war are once again beginning to blow at gale force. There have been several speculative op-eds, which are also predicting this same timeframe. There is no doubt that things are progressing beyond the discussion point. I will remind you that Congressman Conyers informed the President (by official mail), he (Conyers) would immediately begin impeachment, if Bush attacked Iran without congressional approval. However, if the impeachment process would begin today, it is doubtful that it could go all the way through a Senate trial, before Bush was out of office. If Bush waited for a couple months, it definitely would not happen.

The Israeli press reported last week that during a recent meeting, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was to urge President Bush to prepare an attack on Iran. The White House has not commented extensively on the meeting, but Israeli press are reporting today that Olmert has “hinted” that “U.S. action against Iran is imminent“:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert hinted after his meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush Wednesday that U.S. action against Iran is imminent. While he avoided saying anything clear and specific on the matter, Olmert did mention a “timetable” and said action would take place before Bush leaves the White House.

“We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat,” Olmert said after the meeting. “I left with a lot less question marks [than I had entered with] regarding the means, the timetable restrictions and America’s resoluteness to deal with the problem.”

“George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on the matter before the end of his term in the White House,” Olmert reportedly said after his 90 minute long one-on-one meeting with the American Commander in Chief.

Even Cheney's daughter is getting into the act. Yuk! :eek:

The Washington Post notes today that Liz Cheney, daughter of Vice President Cheney and a former State Department official, is “unhappy with key elements of U.S. Mideast policy.” “[W]e have been less effective and less successful…when we have been unfortunately not so bold,” she said of the Bush administration in remarks to AIPAC last week.

Liz Cheney encouraged the U.S. to draw more “red lines” in the Middle East, adopting an even harder-line than the Bush administration on key policies. When it came to Iran, however, Liz Cheney, seemed to be in full agreement with at least one administration official: her father. In her remarks, Cheney said the “time for diplomacy” with Iran is “rapidly coming to an end“:

Over the years, she said, there has been “no shortage of efforts to talk to them” — but to no avail: “We don’t have the luxury to have the debate we have been having about should we talk, should we not talk. The time for diplomacy here is rapidly coming to an end.“

Left unmentioned in the Post’s story is that Liz Cheney also said the U.S. also needs to threaten Iran with “military action.” The Asia Times reports:

[Liz Cheney] deplored…the Bush administration’s failure to enforce “red lines” against Iranian advances in the region. Washington, she declared, must clearly state that if Iranians “don’t give up diplomatically [to United Nations demands that it freeze its nuclear program], they will face military action“.

At AIPAC, Liz Cheney also “made clear her view that the recent efforts by Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal are taking resources away from dealing with Iran,” the Post notes.

Indeed, as Dan Froomkin noted in April, Vice President Cheney has been on the “warpath” with Iran recently, drumming up the threat coming from the country. In fact, Gareth Porter reported last week that “Pentagon officials firmly opposed a proposal by Vice President Dick Cheney last summer for airstrikes against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps.”

leekohler

Jun 9, 2008, 06:19 PM

Macmadant

Jun 11, 2008, 02:57 PM

skunk

Jun 11, 2008, 04:17 PM

iran is a rogue nation who is without a doubt planning to construct a nuclear bombThere is a great deal of doubt, as there was about Saddam Hussein having WMDs.it has a psychopathic Fascist leader who has threatened many times to wipe Israel of the map.Psychopathic? Fascist? Do you actually know what these terms mean? Is your crude characterisation (or indeed George Bush's) sufficient cause for war?The large proportion of their army is labelled as a terrorist organisation and is already fighting a proxy war with U.K + U.S troops in Iraq and AfghanistanA small part of their armed forces has been so labelled by the warmongering Leader of the Free World™. This means nothing at all. No part of the Iranian army is fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. Your are ludicrously, yet dangerously, misinformed.if it does come to war, which i hope it doesn't i'd say sooner rather than laterFortunately, your opinion is not being sought. Unfortunately, George Bush may well be asinine enough to try this even without the benefit of your advice.

leekohler

Jun 11, 2008, 04:22 PM

iran is a rogue nation who is without a doubt planning to construct a nuclear bomb, it has a psychopathic Fascist leader who has threatened many times to wipe Israel of the map. The large proportion of their army is labelled as a terrorist organisation and is already fighting a proxy war with U.K + U.S troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. if it does come to war, which i hope it doesn't i'd say sooner rather than later

What skunk said plus, you sound just like Bush leading up to the Iraq war. I hope you don't seriously think this country will be dumb enough to believe such ridiculous and obvious talking points this time.

skunk

Jun 11, 2008, 04:27 PM

I just edited my reply because I noticed that Macmadant's location is "UK". From his tone, I felt sure he was one of yours...

northy124

Jun 11, 2008, 04:28 PM

Woot lets attack Iran, Nah I mean he would never be able to do it he's in his last months now I highly doubt that he get permission to attack Iran in his remaining time.

skunk

Jun 11, 2008, 04:29 PM

Woot lets attack Iran, Nah I mean he would never be able to do it he's in his last months now I highly doubt that he get permission to attack Iran in his remaining time.What makes you think he would ask?

northy124

Jun 11, 2008, 04:33 PM

Well I'd at least like to think he would but yes your probably right he will do it anyway with or without permission from congress (Is that right congress?)

Dont Hurt Me

Jun 11, 2008, 04:35 PM

Whats Bush got to loose? nothing as far as politics are concerned. I could see air strikes taking place before he left office.

Macmadant

Jun 11, 2008, 05:05 PM

There is a great deal of doubt, as there was about Saddam Hussein having WMDs.Psychopathic? Fascist? Do you actually know what these terms mean? Is your crude characterisation (or indeed George Bush's) sufficient cause for war?A small part of their armed forces has been so labelled by the warmongering Leader of the Free World™. This means nothing at all. No part of the Iranian army is fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. Your are ludicrously, yet dangerously, misinformed.Fortunately, your opinion is not being sought. Unfortunately, George Bush may well be asinine enough to try this even without the benefit of your advice.

I guess the guy who once informed me that unless i was anti-west or a pro islamic supporter there was no point in me posting in this forum was right.
First of all, it doesn't have to be bush who will start a war, Obama, who i believe will be the next president of the US stated that after all diplomatic options have failed he would resort to military confrontation.
fascism: from apple's dictionary (general use)....intolerant views or practice
i believe i was just in using that term
secondly i stated they were fighting a proxy war, e.g supplying extremists with sophisticated weapons in order to fight our troops with, read properly before saying i'm wrong. even gordon brown, george bush and even obama have stated this
Obama himself said iran is buying enriched uranium to create weapons with

and about the just cause for starting a war, i never said that was a just cause, my point was if iran was developing nuclear missiles it may be needed
f it does come to war, which i hope it doesn't i'd say sooner rather than later
Perhaps this sentence skipped your vision

skunk

Jun 11, 2008, 05:11 PM

I guess the guy who once informed me that unless i was anti-west or a pro islamic supporter there was no point in me posting in this forum was right.What makes you say that?
First of all, it doesn't have to be bush who will start a war, Obama, who i believe will be the next president of the US stated that after all diplomatic options have failed he would resort to military confrontation.He also said that he would engage in serious dialogue with Iran, something that Bush seems unwilling to do.
fascism: from apple's dictionary (general use)....intolerant views or practice
i believe i was just in using that termI believe you need to learn how to look things up.
Perhaps this sentence skipped your visionNo, as you can see, I answered it directly.

hotzenplotz

Jun 11, 2008, 05:15 PM

If anything, we will see Israel do a "preemptive" strike, followed by retaliation of one of the Far East countries upon Israel, maybe even Iran. At that point, the US will be under pressure to do something about it because an "ally" is being attacked.
Then, the s*** will hit the fan, and we can all kiss our future good-bye.

Macmadant

Jun 11, 2008, 05:15 PM

I thought the dictionary was used for defining words and there meaning

skunk

Jun 11, 2008, 05:16 PM

Queso

Jun 11, 2008, 05:17 PM

If anything, we will see Israel do a "preemptive" strike, followed by retaliation of one of the Far East countries upon Israel, maybe even Iran. At that point, the US will be under pressure to do something about it because an "ally" is being attacked.
Wonderful isn't it? Start a fight, then get your big brother to join in when the kid you punch hits you back.

Macmadant

Jun 11, 2008, 05:17 PM

What makes you say that?
well the fact that i always get flamed, not once has anyone seen my point of view in the right light, they just see the west as evil
I believe you need to learn how to look things up.
Would you care to explain it in laymans terms for me ? :o

skunk

Jun 11, 2008, 05:21 PM

I thought the dictionary was used for defining words and there meaning, For the record would you explain the word in layman's terms for me ? :oTry "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascist
To use the term purely as an alternative to "intolerant" is to grossly misrepresent the political meaning.

Shotglass

Jun 11, 2008, 05:23 PM

Fascism attempts to set up a new standard to which the people need to strive. This can be race, ideology, culture or even religion. What the Nazis did, for example, was they set up an image of the perfect German - tall, blonde, blue-eyed, muscular, his heart burning with passion for the fatherland, and so on and so forth. Then, they made everyone worship that image and try to be more like it, sometimes even totally unconsciously. Striving to conform to the government's ideals is what characterizes Fascism.

mactastic

Jun 11, 2008, 05:26 PM

I guess the guy who once informed me that unless i was anti-west or a pro islamic supporter there was no point in me posting in this forum was right.
And who was that? Care to name names, or will you hide behind anonymity?

As a long time poster in this forum, I don't much care for the insinuation that I am somehow anti-West, or a "pro-Islamic supporter" (whatever that is). Of course, I'm used to being labeled as such. It's a favorite tactic of the ill-informed group-think-enamored right wing.
First of all, it doesn't have to be bush who will start a war, Obama, who i believe will be the next president of the US stated that after all diplomatic options have failed he would resort to military confrontation.
fascism: from apple's dictionary (general use)....intolerant views or practice
i believe i was just in using that term
secondly i stated they were fighting a proxy war, e.g supplying extremists with sophisticated weapons in order to fight our troops with, read properly before saying i'm wrong. even gordon brown, george bush and even obama have stated this
And how is this different from the US arming other extremists with sophisticated weapons? I'm sure you remember back in the day when the Taliban was on the side of the Good Guys, right?
Obama himself said iran is buying enriched uranium to create weapons with
Link please.
and about the just cause for starting a war, i never said that was a just cause, my point was if iran was developing nuclear missiles it may be needed

Perhaps this sentence skipped your vision
How exactly would you go about fighting such a war? Would you support a re-instatement of the draft? Or do you think that our current troop levels would support a winning effort against a million-strong army? Do you think the Shi'ites in Iraq would sit idly by while we invaded Iran, or do you think we'd suddenly be in a war against two countries -- one of which we are ostensibly trying to rebuild? Do you think the cost and/or availability of oil would be affected by such actions? Would it lower the price of gas the way the Iraq war has? Would it be fought at a higher or lower price (in lives and treasure) that the Iraq war has been fought for?

leekohler

Jun 11, 2008, 05:28 PM

I guess the guy who once informed me that unless i was anti-west or a pro islamic supporter there was no point in me posting in this forum was right.

I'm a bit sick of this kind of statement. How is wanting my country to be the best it can be "anti-west" and "pro-islamic"? That's one of the most ignorant, generalized things I've seen written in this forum. I was born here over 41 years ago, and I've seen this country and all it stands for dragged through the mud by Bush and his ilk. He needs to be stopped, before there's nothing recognizable left of the US or our Constitution.

mactastic

Jun 11, 2008, 05:30 PM

well the fact that i always get flamed, not once has anyone seen my point of view in the right light, they just see the west as evil
It's not because of your POV, it's because of your reckless disregard for facts and logic. If you support your arguments with links and facts, and keep the fascist comments to yourself, you'll have much better luck here.

Macmadant

Jun 11, 2008, 05:34 PM

And who was that? Care to name names, or will you hide behind anonymity?

As a long time poster in this forum, I don't much care for the insinuation that I am somehow anti-West, or a "pro-Islamic supporter" (whatever that is). Of course, I'm used to being labeled as such. It's a favorite tactic of the ill-informed group-think-enamored right wing.

And how is this different from the US arming other extremists with sophisticated weapons? I'm sure you remember back in the day when the Taliban was on the side of the Good Guys, right?

Link please.

How exactly would you go about fighting such a war? Would you support a re-instatement of the draft? Or do you think that our current troop levels would support a winning effort against a million-strong army? Do you think the Shi'ites in Iraq would sit idly by while we invaded Iran, or do you think we'd suddenly be in a war against two countries -- one of which we are ostensibly trying to rebuild? Do you think the cost and/or availability of oil would be affected by such actions? Would it lower the price of gas the way the Iraq war has? Would it be fought at a higher or lower price (in lives and treasure) that the Iraq war has been fought for?

Personally i think a war against iran would be catastrophic for who ever is involved and the entire world, the Iranian army is no pushover and i would imagine a war against them lasting lasting many years, i also believe it could possibly trigger a world war, not a huge one, but i just have this feeling that it would lead to west vs. east

Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cOJNC2EuJw
You'll find it in their somewhere, just find the beginning bit of when he starts to talk about iran, pretty sure that's where i heard him say it

If your really interested i'll PM you the person who said that to me

atszyman

Jun 11, 2008, 05:36 PM

What makes you think he would ask?

I think he already has, we just don't know it yet. Didn't we just pass a bill labeling Iran's army or part of them, as a terrorist organization? Aren't we in a War on Terror? Wouldn't that, in his mind, give him all the permission he needs?

skunk

Jun 11, 2008, 06:16 PM

Personally i think a war against iran would be catastrophic for who ever is involved and the entire world, the Iranian army is no pushover and i would imagine a war against them lasting lasting many years, i also believe it could possibly trigger a world war, not a huge one, but i just have this feeling that it would lead to west vs. eastBearing all that in mind, why do you think it should happen "sooner rather than later"? :confused:

.Andy

Jun 11, 2008, 06:45 PM

Obama himself said iran is buying enriched uranium to create weapons with

You'll find it in their somewhere,
Thanks for you effort.

Transcript;
We knew, in 2002, that Iran supported terrorism. We knew Iran had an illicit nuclear program. We knew Iran posed a grave threat to Israel. But instead of pursuing a strategy to address this threat, we ignored it and instead invaded and occupied Iraq. When I opposed the war, I warned that it would fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East. That is precisely what happened in Iran — the hard-liners tightened their grip, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president in 2005. And the United States and Israel are less secure.

I respect Sen. McCain, and look forward to a substantive debate with him these next five months. But on this point, we have differed, and we will differ. Sen. McCain refuses to understand or acknowledge the failure of the policy that he would continue. He criticizes my willingness to use strong diplomacy but offers only an alternate reality — one where the war in Iraq has somehow put Iran on its heels. The truth is the opposite. Iran has strengthened its position. Iran is now enriching uranium and has reportedly stockpiled 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. Its support for terrorism and threats toward Israel have increased. Those are the facts, they cannot be denied, and I refuse to continue a policy that has made the United States and Israel less secure.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432

SMM

Jun 11, 2008, 07:14 PM

A new article on the subject:

The ongoing negotiations between Iraqi leaders and the Bush administration over the future role of the military occupation “have turned into an increasingly acrimonious public debate.”

The Bush administration’s demand for 58 permanent bases in Iraq — a near doubling of the current 30 bases — are causing Iraqis to warn that the status of forces agreement would be “more abominable than the occupation.” The administration is reportedly holding hostage “some $50bn of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement.”

The reason the White House is so hell-bent on signing a long-term agreement may have less to do with Iraq and more to do with Iran. According to press reports of the ongoing negotiations, the Bush administration is seeking the “power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq.” Ali al Adeeb, a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Dawa party, confirmed:

The Americans insist so far that is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq…if we come under aggression we should define it and ask for help.

The administration’s request would seemingly allow the U.S. to brand Iran as an enemy of Iraq and attack Iran in the name of defending Iraq pursuant a legal obligation under the status of forces agreement.

Other details from press accounts confirm that the Bush administration has one eye on Iran in the course of its negotiations with Iraqis. The Washington Post explains that the administration is seeking “the prerogative for U.S. forces to conduct operations without approval from the Iraqi government.” Moreover, the U.S. wants control over Iraq’s airpsace:

The American negotiators also called for continued control over Iraqi airspace and the right to refuel planes in the air, according to [Sami al-Askari, a leading Shiite politician], positions he said added to concerns that the United States was preparing to use Iraq as a base to attack Iran.

Since the administration is unlikely to get an Iran war authorized through Congress, it’s instead trying to sneak it through the Iraqi parliament.

KingYaba

Jun 11, 2008, 07:51 PM

An Iran war would be even worse and harder than Iraq, and we couldn't even handle that. Especially since we're back to losing the 'stans. Just what we need is a whole 'nother war we can't handle that will be sold as easy.

No, I'm thinking things along the lines of taking out the military targets and going home. Forget any occupation.

Thanatoast

Jun 11, 2008, 08:41 PM

I just figured it out.

Bush wants to continue the occupation of Iraq. The "not-a-treaty" he's trying to sign within the next month would allow the US military to stay, build bases, conduct maneuvers and grant the military and the mercenaries legal immunity for any damages incurred.

He wants this agreement pushed through quickly because he has to attack Iran before he's booted out of office. Once he strikes Iran, Iran will strike back - in Iraq. With Iran invading Iraq (to attack us) Bush will have his justification for continuing the occupation of Iraq.

What's more, Obama gets handed a giant war that he can't possibly get out of without simply withdrawing or becoming a "cheese-eating-surrender-monkey". The reactionaries will insist that we have to stay, and that we didn't start the war, Iran did. And the military-industrial complex gets fed for the next decade on the corpses of Americans, Iraqis and Iranians. That doesn't even include whatever unintentional side wars occur in Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Palestine, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the like.

If this happens, we're ****ed.

[posted in the impeachment thread as well]

Macmadant

Jun 12, 2008, 02:50 AM

Bearing all that in mind, why do you think it should happen "sooner rather than later"? :confused:

Because if iran is building nuclear weapons i'd rather there be a war before they have them, rather than after

blackfox

Jun 12, 2008, 05:06 AM

Because if iran is building nuclear weapons i'd rather there be a war before they have them, rather than after

Two questions:

1. Why does there have to be any war? (between the US and Iran)
2. Why does Iran having nuclear weapons (if they soon might) constitute an immediate threat to the US?

I find it hard to believe that in this day and age that any country would launch a nuclear attack on the US - even through a proxy organization. It would pretty much guarantee a retaliatory response so severe that it wouldn't be worth it.

The US is the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon "in the field" - and that was because we were the only ones with the technology. Now a multitude of countries possess this capability, and for decades it has been a deterrent technology.

It may not be in the US's strategic interests to have a country like Iran have nuclear weapons (for a host of reasons), but it certainly doesn't pose an immenent threat.

Lest you might argue that the tech could get into "terrorist" hands - well:

1. There is already Pakistan, Russia and North Korea that could posit an equal threat, and we are not attacking them.

2. No country has a vested interest in selling such technology - it is too risky - it could be used against them or the tech could be traced to them. Simple cost/benefit analysis.

Tangentally, the destruction of Israel by nuclear means would be a real-world disaster for the ME - making that land destroyed, uninhabitable and subjecting the neighbors to fallout (both literal and figurative).

So calm down.

és:

Jun 12, 2008, 06:09 AM

It makes me laugh when people become so sanguine about war, if it didn't it might make me cry.

It also makes me chuckle that people think Iran is about the same prospect as Iraq. Iraq is a country that couldn't defend itself with much force. It was a country that was ravaged by decades of war and the US, UK and Allied forces couldn't even get that right.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is not, in any way, there for the taking like most countries the US and UK try to bully. 4000 US soldiers dead in Iraq, that'll seem like nothing if the US invade Iran. It won't be a case of 'fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here' because the US and UK will be attacked (being a Brit, I really don't want that to happen). They'll fight us in the air and in the sea, too.

If you think fuel prices are high now, you just wait until a war with Iran starts. Don't worry about oil at 130 dollars a barrel, you won't be able to get it for 10 times that.

és:

Jun 12, 2008, 06:29 AM

iran is a rogue nation who is without a doubt planning to construct a nuclear bomb

That's not true at all. If there's no doubt that they are planning to construct a nuclear bomb, then you'll be more than happy to provide the proof that makes it undoubted.

There is no evidence that they are building, or planning to build, a nuclear weapon. Even if they are, why are they not allowed to have a nuclear weapon and the terrorist state of Israel (a state that continually breaks more international laws than anybody else) are allowed US supplied nuclear weapons.

It's hypocritical standards like this that drive these young, impressionable Muslims into the arms of terrorists.

it has a psychopathic Fascist leader who has threatened many times to wipe Israel of the map.

I assume you're talking about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who doesn't, despite what the media and government try to tell you and would like you to believe, is not the leader of Iran. He's 'just' the

He didn't threaten to wipe Israel off the map, he said he wants Zionism wiped from the pages of history, just like Nazism. Although, he's said some pretty disturbing things and he's far from being my favorite person. However, that's no reason to make up things about him and start a war against his country. I hate Bush and Blair far more for their crimes, but I don't see people looking to start a war, although it would probably more justifiable than a Us lead war with Iran, at least The US and UK have proven that they are a threat and are willing to illegally invade other countries and constantly break international law over the last 40 or so years.

The large proportion of their army is labelled as a terrorist organisation and is already fighting a proxy war with U.K + U.S troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's rubbish and has no founding in fact.

if it does come to war, which i hope it doesn't i'd say sooner rather than later

Well, let us hope for our sake and the sake of our children that yet another illegal war isn't started. Neither sooner nor later.

skunk

Jun 12, 2008, 08:16 AM

It's Hippocratic standards like this that drive these young, impressionable Muslims into the arms of terrorists.Hippocratic standards drive people to become doctors. I think "hypocritical" is the epithet you are looking for... :)

leekohler

Jun 12, 2008, 09:38 AM

Because if iran is building nuclear weapons i'd rather there be a war before they have them, rather than after

If Iran had nuclear weapons, there wouldn't be a war because we couldn't attack them. That's why they want a nuke in the first place. Why does no one get that?

és:

Jun 12, 2008, 01:14 PM

Hippocratic standards drive people to become doctors. I think "hypocritical" is the epithet you are looking for... :)

Yeah, it was a strange spell checking error. I chose the wrong option when I right clicked.

Apologies to Hippocrates of Kos! :p

és:

Jun 12, 2008, 01:19 PM

If Iran had nuclear weapons, there wouldn't be a war because we couldn't attack them. That's why they want a nuke in the first place. Why does no one get that?

Superb post.

I can't remember who said it (and I'm quoting very loosely here) but when he was asked 'do you believe Iran is building a Nuclear weapon' he replied 'If they are not trying to, then they are stupid'.

You're right, people don't seem to understand that the US won't attack countries that can strike back so powerfully. You're also right that much of the world want a nuclear weapon for exactly that reason.

SMM

Jun 12, 2008, 02:46 PM

floyde

Jun 12, 2008, 02:50 PM

Hippocratic standards drive people to become doctors. I think "hypocritical" is the epithet you are looking for... :)

Thug... :p

mactastic

Jun 12, 2008, 02:58 PM

No, I'm thinking things along the lines of taking out the military targets and going home. Forget any occupation.
And you think the Iranians will simply allow the US to strike them on their soil with no repercussions?

Let me ask you a question -- if Iran made an unprovoked strike on the US homeland, would you support a US government that did nothing in response?

Exactly. Then why would you assume the Iranian people would not do the same?

Any attack on Iran will drive the cost of oil above $200/ barrel. And conceivably much higher. What effect would that have on our economy? On our nation as a whole?

And that's to say nothing of any other response from the Iranians.

Macky-Mac

Jun 12, 2008, 03:05 PM

And you think the Iranians will simply allow the US to strike them on their soil with no repercussions?

Let me ask you a question -- if Iran made an unprovoked strike on the US homeland, would you support a US government that did nothing in response?

Exactly. Then why would you assume the Iranian people would not do the same?

Any attack on Iran will drive the cost of oil above $200/ barrel. And conceivably much higher. What effect would that have on our economy? On our nation as a whole?

And that's to say nothing of any other response from the Iranians.

All of what you say is a good argument for why an attack on Iran wont happen in the first place.

skunk

Jun 12, 2008, 04:05 PM

All of what you say is a good argument for why an attack on Iran wont happen in the first place.No, I'm afraid not. It's a good argument for why anyone with the kind of understanding of foreign affairs which gave us the illegal invasion of Iraq just might just lead us all into a bigger disaster yet.

hulugu

Jun 12, 2008, 05:36 PM

No, I'm thinking things along the lines of taking out the military targets and going home. Forget any occupation.

Even this carries significant risks and has several problems.

1. The Iranian nuclear works are distributed over several facilities, each of which is buried under concrete and earth. Destroying the facilities will require the use of "bunker-busters," but the Iranians may have buried their most important facilities below our reach.
2. The Iranian air-defense is significant, and while the F-117 and B-2 and capable of penetrating these defenses, we could still lose planes. Even cruise missiles would only be able to strike at a limited number of targets.
3. At best, we might simply delay the Iranian program, but in the exchange we'd make the hard-liners' argument that Iran needs a nuclear program to protect itself from a vicious and aggressive West.
4. The Iranians will respond in a number of ways: the first may be attacking oil tankers in the Persian Gulf using small boats, Exocet missiles, and mines. The Iranians will also redouble their efforts in Iraq, sending in more arms and men and possibly igniting a larger and more dangerous war. They could also run the same gambit in Afghanistan.

Best case scenario, we end up with an angry and belligerent Iran with a temporarily stunted nuclear program.

Macky-Mac

Jun 12, 2008, 06:04 PM

No, I'm afraid not. It's a good argument for why anyone with the kind of understanding of foreign affairs which gave us the illegal invasion of Iraq just might just lead us all into a bigger disaster yet.

indeed, but then again people are always predicting that Bush is about to invade Iran......how many threads have we had announcing such an invasion is only days away? Of course with Bush one never knows what disaster he'll get us into next.

pseudobrit

Jun 12, 2008, 06:12 PM

I'm a bit sick of this kind of statement. How is wanting my country to be the best it can be "anti-west" and "pro-islamic"

Because you don't cheer for the Red Team and its fearless leader.

leekohler

Jun 12, 2008, 06:54 PM

Because you don't cheer for the Red Team and its fearless leader.

Then they cry victim when you prove them wrong and say you're denying them the right to their opinion. :rolleyes: That one is my favorite.

SMM

Jun 12, 2008, 08:04 PM

indeed, but then again people are always predicting that Bush is about to invade Iran......how many threads have we had announcing such an invasion is only days away? Of course with Bush one never knows what disaster he'll get us into next.

No one has said that the invasion is 'only days away', have they? In fact, I am pretty sure the thread says 'imminent'. That is a subjective timeframe, and the articles I have posted state, 'before Bush leaves office'. That could be tomorrow, or even after the election. Go back and look at the sources I have quoted. Two of them are quotes from the Israeli press, quoting the Israeli President. Other sources are from honest people in the Pentagon, who do not like a government that lies to the American people. Jonathan Landay, and Warren Strobel of McClatchy's Washington Bureau are experts on the Intelligence community, the Pentagon and the State Department. Combined they have over 45 years experience. They have developed strong relationships with many career insiders, in all of these agencies. Landay said that, the career people are firm believers in the core American democratic values. They do not like the American people being deceived. That is why McClatchy was the only news agency who got the Iraq story right. They are the ones who say the Pentagon is gearing up for attacking Iraq.

In summary, there is clear evidence that the attack against Iran has progressed beyond the discussion point. Bush knows full well that he would never get Congressional approval to attack. There is no compelling case for doing so. But, it well known that once this peabrain makes up his mind, he does not change it. Cheney is the leading proponent of the 'Imperial Presidency' (ref: Broken Government, John Dean). He contends that the Congress's Constitutional authority to declare war, can be ignored, as the Executive has full authority, and does not even have to consult Congress. Bush I did not agree with Cheney, and went to Congress for approval of the first Iraq war. Bush II is not as smart as his dad, and he buys into everything Cheney says. So, it is quite conceivable that we might attack without public, or Congressional approval.

iJohnHenry

Jun 12, 2008, 08:59 PM

You're right, people don't seem to understand that the US won't attack countries that can strike back so powerfully. You're also right that much of the world want a nuclear weapon for exactly that reason.

"I'm not sayin' that we won't get our hair mussed, but I estimate casualties at 10 to 20 million tops, depending on the breaks."

General "Buck" Turgidson - Dr. Strangelove.

Macky-Mac

Jun 12, 2008, 09:38 PM

No one has said that the invasion is 'only days away', have they? In fact, I am pretty sure the thread says 'imminent'. That is a subjective timeframe, and the articles I have posted state, 'before Bush leaves office'. That could be tomorrow, or even after the election......

Indeed, your post doesn't say "only days away" but rather "imminent". If you prefer I'd be happy to revise my post to read;

indeed, but then again people are always predicting that Bush is about to invade Iran......how many threads have we had announcing such an invasion is imminent? Of course with Bush one never knows what disaster he'll get us into next..

In any event, my comment was referring to past threads, some of which did predict an attack within days.......and of course none of these attacks ever happened.

SMM

Jun 13, 2008, 12:44 AM

Indeed, your post doesn't say "only days away" but rather "imminent". If you prefer I'd be happy to revise my post to read;

In any event, my comment was referring to past threads, some of which did predict an attack within days.......and of course none of these attacks ever happened.

No need, Macky-Mac. I did this only for clarification about this thread. I have tried to be careful to only quote sources.

solvs

Jun 13, 2008, 01:37 AM

Because if iran is building nuclear weapons i'd rather there be a war before they have them, rather than after
Besides the fact that we don't even know they have them, and all signs even coming from our own gov reports say they really don't, do you actually think they're a threat to us or our allies? That they'll actually try to use them? They would be the ones wiped off the map, and they know it:

If Iran had nuclear weapons, there wouldn't be a war because we couldn't attack them. That's why they want a nuke in the first place. Why does no one get that?
They have oil.

Hm, I remember making this same argument awhile ago. Referencing NK. Some people still don't get it, and sadly some of them are currently in charge. Or are supporting those in charge because, as we see above, they're afraid madmen will have the bomb. Even though some do, but it's ok because they're our friends. The ones who don't play ball with us though obviously want to attack us, so we should attack them. That's make everything all better.

9/11 did change everything didn't it. :(

No, I'm thinking things along the lines of taking out the military targets and going home. Forget any occupation.
Just as we were greeted as liberators in the Iraq war that only lasted a few weeks and was only a few million $. Come on, you know this won't work. We bomb them like that and expect it not to have any negative reactions from them AND others? Best case scenario is they only make things even worse in Iraq. Plus:

And you think the Iranians will simply allow the US to strike them on their soil with no repercussions?

Let me ask you a question -- if Iran made an unprovoked strike on the US homeland, would you support a US government that did nothing in response?

Exactly. Then why would you assume the Iranian people would not do the same?

Any attack on Iran will drive the cost of oil above $200/ barrel. And conceivably much higher. What effect would that have on our economy? On our nation as a whole?

And that's to say nothing of any other response from the Iranians.
Even this carries significant risks and has several problems.

1. The Iranian nuclear works are distributed over several facilities, each of which is buried under concrete and earth. Destroying the facilities will require the use of "bunker-busters," but the Iranians may have buried their most important facilities below our reach.
2. The Iranian air-defense is significant, and while the F-117 and B-2 and capable of penetrating these defenses, we could still lose planes. Even cruise missiles would only be able to strike at a limited number of targets.
3. At best, we might simply delay the Iranian program, but in the exchange we'd make the hard-liners' argument that Iran needs a nuclear program to protect itself from a vicious and aggressive West.
4. The Iranians will respond in a number of ways: the first may be attacking oil tankers in the Persian Gulf using small boats, Exocet missiles, and mines. The Iranians will also redouble their efforts in Iraq, sending in more arms and men and possibly igniting a larger and more dangerous war. They could also run the same gambit in Afghanistan.

Best case scenario, we end up with an angry and belligerent Iran with a temporarily stunted nuclear program.
QFT.

And who's to say we even actually get them if they do have nukes or a nuclear program? What if they do and they retaliate out of defense? What if they don't? Then we once again invaded a country that did nothing to provoke us, when other options were far more viable, "evil" dictators (who as noted aren't even the ones really in charge) aside.

themadchemist

Jun 13, 2008, 01:39 AM

And you know this how?
[/indent]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7440472.stm
Sure, no chance of Bush and Olmert falling into this one, is there?

Olmert can't do anything before he leaves office--he'll be lucky not to be put in jail. And Bush, he's not going to risk the Presidential election over it.

skunk

Jun 13, 2008, 02:19 AM

And Bush, he's not going to risk the Presidential election over it.I am touched by your faith in Bush's rationality, but not comforted.

themadchemist

Jun 13, 2008, 10:09 AM

I am touched by your faith in Bush's rationality, but not comforted.

When it's come to the politics of it all, he's been pretty rational.

Thanatoast

Jun 13, 2008, 01:42 PM

When it's come to the politics of it all, he's been pretty rational.

Depending on your definition of rational, I suppose.

Bush wanted one thing - a greater legacy than his father. He thought that being a "war president" conferred a great amount of respect, so he was all for the war.

The Republicans wanted a permanent majority and they thought that the image of them defending the country from vicious attack would keep them there, so they were all for the war too.

The actions of the President and the party are perfectly "rational" if you see their goals. Whether their actions are rational in anything other than a political sense, a way to score points, is doubtful.

hulugu

Jun 13, 2008, 02:41 PM

"I'm not sayin' that we won't get our hair mussed, but I estimate casualties at 10 to 20 million tops, depending on the breaks."

General "Buck" Turgidson - Dr. Strangelove.

I think you might want to watch that movie again. ;)

Olmert can't do anything before he leaves office--he'll be lucky not to be put in jail. And Bush, he's not going to risk the Presidential election over it.

Bush doesn't have the political capital and he knows it. This is a good thing, IMHO.

skunk

Jun 13, 2008, 03:34 PM

Bush doesn't have the political capital and he knows it. This is a good thing, IMHO.Bush has never objected to spending what he did not have.

SMM

Jun 13, 2008, 03:56 PM

Olmert can't do anything before he leaves office--he'll be lucky not to be put in jail. And Bush, he's not going to risk the Presidential election over it.

Olmert really is not part of the equation. It would be a US operation. Besides, his probable successor will be Benjamin Netanyahu. He is a very conservative war monger.

As for Bush, I seriously doubt he gives a flying frito about the election. He has sufficient support from the republican hard-liners, and the American Israeli lobby, such as AIRPAC, Kristol, Perle, Krauthhammer, the Weekly Standard, etc. He also has the full weight of the right-wing media behind him. He lives in a delusional world, where he is the great American wartime President, which in time, history will recognize his greatness. Also remember this; Bush does not like to spend a great deal of time analyzing, and discussing policy issues. And once he makes his mind up, he does not change it!

hulugu

Jun 13, 2008, 04:22 PM

Bush has never objected to spending what he did not have.

...
As for Bush, I seriously doubt he gives a flying frito about the election. He has sufficient support from the republican hard-liners, and the American Israeli lobby, such as AIRPAC, Kristol, Perle, Krauthhammer, the Weekly Standard, etc. He also has the full weight of the right-wing media behind him. He lives in a delusional world, where he is the great American wartime President, which in time, history will recognize his greatness. Also remember this; Bush does not like to spend a great deal of time analyzing, and discussing policy issues. And once he makes his mind up, he does not change it!

However, the military is not interested in engaging Iran and there's some serious elements within the DoD and the Intelligence services to keep the US out of such a conflict. I'm not sure how many 'Fox' Fallon episodes his administration can survive and there would be far more objections within the military if the administration was making a real attempt to go to war. This is saber-rattling in my opinion and the constant reiteration of "all options are on the table" is being done in a desperate hope to scare the Iranians without actually doing anything.

Internally, the US military understands deeply the problems of attacking Iran and hopefully is making their assessment known, if quietly, to the administration. We simply can't win an exchange with Iran.

mactastic

Jun 13, 2008, 05:33 PM

However, the military is not interested in engaging Iran and there's some serious elements within the DoD and the Intelligence services to keep the US out of such a conflict. I'm not sure how many 'Fox' Fallon episodes his administration can survive and there would be far more objections within the military if the administration was making a real attempt to go to war. This is saber-rattling in my opinion and the constant reiteration of "all options are on the table" is being done in a desperate hope to scare the Iranians without actually doing anything.

Internally, the US military understands deeply the problems of attacking Iran and hopefully is making their assessment known, if quietly, to the administration. We simply can't win an exchange with Iran.
If it's just saber-rattling, it's sure as hell costing us at the pump. The "fear premium" on oil goes up every time one of these guys rattles their saber...

iJohnHenry

Jun 13, 2008, 08:25 PM

I think you might want to watch that movie again. ;)

That was from memory, but this is from the IMDB.

"General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks."

themadchemist

Jun 14, 2008, 09:15 AM

Depending on your definition of rational, I suppose.

Bush wanted one thing - a greater legacy than his father. He thought that being a "war president" conferred a great amount of respect, so he was all for the war.

The Republicans wanted a permanent majority and they thought that the image of them defending the country from vicious attack would keep them there, so they were all for the war too.

The actions of the President and the party are perfectly "rational" if you see their goals. Whether their actions are rational in anything other than a political sense, a way to score points, is doubtful.

Yup, and that's exactly how I define Bush's rationalism--in a perfectly Machiavellian sense.

Bush doesn't have the political capital and he knows it. This is a good thing, IMHO.

Absolutely. He definitely wouldn't get budgetary authorization from Congress for this.

Olmert really is not part of the equation. It would be a US operation. Besides, his probable successor will be Benjamin Netanyahu. He is a very conservative war monger.

I see what you mean in the context of the article, but I was merely commenting on skunk's rhetorical question:

Sure, no chance of Bush and Olmert falling into this one, is there?

BoyBach

Jun 20, 2008, 07:20 AM

Israel flexes muscles with 'Iran attack' drill

An Israeli air force drill which appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential attack on Iran's nuclear facilities was intended as a deliberate flexing of muscles, military officials said today.

An Israeli political official who is familiar with the drill said that the Iranians should “read the writing on the wall.”

“This was a dress rehearsal, and the Iranians should read the script before they continue with their programme for nuclear weapons. If diplomacy does not yield results, Israel will take military steps to halt Tehran's production of bomb-grade uranium,” the official said.

The report of the drill was first published in the New York Times, which quoted a US Pentagon official who was briefed on it.

More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighter jets took part in manoeuvres over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece in the first week of June to gear the military for long-range strikes and demonstrate Israel's serious concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the US official was quoted as saying.

The report said that the aircrafts flew more than 900 miles, roughly the distance from Israel to Iran's Natanz nuclear enrichment facility.

"They wanted us to know, they wanted the Europeans to know, and they wanted the Iranians to know…There's a lot of signalling going on at different levels," it said.

The Israeli military issued a statement saying only that the air force “regularly trains for various missions in order to confront and meet the challenges posed by the threats facing Israel.”

Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, has said he prefers that Iran's nuclear ambitions be halted through diplomacy, but he does not rule out military action.

“Iran must be stopped by all possible means,” Mr Olmert told an American pro-Israel group earlier this month.

Israel has regularly consulted with President Bush on the Iranian nuclear threat. The issue ranked high on the roster Mr Bush’s visit to the region in May.

Following a meeting between Mr Olmert and Mr Bush, the Israeli prime minister said: "We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat. I left with a lot less question marks [than I had entered with] regarding the means, the timetable restrictions and America's resoluteness to deal with the problem. George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on the matter before the end of his term in the White House.”

Last month, the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) expressed "serious concern" that Iran is still hiding information about alleged studies into making nuclear warheads and defying UN demands to suspend uranium enrichment.

The UN Security Council has imposed several rounds of sanctions on Iran for defying council demands that it suspend its uranium enrichment program, which could be used to make fuel for power plants or atomic weapons.

The Islamic Republic has refused to buckle to the sanctions and has spurned previous offers of economic benefits to suspend its uranium enrichment, which it says is to produce fuel.

Iran said yesterday that it was ready to negotiate over a new package of economic incentives put forward by major powers seeking to persuade Tehran to curb its nuclear work.

Over the past three decades Israel has twice taken out suspected nuclear weapons facilities in Middle East states. In 1981 Israeli jets raided Iraq's nuclear plant at Osirak which Israelis believed was part of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons development program.

Last September, Israeli jets bombed a site in the Syrian desert which the Israeli military believed housed a partly constructed nuclear reactor. The Syrians have denied the allegations, and recent rebuilding in that area suggests that no nuclear fallout occurred.

Another theory of the bombing, which has been advanced in recent days, suggests that Israeli was testing flight routes between Israel and Iran, which would include flying over Syrian air space.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4178960.ece

solvs

Jun 23, 2008, 07:11 AM

Kristol sure seems to think so:

Bush Might Bomb Iran If He ‘Thinks Senator Obama’s Going To Win’ (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/22/kristol-bush-iran/)

He's usually wrong about, well, pretty much everything all the time, so let's hope that trend continues with this, but who knows with these jokers.

Iscariot

Jun 23, 2008, 07:37 AM

Doesn't Israel's little demonstration of penis waggling just reinforce why Iran would want a nuclear deterrent?

és:

Jun 23, 2008, 09:23 AM

Doesn't Israel's little demonstration of penis waggling just reinforce why Iran would want a nuclear deterrent?

Exactly.

It baffles me as to why people don't seem able to see the reason for Iran wanting nuclear weapons (a mad American rampaging around your neighbours house might get you a little worried) nor the hypocrisy of not wanting (which is a better word than the one governments keep using: 'allowing' ) Iran to have nuclear weapons.

They also seem to think that a war against Iran will be the same as a war against Iraq. Big mistake.

JG271

Jun 23, 2008, 12:02 PM

Kristol sure seems to think so:

Bush Might Bomb Iran If He ‘Thinks Senator Obama’s Going To Win’ (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/22/kristol-bush-iran/)

Starting a war does sometimes unfortunately happen before an election, to boost patriotic feeling and so on... it has happened in recent history, lets hope it doesn't happen this time.

EDIT: Some worrying comments from a McCain aide
Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7470399.stm)

hotzenplotz

Jun 25, 2008, 12:59 PM

And this is where it starts:
Israel Prodding U.S. To Attack Iran (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/24/eveningnews/main4206201.shtml)

Time to get a little Island off of Victoria, and leave this ******** up world behind. I am really getting sick of all this war mongering. I hope they nuke each-other out of existence.

Badandy

Jun 25, 2008, 01:06 PM

Doesn't Israel's little demonstration of penis waggling just reinforce why Iran would want a nuclear deterrent?

And if they had not done that demonstration do you think that Iran would have thought everything was roses and butterflies and not continued with the enrichment that Israel is reacting to?

solvs

Jun 26, 2008, 10:30 PM

Based on the recent reaction to NK after they developed the bomb, I'm starting to wonder why we can't come to the same sort of understanding with Iran (even if people like Bush and McCain railed against it, even though it's almost exactly what they basically just did with NK), and starting to think those who think Iran is only trying to develop the bomb as leverage are on to something.

solvs

Jun 30, 2008, 09:31 AM

The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh)

From what some people believe, the war has already begun.

és:

Jun 30, 2008, 01:43 PM

The hypocrisy of not wanting Iran to have nuclear weapons aside, why do you think Bush is seemingly desperate to attack Iran, Solvs?

SMM

Jun 30, 2008, 05:41 PM

The hypocrisy of not wanting Iran to have nuclear weapons aside, why do you think Bush is seemingly desperate to attack Iran, Solvs?

I know you were asking this of solvs, but I hope you do not mind me also chiming in. I have linked three documents for you to read. They are not particularly long. In them you will learn of the American-Israeli strategy for the middle-east. The pieces will fall into place for you. What we are seeing right now, is a plan that has been in the works, beginning in the 1980s. It is my belief (and that by one of the authors), if the Democrats had not regained Congress, we would have already moved on Iran, or possibly Syria. It is contained in a strategic document, "Clean Break". It was authored by Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and Binyamin "Bibi" Netanyahu (Israeli Prime Minister). The original document was completed in 1996! So, this has been in the works for quite some time. We have known that a group in the WH had began to prepare the Iraqi battle plan, even before they actually took office. Initially, Iraq was the primary target for the US. It would be easy for us to subdue and then occupy. Many air bases would be built along the Iranian frontier, in which to strike Iran, and later invade it. However, the US completely misunderstood the resistance, which would arise in Iraq, after the Occupation began. (this is what happens when little boys and girls try to play grown-up games for real.

Before the invasion, Israel tried to get the US to switch from making Iraq its primary target, and go into Iran, and occupy it first. Then go into Iraq, which would be a much easier target. Cheney over-rid this plan. Too much ground work had already been done for attacking Iraq. They even leaked a story that G-Dub wanted to avenge SH's attempt to kill Bush senior. On 9/11, everything changed, and now they had the perfect excuse to invade, even though they had to lie through their teeth to sell it. Ever wonder why we are not transferring troops to Afghanistan? A couple of writers have speculated that we are holding back, so as to have troops available for Iran. The key word here is 'speculate'. Only those in the very inner core know for sure, and they are not sharing (surprise).

Anyway, I encourage you to read the linked articles. They are very informative and superior to my interpretation of them.

A clean break (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm) - Wikipedia

Global Research (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CAR20070115&articleId=4477)

Zionism, New World Order (http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/zionism/zionist_plan_for_the_middle_east.htm) - The 7th Fire

skunk

Jun 30, 2008, 07:03 PM

Anyway, I encourage you to read the linked articles. They are very informative and superior to my interpretation of them.

A clean break (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm) - WikipediaA fascinating read, thank you. What I find particularly bizarre is the implication that not only were the neo-cons inhabiting a fantasy Middle East where the Shia supported Israel and Chalabi ruled Iraq with Hashemite blessings, but that Binyamin Netenyahu would be equally ignorant and blinkered about his own region of the world. How can we make any progress if even the political leaders - who must have privileged access to the most comprehensive information - can be so bloody ill-informed? It is at times like these I feel that democracy is simply a pretty smokescreen for halfwit oligarchs playing in their sandpits.

SMM

Jun 30, 2008, 10:16 PM

A fascinating read, thank you. What I find particularly bizarre is the implication that not only were the neo-cons inhabiting a fantasy Middle East where the Shia supported Israel and Chalabi ruled Iraq with Hashemite blessings, but that Binyamin Netanyahu would be equally ignorant and blinkered about his own region of the world. How can we make any progress if even the political leaders - who must have privileged access to the most comprehensive information - can be so bloody ill-informed? It is at times like these I feel that democracy is simply a pretty smokescreen for halfwit oligarchs playing in their sandpits.

Bizarre, yes indeed. It makes one wonder if any World leaders have two marbles to roll around. It seems like when America slides into the *******, we take a great number of others with us. I feel sorry for Tony Blair. Bushco lied to him and manipulated him. Our relationship with the UK has been about as tight as any two countries have ever been. I do not think Blair was capable of understanding what a deceitful group he had fallen in league with.
And, why should he? We have had other unsavory administrations in the past, and and things worked out. If the American people (most) were bamboozled by Bushco, a foreign head of state probably would be as well. But, I stray.

Netanyahu has always been a right-wing, war mongering extremist. He is so far right, he is teetering at the edge of the world. He makes Atilla seem like St Christopher. You are spot on when you say " .... but that Binyamin Netanyahu would be equally ignorant and blinkered about his own region of the world". I really do not believe he thinks that deep. This is a man, who would use nukes. If he could eliminate all of the Arabs and Persians, I think he would do so. The scandals surrounding the current Israeli PM, Ehud Olmert, will probably lead to his resignation, although I have not followed that story at all, and do not know how compelling the case is against him. But, I do know that Netanyahu is planning to run for the office. Not a comforting thought.

I think people are starting to wake up to the realization, we have shifted our focus with Israel. AIRPAC, and ''all the usual suspects", in the American-Israeli media lobby, have been pushing for the US to embrace the 'Clean Break' regional plan. President Clinton would not have any of it. His belief was that Israel needed to make an honest attempt to live up to the Oslo Accords, which was not happening. When G-Dub moved in, many of the American-Israeli hard-liners assumed high-level roles in his administration. That brings up to where we are today - in one hell of a mess, and heading for more. Anyone planning to vote for McCain should keep this in mind.

I am going to link a document (http://100777.com/node/1612) for you. It is a partial (still long) list of media people, who are Jewish Americans, and support AIRPAC. And, before someone labels me anti-semitic, let me say, this does not mean I do not support Israel. The majority of the Jewish people do not support the current right-wing extremists either.

hulugu

Jun 30, 2008, 10:37 PM

...How can we make any progress if even the political leaders - who must have privileged access to the most comprehensive information - can be so bloody ill-informed? It is at times like these I feel that democracy is simply a pretty smokescreen for halfwit oligarchs playing in their sandpits.

Think of all the times throughout history that a leader absolutely convinced of his own destiny walked into a situation that was completely beyond him. The new ability to attain information just means they have access to that much more noise and still can't see past their own desire.

Ever played chess against someone who was certain they were going to win and was so busy thinking about winning they lost. That's the oligarchs, struck down by their own hubris. Shame they take so many with them.

Macky-Mac

Jun 30, 2008, 11:39 PM

.....
I am going to link a document (http://100777.com/node/1612) for you. It is a partial (still long) list of media people, who are Jewish Americans, and support AIRPAC. And, before someone labels me anti-semitic, let me say, this does not mean I do not support Israel. The majority of the Jewish people do not support the current right-wing extremists either.

perhaps you mean AIPAC and not AIRPAC? You're referring to the group that Clinton and Obama addressed a few weeks ago?

And what would be your point in publishing this list of jews in the media? Are you suggesting there's some secret jewish conspiracy that controls the media?

SMM

Jul 1, 2008, 12:46 AM

perhaps you mean AIPAC and not AIRPAC? You're referring to the group that Clinton and Obama addressed a few weeks ago?

And what would be your point in publishing this list of jews in the media? Are you suggesting there's some secret jewish conspiracy that controls the media?

Thanks for finding the typo. To answer your question, yes I do suggest that. There are volumes of reference material, which is ridiculously easy to find with just a basic Google search. The list I referenced are individuals with a known sympathy for supporting AIPAC. I am sure that there are various levels of support they fall into.

Macky-Mac

Jul 1, 2008, 01:07 AM

Thanks for finding the typo. To answer your question, yes I do suggest that. There are volumes of reference material, which is ridiculously easy to find with just a basic Google search. The list I referenced are individuals with a known sympathy for supporting AIPAC. I am sure that there are various levels of support they fall into.

since you say you think there's a secret jewish conspiracy that controls the media, what about international banking? Do you also think that's also secretly controlled by the jews?

SMM

Jul 1, 2008, 02:55 AM

since you say you think there's a secret jewish conspiracy that controls the media, what about international banking? Do you also think that's also secretly controlled by the jews?

No. And I do not think this is a ' ... secret Jewish Conspiracy ... ". I think this is very much out in the open, for those looking. It also does not reflect the views of the majority of Jewish people, anymore than people agree with the policies of our current administration. Macky-Mac, do not try to paint me as a Jew-Hater. Nothing is further from the truth. A large part of my extended family is Jewish. They are family! I love them with all my heart. It was while talking with them, I first was led down this path of thought. They do not support the current right-wing extremists. They believe it is just continuing a policy, which makes peace unobtainable. If you want to disagree with me, do it based on facts, not suggestions of anti-semitic.

és:

Jul 1, 2008, 03:42 AM

I know you were asking this of solvs, but I hope you do not mind me also chiming in.

Not at all, thanks for your very welcome and informative post.

As someone who takes great interest in the middle east and the occupied territories, I already know the information in your links but I grateful that you've shared it because the more information out there, the more wake up to the reality.

és:

Jul 1, 2008, 03:45 AM

Macky-Mac

Jul 1, 2008, 03:41 PM

.... If you want to disagree with me, do it based on facts, not suggestions of anti-semitic.

so far you're the only one who's suggested that your ideas might strike others as being anti-semitic (see your post #99)

it's perfectly reasonable to ask you to clarify what you're saying. If you're worried your answers are going to come off as sounding anti-semitic, then perhaps you should reconsider how you express your ideas

Macky-Mac

Jul 1, 2008, 03:46 PM

SMM

Jul 1, 2008, 06:44 PM

so far you're the only one who's suggested that your ideas might strike others as being anti-semitic (see your post #99)

it's perfectly reasonable to ask you to clarify what you're saying. If you're worried your answers are going to come off as sounding anti-semitic, then perhaps you should reconsider how you express your ideas

This is the section of my post (#99), which references anti-semitic:

I am going to link a document for you. It is a partial (still long) list of media people, who are Jewish Americans, and support AIPAC. And, before someone labels me anti-semitic, let me say, this does not mean I do not support Israel. The majority of the Jewish people do not support the current right-wing extremists either.

Where do you see ambiguity in that statement? I clearly state that I support Israel. In fact, in an earlier post, I explicitly state I support defending Israel against attack. Which, I do. What I do not support is their right-wing policy of using force first, without making a serious attempt of solving this through diplomacy. The same extremist group fought bitterly to keep their conquered territories, even though this was formally adopted by the Oslo Accords. The Palestinians also have an extremist group, who works to scuttle the peace process too. It is these two groups that keep the killing going, and push the chance for peace further from reach. Anyone who criticizes Israeli policies, is first attacked by using the anti-Semitic label. That is why I brought it up. I wanted to head that off, before it got started.

Now, this is not a contest to see which one of us is right, or wrong. I think you and I have clarified our positions enough, we can just move on. Agreed? **they shake hands and walk away satisfied*** :)

stevento

Jul 1, 2008, 10:51 PM

I think Bush and Cheney stand to profit from attacking Iran. Brian Williams said on NBC that if anything jumped off in Iran, then oil could hit any price, $300-400 a barrel.

Queso

Jul 2, 2008, 09:50 AM

I think Bush and Cheney stand to profit from attacking Iran. Brian Williams said on NBC that if anything jumped off in Iran, then oil could hit any price, $300-400 a barrel.
Bush and Cheney's bosses in Riyadh stand to profit a lot more if that particular piece of dictated foreign policy gets followed through.

And people actually complain about the Jewish lobby.....

solvs

Jul 3, 2008, 12:18 AM

The hypocrisy of not wanting Iran to have nuclear weapons aside, why do you think Bush is seemingly desperate to attack Iran, Solvs?
Oil.

I realize others have mentioned it, even expanded further upon it, but it's probably as simple as that. They very well could be developing a bomb, and maybe even planning to attack Israel (not that we'd believe them if they continued to say so, they've lost all credibility by crying wolf up to this point), but it's far more likely that if they are developing WMDs, as said above, it's more likely to protect themselves against the perceived threat from us. Look what happened with Iraq, then look at North Korea. Madeline Albright was just talking about how we should negotiate with Iran the way we did with NK (eventually), especially considering how we don't actually have the resources to do anything else, but I'm sure it'll fall on deaf ears. And no SMM, I don't think you are anti-Semitic, but I do understand wanting to "pre-clarify" lest someone accuse you of being so, and appreciate you further clarifying. Also have Jewish family, also not happy with some of what Israel does in the name of security, but of course nor do I agree with what others in the region do, desperation or no.

Meanwhile:

Ex-Agent Says CIA Ignored Iran Facts (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/30/AR2008063001940.html)

And people wonder why some of us are having deja-vu.

és:

Jul 3, 2008, 03:56 AM

Oil.

Thanks for taking the time to add your opinion. It's always nice to see other people's point of view.

I don't think it's oil. It just doesn't make sense because they would sooner burn every last drop, than let the west get it.

I'm starting to lean towards an attack, maybe initiated by Israel, because it could be good for his friend McCain, thus good for him and his interests.

I think it's a war that the US could lose without the use of nuclear weapons. It won't be a war like Iraq, Afghanistan or other smaller conflicts. They have allies to the east.

We have a serious problem if it all goes off.

solvs

Jul 3, 2008, 04:18 AM

It was about oil. The control of oil. Especially in that region. As noted, look into PNAC. That was the plan. Everything went to hades, and now, I can't help but wonder if it's just scrambling to get as much done as possible as they can. That's why all the permanent bases and no bid oil contracts.

It's simplistic, and I'm sure there's more to it, but that's what it seems to all boil down to.

és:

Jul 3, 2008, 04:21 AM

That doesn't make sense, solvs. Attacking Iran will see oil go through the roof. They will set sea's of fire.

If they want to control the oil, the worst way to do it is by attacking Iran.

solvs

Jul 3, 2008, 04:34 AM

I didn't say it was smart, and I didn't say anything about oil prices, just control. That was the plan. Now, I'm not even sure there is a plan anymore, at least not a good one, but they just keep going with it. It's about more than Israel, as there are those who also criticize Israel, and we do nothing about them. Israel and nukes are just the excuse. We've been though this before with Iraq, WMDs and terrorism and such, and it's almost like they figured we'd all fall for it all over again. Some people are. Syria was next on the list. All planned years before 9/11. It's all right there in PNAC's agenda, no tin foil hat required.

és:

Jul 3, 2008, 04:38 AM

Now, I'm not even sure there is a plan anymore

Well, we can agree on that :D

Israel and nukes are just the excuse.

And again. America cares about Israel in a strategic sense. Nothing more than that.

blackfox

Jul 3, 2008, 05:19 AM

No-one stands to profit from $300-$400 barrels of oil. Those prices would tank almost all of the world economies - and ruin individual profit-margins by the same token.

You may think of some players involved as immoral - but they are not stupid ( at least not with finance).

Cursor

Jul 3, 2008, 07:42 AM

That doesn't make sense, solvs. Attacking Iran will see oil go through the roof. They will set sea's of fire.

If they want to control the oil, the worst way to do it is by attacking Iran.

That is exactly what our administration wants. Their oil holdings will go through the roof! And it could give our western oil companies access to the Iranian oil fields, just like in Iraq.

Also-Iran-rejected the Petro Dollar, and is currently in the process of switching over to the Euro/basket of currencies for all their transactions. Our attack would solve that as well.

This whole thing is shaping up just like the run-up to the Iraq War. But the consequences will 100 times worse, for the economy, our military and us commoners.

és:

Jul 3, 2008, 08:29 AM

That is exactly what our administration wants. Their oil holdings will go through the roof! And it could give our western oil companies access to the Iranian oil fields, just like in Iraq.

It's not a case of going in, having a few nights of virtually unopposed bombing and claiming the oil 'just like in Iraq'.

The Iranians won't let that happen. This won't be like Iraq that was fought in Iraq. This won't be a war like Vietnam, that was fought in Vietnam. A war with Iran will be a war in Iran, in New York, in Washington, in London, in southern Iraq.

They'll set the Persian gulf on fire, then the Tangeh-ye Hormoz.

If this was just like Iraq I would agree with you. It's just that from a strategic point of view, this doesn't make any sense. Sure, oil prices might (not a point I've done much research into, but have might doubts) be good for their own personal pockets, but what about the people that actually do run America, the corporations. It'll be an unmitigated, unparalleled disaster.

Aside from their military power they have roughly 12 million Nirouye Moqavemate Basij members that will fight to the death.

So with that said, I don't believe for a second that this is as simple as just oil.

Also-Iran-rejected the Petro Dollar, and is currently in the process of switching over to the Euro/basket of currencies for all their transactions. Our attack would solve that as well.

In what way would it solve it?

This whole thing is shaping up just like the run-up to the Iraq War. But the consequences will 100 times worse, for the economy, our military and us commoners.

Aye.

mactastic

Jul 3, 2008, 03:12 PM

That doesn't make sense, solvs. Attacking Iran will see oil go through the roof. They will set sea's of fire.

If they want to control the oil, the worst way to do it is by attacking Iran.
It might have more to do with Iran's interest in setting up an oil exchange based in Euros than with actual control of the oil fields, which there have been rumors of for a couple of years now. If oil trading stops happening in dollars, the US is seriously screwed.

skunk

Jul 3, 2008, 04:56 PM

If oil trading stops happening in dollars, the US is seriously screwed.The fact that Saddam Hussein announced that he planned to do this just before his country was attacked does lend some credence to the scenario. But I'd say that the US is seriously screwed with or without...

és:

Jul 3, 2008, 05:43 PM

The fact that Saddam Hussein announced that he planned to do this just before his country was attacked does lend some credence to the scenario.

Hmm, interesting point/s.

It might have more to do with Iran's interest in setting up an oil exchange based in Euros than with actual control of the oil fields, which there have been rumors of for a couple of years now. If oil trading stops happening in dollars, the US is seriously screwed.

Do you (or anyone else) have any more information or articles about this subject?

iJohnHenry

Jul 3, 2008, 06:09 PM

As this thread has transversed attacking Iran, to the oil question, did anyone note the "flag hoisting" to banning futures trading in oil???

Will no one salute that one??

skunk

Jul 3, 2008, 06:09 PM

Do you (or anyone else) have any more information or articles about this subject?Indeed:
The Iranian Oil Bourse[1], (Persian: بورس نفت ایران ) International Oil Bourse[2], Iran Petroleum Exchange or Oil Bourse in Kish[3] (IOB; the official English language name is unclear) is a commodity exchange which opened on February 17, 2008,[4][5][6][3]. It was created by cooperation between Iranian ministries and other state and private institutions. The IOB is a Petrobourse for petroleum, petrochemicals and gas in various currencies, primarily the euro and Iranian rial and a basket of other major currencies. The geographical location is at the Persian Gulf island of Kish which is designated by Iran as a free trade zone.[7].
During 2007, Iran asked its petroleum customers to pay in non-dollar currencies. By December 8, 2007, Iran reported to have converted all of its oil export payments to non-dollar currencies. [8] The Kish Bourse was officially opened in a videoconference ceremony on February the 17th 2008, despite last minute disruptions to the internet services to the gulf regions. Currently the Kish Bourse is only trading in oil derived products, generally those used as feedstock for the plastics and pharmaceutical industries. However officially published statements by Oil Minister Gholamhossein Nozari indicate that the second phase, to establish trading in crude oil directly, which has been suggested might one day perhaps create a "Caspian Crude" benchmark price analogous to Brent Crude or WTI will only be started after the Bourse has demonstrated a reasonable period of trouble-free running.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Oil_Bourse

JG271

Jul 4, 2008, 05:19 PM

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0319/csmimg/0319p10b.jpg
Notice the countries around Iran. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan are allies of the US, the US have been pushing for Turkey to join the EU.
That map doesn't include the soldiers in Iraq as well.

If the US invade Iran, then they'll have a massive influence over that region, a region rich in oil.

Queso

Jul 4, 2008, 06:18 PM

Notice the countries around Iran.
You may want to consider the country just across the Caspian Sea. Russia was a pushover when Bush first came to power. No longer.

és:

Jul 4, 2008, 07:06 PM

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0319/csmimg/0319p10b.jpg
Notice the countries around Iran.

Like China and Russia...

If the US invade Iran, then they'll have a massive influence over that region, a region rich in oil. Simple.

Well, you're assuming (given your suggested outcome) that the US would win the war.

You might think it's simple, but I don't think it's anything like simple. It's that type of thinking that gets countries into trouble like in Vietnam and make a mess out of broken backed weakling countries like Iraq.

Badandy

Jul 4, 2008, 07:34 PM

Like China and Russia...

Well, you're assuming (given your suggested outcome) that the US would win the war.

You might think it's simple, but I don't think it's anything like simple. It's that type of thinking that gets countries into trouble like in Vietnam and make a mess out of broken backed weakling countries like Iraq.

Taking nuclear options off the table (mutually) the U.S., at it's current military power, can not be beaten save for a coalition of many of the world's top military powers. Like any strong military, it is susceptible to guerilla tactics. People seem to think that because we're "bogged down" by an insurgency, that that somehow indicates a relative weakness in the military's might. Bad assumption.

EDIT:

If attacked, it would be absolute suicide for Iran to strike at U.S. forces. AFAIK, our two naval forces in the Arabian sea are at least two Nimitz-class super-carriers and 2-4 Los Angeles-class nuclear submarines. I really don't see Iran striking at U.S. forces if Israel went after them with our navy there...

t0mat0

Jul 4, 2008, 07:38 PM

With the talk aorund the middle East, Iran, and Iraq, and Oil (which also touches on UK and U.S. foreign policy) has anyone looked at the views of Thomas Newman? I'll add some more information if they haven't already been put into the pot so to speak.

skunk

Jul 5, 2008, 03:14 AM

Taking nuclear options off the table (mutually) the U.S., at it's current military power, can not be beaten save for a coalition of many of the world's top military powers. Like any strong military, it is susceptible to guerilla tactics. People seem to think that because we're "bogged down" by an insurgency, that that somehow indicates a relative weakness in the military's might.You rely far too much on your supposed military might. It is all but useless if misused. You were defeated in Vietnam, were defeated in Somalia and have all but been defeated in Iraq. No amount of supercarriers will compensate for weak-minded political leadership, a feeble grasp of the dynamics of international relations and an exaggerated sense of your own importance and destiny. Would the US public stand for the loss of even one major vessel in the Gulf? Would the US economy stand for a draft? Can the US borrow enough from the rest of us to finance yet more chest-thumping?

Queso

Jul 5, 2008, 04:13 AM

Taking nuclear options off the table (mutually)...
And what decade are you living in where that's actually an option?

Badandy

Jul 5, 2008, 04:21 AM

You rely far too much on your supposed military might. It is all but useless if misused. You were defeated in Vietnam, were defeated in Somalia and have all but been defeated in Iraq.

I'll give you Vietnam. Terrible leadership combined with a home field advantage that was unbeatable. All but defeated in Iraq? Are you joking? We got their army to stop fighting in like a month, completely. They either were killed, fled, or surrendered. We have 4,000 deaths at the hands of an insurgency, which is 4,000 too many, but hardly defeat. Our military did it's job: to beat the other military. State building isn't its greatest strength.

No amount of supercarriers will compensate for weak-minded political leadership, a feeble grasp of the dynamics of international relations and an exaggerated sense of your own importance and destiny.

It's hard to exaggerate the U.S. international importance. Destiny? I've never heard of anyone I know have any "destiny" in mind for the U.S. That's ridiculous.

And what decade are you living in where that's actually an option?

The one where there hasn't been a nuke used in war for forty years. That one.

Queso

Jul 5, 2008, 04:25 AM

The one where there hasn't been a nuke used in war for forty years. That one.
Oh right. And of course you being party to all high-level conversations between leaders of nuclear states know for sure that the nuclear option has never been used in an ultimatum when discussing international spheres of influence.

Don't mess with Putin. That man's cleverer and stronger-willed than anything the West has.

Badandy

Jul 5, 2008, 04:39 AM

Oh right. And of course you being party to all high-level conversations between leaders of nuclear states know for sure that the nuclear option has never been used in an ultimatum when discussing international spheres of influence.

I actually have. I'm Dick Cheney.

No, but seriously, nukes would only be used by the U.S. in retaliation to a nuclear attack. They definitely wouldn't be used between the U.S. and Russia...that whole mutually assured destruction thing.

Don't mess with Putin. That man's cleverer and stronger-willed than anything the West has.

I will admit advantage on both of those attributes. I wouldn't have wanted to mess with him had he been in power during the Cold War Era.

It might be 10:30 am for you, but it's 2:30 am for me, I must go to sleep. We shall continue tomorrow (or later today, whichever way you look at it).

skunk

Jul 5, 2008, 04:43 AM

All but defeated in Iraq? Are you joking? We got their army to stop fighting in like a month, completely. They either were killed, fled, or surrendered. We have 4,000 deaths at the hands of an insurgency, which is 4,000 too many, but hardly defeat. Our military did it's job: to beat the other military. State building isn't its greatest strength.You appear to have mistaken defeating a military for winning a war - a strangely similar error to the one George Bush made. If you think the state of US Iraq policy and the conditions on the ground represent a success, you must have set the bar remarkably low. The whole illegal exercise has turned into a clusterf*ck of epic proportions.

It's hard to exaggerate the U.S. international importance. Destiny? I've never heard of anyone I know have any "destiny" in mind for the U.S. That's ridiculous.I agree it's ridiculous, but there are many in positions of power and influence in your country who fondly believe that your Destiny is Manifest.

Much Ado

Jul 5, 2008, 04:49 AM

^ PNAC certainly like to think of the US having a destiny.

It's hard to exaggerate the U.S. international importance.

With the rise of China, India, Russia, Brazil etc. throughout the 21st century, the US will have to learn that the days of its inflated importance are over.

The US will need to adapt quickly and mature if it wants to stay ahead.

Big-TDI-Guy

Jul 5, 2008, 05:26 AM

The US will need to adapt quickly and mature if it wants to stay ahead.

Scratch "ahead" and replace with "Alive" or "Afloat" - we're already behind, dangerously so. The fact that the common folk are completely unaware of this - scares me.

t0mat0

Jul 5, 2008, 05:56 AM

Robert Newman.
He does an excellent history of the world backwards:
http://www.robnewman.com/history.html

E.g. "in the History Of The World Backwards, time still flows forwards. For example, a baby born on October 7 2006 who lives 86 years dies in 1920. A baby born in 1920 lives fifty years and dies in 1870."
".From 2006 and through the 1990s there is a steady decline in IT jobs. In 1988 the Harrow March leaves London, walking to the industrial north hoping looking for relief. One marcher has a sign which says ‘Will Web-Design For Food’. Other marchers carry signs more poignant still."

It's funny, because it comes across gems every so often - by seeing things as having reasons backwards, it highlights the actual happenings in real life:

"1950’s British Foreign Policy
Shah of Iran
Britain topples evil dictator the Shah of Iran allowing Iranians to vote for their own democratically-elected government....
... Britain then magnanimously hands 51% of BP to the Iranian people and gladly watches the poverty gap decrease, thus ensuring good Anglo-Iranian relations for years to come! Have the oil, we say, we’re using less and less of the stuff every year. Oh, look at them, still with the oil! That’s so 2006.

His show - the history of oil is as relevant as ever:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8957268309327954402
(Takes a minute to get going). The concept of the petro dollar, Picasso's signature amongst other things crop up.
The thought that basically the foreign policy of the UK and US has been consistent since the Great War basically - get oil, take land.

és:

Jul 5, 2008, 08:14 AM

Taking nuclear options off the table (mutually) the U.S., at it's current military power, can not be beaten save for a coalition of many of the world's top military powers.

It's this type of naive bravado that is the major weakness of the US and it's military. I think the more the US citizens are told how amazing they are by their own government, the more they believe it.

People seem to think that because we're "bogged down" by an insurgency, that that somehow indicates a relative weakness in the military's might. Bad assumption.

This insurgency is nothing compared to the 12.5m Basij that the US will have to fight. That's without the military.

If attacked, it would be absolute suicide for Iran to strike at U.S. forces.

If the US forces strike Iran, she will strike back and the death toll of 4000 will look like buttons.

I just hope to God (if there is one) that this disaster doesn't happen.

JG271

Jul 5, 2008, 08:51 AM

Just to clarify; i didn't mean simple as in it'll be a simple thing to do, i meant simple as in the motives.
It would seem like a good idea from the US government's point of view for the US to get a foothold near China and Russia, although i don't want any kind of military action to take place. Hopefully, the public and the majority of the politicians will stop oppose any military action. Iran is very different from Iraq and the consequences of war there would be more horrific, in my opinion.

Badandy

Jul 5, 2008, 01:39 PM

Scratch "ahead" and replace with "Alive" or "Afloat" - we're already behind, dangerously so. The fact that the common folk are completely unaware of this - scares me.

Our current economic situation (in terms of debt) is bad, but our economy is still a $13 trillion dollar per year one. Hardly behind.

It's this type of naive bravado that is the major weakness of the US and it's military. I think the more the US citizens are told how amazing they are by their own government, the more they believe it.

I've never been told how amazing we are by my government and believed it. But when you have the U.S., who spends more than everyone else combined, on military year after year, you at least have something to show for it. That something is the strongest military, ever.

If the US forces strike Iran, she will strike back and the death toll of 4000 will look like buttons.

With 20 year old Soviet technology? Again, only an insurgency will cause large numbers of death. Military to military, it won't be a fair fight, which is good.

BTW, I hope we don't go to war with Iran. Our soldiers would die (not as many as you seem to think), and it wouldn't do us any good right now. Israel will, however, and I expect that to happen within the next 5 months or so. We will support them, but I don't see it being a full fledged entrance into the front.

Ugg

Jul 5, 2008, 01:50 PM

Our current economic situation (in terms of debt) is bad, but our economy is still a $13 trillion dollar per year one. Hardly behind.

An attack on Iran would push oil prices sky high. $10 a gallon gas would bring the US to its knees. We'd be behind then.

t0mat0

Jul 5, 2008, 01:53 PM

With 20 year old Soviet technology? Again, only an insurgency will cause large numbers of death. Military to military, it won't be a fair fight, which is good.

It's not all mothballs and trebuchets. They have some tech from friendly countries that rivals and is in some ways superior to America's tech.

aLoC

Jul 5, 2008, 02:53 PM

It's this type of naive bravado that is the major weakness of the US and it's military. I think the more the US citizens are told how amazing they are by their own government, the more they believe it.

As long as they don't try to occupy the other country, it's pretty uncontroversial (isn't it?) that the U.S. could defeat any other military.

Much Ado

Jul 5, 2008, 03:38 PM

As long as they don't try to occupy the other country, it's pretty uncontroversial (isn't it?) that the U.S. could defeat any other military.

Uncontroversial? :confused:

és:

Jul 5, 2008, 03:58 PM

I've never been told how amazing we are by my government and believed it. But when you have the U.S., who spends more than everyone else combined, on military year after year, you at least have something to show for it. That something is the strongest military, ever.

That's it, you've summed it all up with that one line. You're not dubya in disguise, are you?

With 20 year old Soviet technology?

Despite that not even being remotely true, it doesn't matter how old the technology is, it's how it's used.

My Dad, who was in the RAF for many years and with many Americans said to me 'the yanks will spend millions on equipment, armored trucks to protect their troops and then they get captured looking for a coke machine in the middle of a desert'. Whilst that doesn't entirely encapsulate the US forces, you get what he means. Vietnam, Iraq and other conflicts show just what your country is like.

The arrogance and foolhardy attitude of the US will be it's undoing. You, like we were, are a declining empire.

EDIT: I love the American people and the nation has given the world some of it's greatest people. I'm far from being anti-American. It's just this cocky attitude speaks volumes about your young country at times. The land of bigger is better has a lot to learn about subtlety.

iJohnHenry

Jul 5, 2008, 05:44 PM

An attack on Iran would push oil prices sky high. $10 a gallon gas would bring the US to its knees.

You forget the "strategic reserve". The U.S. is quite capable of obliterating any country on Earth, if their precious "life style" is in danger of being mortally wounded.

You're not dubya in disguise, are you?

Only if he has taken to slurring his words.

Badandy

Jul 6, 2008, 01:47 AM

It's not all mothballs and trebuchets. They have some tech from friendly countries that rivals and is in some ways superior to America's tech.

Like? We would have complete air superiority in a war, have super carriers off the coast as mobile bases, etc.

As long as they don't try to occupy the other country, it's pretty uncontroversial (isn't it?) that the U.S. could defeat any other military.

If that's a word, you're completely correct.

Despite that not even being remotely true, it doesn't matter how old the technology is, it's how it's used.

Like someone on horseback with a bow and arrow against a machine gun? That matters.

And not remotely true? Take a look at the equipment make up of the Iranian air force. It's almost all Russian, with a few Chinese planes sprinkled in for good measure.

The arrogance and foolhardy attitude of the US will be it's undoing. You, like we were, are a declining empire.

Militarily, I'd disagree for now. But in other ways, it seems as though that might be the case. Remember, though, our GDP is (I just looked up) around $14 trillion. The next largest? Japan at $4 trillion. Behind that? China at around $3 trillion. So while I'd agree that our future is not looking particularly sunny at the moment, we do have an economy that is at least capable of turning things around.

EDIT: I love the American people and the nation has given the world some of it's greatest people. I'm far from being anti-American. It's just this cocky attitude speaks volumes about your young country at times. The land of bigger is better has a lot to learn about subtlety.

"The Lamborghini then?" :cool:

Iscariot

Jul 6, 2008, 01:51 AM

we do have an economy that is at least capable of turning things around.

Now if you could just use some of that on education, you might be right.

Badandy

Jul 6, 2008, 02:21 AM

Now if you could just use some of that on education, you might be right.

I believe how much we spend on education per person is higher than many European countries with education system's vastly superior to ours. Now if someone can tell me how we can go about fixing our education system's overhead and inefficiencies without just throwing more money at the problem, I'm all ears.

aLoC

Jul 6, 2008, 02:47 AM

But in other ways, it seems as though that might be the case.

There's no reason to believe the U.S. is declining IMHO. If you follow the right principles, you'll win in the end. The principles that got the U.S. where it is today are free speech, free markets, free people basically.

Despite all their recent economic growth China, India, Russia and Brazil do not believe in freedom down in their soul like Americans, it is just a tool to increase their national prestige. They will go back to their old ways eventually, so their current success will only be temporary.

skunk

Jul 6, 2008, 03:23 AM

There's no reason to believe the U.S. is declining IMHO. If you follow the right principles, you'll win in the end. The principles that got the U.S. where it is today are free speech, free markets, free people basically.

Despite all their recent economic growth China, India, Russia and Brazil do not believe in freedom down in their soul like Americans, it is just a tool to increase their national prestige. They will go back to their old ways eventually, so their current success will only be temporary.Astonishing that people can still believe things like this. The US depends on tariffs, cheap overseas labour, expanding markets and implied military threat. As for "believing in freedom down to their soul", whose freedom? Certainly not their own from political manipulation, nor that of any of the countries whose dictators they support. Simply trotting out empty mantras is not persuasive.

Iscariot

Jul 6, 2008, 03:30 AM

I believe how much we spend on education per person is higher than many European countries with education system's vastly superior to ours. Now if someone can tell me how we can go about fixing our education system's overhead and inefficiencies without just throwing more money at the problem, I'm all ears.

I think factors unique to the United States makes a greater cost for similar ends inevitable. European nations have higher population density, smaller size, and a greater level of government involvement all working in their favour.

iJohnHenry

Jul 6, 2008, 11:56 AM

I think factors unique to the United States makes a greater cost for similar ends inevitable. European nations have higher population density, smaller size, and a greater level of government involvement all working in their favour.

I believe that is the first time I have ever seen those words used in the same sentence.

Would that it were true.

mactastic

Jul 6, 2008, 12:15 PM

I'll give you Vietnam. Terrible leadership combined with a home field advantage that was unbeatable. All but defeated in Iraq? Are you joking? We got their army to stop fighting in like a month, completely. They either were killed, fled, or surrendered. We have 4,000 deaths at the hands of an insurgency, which is 4,000 too many, but hardly defeat. Our military did it's job: to beat the other military. State building isn't its greatest strength.
We "won every battle" in Vietnam too, remember? The military defeat of your enemy on the tactical level does not equate with winning a war.

It is said of insurgent wars that the occupying power is automatically losing until it wins, and the insurgents -- those with the hearts and minds of the populace -- are winning until they lose. Five years is a long time to be attempting to win a war with the best military on the planet.

And technically, you're correct. In a fair fight, no one can stand up to the US military. But tactical victory over the Iranians at the cost of $300/barrel oil is a pyrrhic victory indeed.

It's hard to exaggerate the U.S. international importance. Destiny? I've never heard of anyone I know have any "destiny" in mind for the U.S. That's ridiculous.
You've never heard of manifest destiny? That is but one example of someone expressing their view of a "destiny" in mind for the US.

Just because you've never personally heard someone express this idea does not mean it has not been expressed. A head in the sand is not an excuse.

You forget the "strategic reserve". The U.S. is quite capable of obliterating any country on Earth, if their precious "life style" is in danger of being mortally wounded.
Are you talking about the strategic petroleum reserve? Last I heard, we had less than two months supply in there -- and that's assuming the military doesn't commandeer it as a vital necessity in the event of a disruption. Even Bush doesn't think tapping into the SPR can affect the current price of oil more than a few cents -- and I think he's right. It's a key link in our national security policy, but it won't help us survive a prolonged period of supply disruption.

I believe how much we spend on education per person is higher than many European countries with education system's vastly superior to ours. Now if someone can tell me how we can go about fixing our education system's overhead and inefficiencies without just throwing more money at the problem, I'm all ears.
How much time you got? :p

We could start by leaving behind the children who aren't willing to put in the work to keep up. While "leaving no child behind" is a noble goal, it's simply not realistic; and it shouldn't be accomplished at the expense of stunting the education of the ones who are eager to learn.

We could fund the mandated tests to see if the testing we tested them on is working. Or eliminate some of those tests entirely. We could trade tenure for a reasonable merit pay system. We could pay good teachers a good wage, and weed the others out. We could get fickle school boards to stop wasting the public's time and money trying to get God back into the textbooks. We could find ways to stop closing schools in cities where the cost of living is driving out the young families, and paying tens of millions of dollars to build new schools in the suburbs where the families are moving to. We could allow teachers the freedom to decide their texts (within reason of course) and break the costly stranglehold of the textbook companies. We could back up the commitment to equal opportunity for special needs students of all kinds with funding to cover the intense costs associated with their access. We could break down the wall between capital outlay and operating expenses to help build efficiencies into school buildings -- buildings which will be in use for 50 years between major renovations -- that cost more up front by have 7-year paybacks that more than justify their added up front cost.

Just a few suggestions.

Badandy

Jul 6, 2008, 12:54 PM

You've never heard of manifest destiny? That is but one example of someone expressing their view of a "destiny" in mind for the US.

Maybe in the 1840's, but people still think this? Is there anything to indicate this belief is still held?

Just because you've never personally heard someone express this idea does not mean it has not been expressed. A head in the sand is not an excuse.

We could start by leaving behind the children who aren't willing to put in the work to keep up. While "leaving no child behind" is a noble goal, it's simply not realistic; and it shouldn't be accomplished at the expense of stunting the education of the ones who are eager to learn.

I agree with you here. The problem is that, in America, I think it would be politically infeasible. With how swayed our population is by cheap, emotional appeals and union commercials, do you actually think that a bill that reformed the system this much would get through?

themadchemist

Jul 6, 2008, 01:01 PM

We could start by leaving behind the children who aren't willing to put in the work to keep up. While "leaving no child behind" is a noble goal, it's simply not realistic; and it shouldn't be accomplished at the expense of stunting the education of the ones who are eager to learn.

Unfortunately, eagerness to learn is probably tightly correlated with all sorts of socioeconomic indicators that are entirely out of a child's hands. Kids from families with bigger incomes, that live in safer neighborhoods, and where more people pursued higher education, will all probably show a greater eagerness to learn. By casting the kids who aren't excited about school aside, you are probably dividing education into the haves and the have-nots, and reproducing the socioeconomic structures that left the straggling kids behind in the first place.

At its heart, the crisis of American education is more a matter of class than pedagogy. We have to figure out a way to bring countless communities up to some basic standard of living in order to solve the education problems. Sadly, we also have to solve the education problems to bring those communities up.

Personally, I think that education is probably the most difficult of our domestic problems to actually tackle. You've got intractable teacher's unions, some problems with teaching, larger problems with socioeconomic structure, and a funding system that can only be described as the last remaining Jim Crow law.

themadchemist

Jul 6, 2008, 01:06 PM

Our military did it's job: to beat the other military. State building isn't its greatest strength.

Throughout human history, a military's displacement of an enemy government has almost always had one of two outcomes: Imperialism or nation-building. When you remove another country's government, the point is to change the governance. Usually, the victor has intended to establish a colony. More recently (look at WWII and the Marshall Plan), the intention was to remake the country as an independent state under new leadership. It's not fair to claim that "state building" isn't part of the job description. If you're going to remove another country's government, an attempt at state building follows almost invariably.

mactastic

Jul 6, 2008, 01:34 PM

Maybe in the 1840's, but people still think this? Is there anything to indicate this belief is still held?Hey, the challenge was only to produce an example of someone holding the view of some type of destiny for the US. You never put a time constraint on it.

But, since you want to move the goalposts, I note that expressions of the "destiny" of this nation to be reclaimed for God occur regularly among conservative evangelical groups. Just one "for instancehttp://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=83":
Rev. Johnson envisions a Christian America. "Reclaiming the teaching of our Christian heritage among America's youth is paramount to a sense of national destiny that God has invested into this nation," Johnson wrote on his church's website.

Just because you've never personally heard someone express this idea does not mean it has not been expressed. A head in the sand is not an excuse.
I thought that was my line...

I agree with you here. The problem is that, in America, I think it would be politically infeasible. With how swayed our population is by cheap, emotional appeals and union commercials, do you actually think that a bill that reformed the system this much would get through?
Who knows. You didn't ask me what could get passed, you just asked for some ideas on how to fix the efficiency issue.

Unfortunately, eagerness to learn is probably tightly correlated with all sorts of socioeconomic indicators that are entirely out of a child's hands. Kids from families with bigger incomes, that live in safer neighborhoods, and where more people pursued higher education, will all probably show a greater eagerness to learn. By casting the kids who aren't excited about school aside, you are probably dividing education into the haves and the have-nots, and reproducing the socioeconomic structures that left the straggling kids behind in the first place.
I think you misunderstand my intent. "Leaving them behind" doesn't mean putting them out on the streets with nothing. It mean recognizing that many primary school students aren't college bound. It means providing more education in trades for those who simply are not interested in a classical education. More career technology classes. Just because someone isn't dazzled by the brilliance of Shakespear or Gallileo doesn't mean they aren't interested in ranching or building stage sets or rebuilding cars or sculpting or hospitality, and can't become productive citizens on those career paths.

At its heart, the crisis of American education is more a matter of class than pedagogy. We have to figure out a way to bring countless communities up to some basic standard of living in order to solve the education problems. Sadly, we also have to solve the education problems to bring those communities up.
I agree, class plays heavily into disparity in education. It's a difficult balance to allow local control and decisions by schools yet still allow similar educational opportunities from community to community.

Personally, I think that education is probably the most difficult of our domestic problems to actually tackle. You've got intractable teacher's unions, some problems with teaching, larger problems with socioeconomic structure, and a funding system that can only be described as the last remaining Jim Crow law.
I won't get to into this, mostly because this thread is supposed to be about Iran, not education; but anytime you've got an established system with people who benefit from it's current setup, you're going to have trouble making changes. Bottom line is that poor teachers need to be weeded out, but political and personal differences shouldn't be allowed to be used as what defines a poor teacher. It's how you get there that's the rub.

Badandy

Jul 6, 2008, 01:49 PM

Hey, the challenge was only to produce an example of someone holding the view of some type of destiny for the US. You never put a time constraint on it.

Well, I'd never posit that America holds the exact same views now as they did 150 years ago, so...

And about your evangelical quote: I'm getting sick of them. Anytime I think something is too crazy to be believed, they just come out of the woodwork and stun me.

I thought that was my line...

It is your line. I accidentally left it in my post when I clicked quote for the post replay. No smart-a**ness intended on my part.

mactastic

Jul 6, 2008, 02:14 PM

Well, I'd never posit that America holds the exact same views now as they did 150 years ago, so...

And about your evangelical quote: I'm getting sick of them. Anytime I think something is too crazy to be believed, they just come out of the woodwork and stun me.
My point is, you can't dismiss Skunk's point about a history of America projecting a certain sense of fulfilling some form of destiny. It's been going on for a long time, and still continues today. Simply saying that because you don't see it, it can't possibly exist does not make your assertion true. The idea that religious superiority has directly lead America to deserved prosperity in this world has been around for a long time, and is still alive today; whether you claim to be aware of it or not.

skunk

Jul 6, 2008, 02:20 PM

Well, I'd never posit that America holds the exact same views now as they did 150 years ago, so...Maybe not: 150 years ago the US was much more tolerant of Islam. Those who are taken with the idea of a new Crusade, or the Rapture and the End Times, of which there are reportedly a few million in your country including perhaps GW himself, must have some sort of delusion of destiny to underpin their lunatic expectations.

themadchemist

Jul 6, 2008, 07:05 PM

Maybe not: 150 years ago the US was much more tolerant of Islam.

Only if you grade on a very generous curve. In the context of being rather intolerant of everyone else, Americans were not specially intolerant of Muslims. However, 150 years ago, the West still considered most of the East subhuman. While many in the US today may be rather intolerant of and antipathetic towards Muslims, the sense of superiority to the extent of considering oneself a member of a different species is mostly gone.

Ugg

Jul 6, 2008, 07:21 PM

Only if you grade on a very generous curve. In the context of being rather intolerant of everyone else, Americans were not specially intolerant of Muslims. However, 150 years ago, the West still considered most of the East subhuman. While many in the US today may be rather intolerant of and antipathetic towards Muslims, the sense of superiority to the extent of considering oneself a member of a different species is mostly gone.

I think you're both right. The tolerance skunk speaks of was mostly based on ignorance. Mid 19th century North America held "exotics" in high esteem, as long as there weren't too many of them.

The Chinese Exclusion Act was only one of many designed to keep out masses of brown skinned, non christian people. Immigration policy since then has only reinforced those early views. The US has never been truly sympathetic to those with dark skin, merely tolerant.

The US and to a certain degree, much of Europe, was hardly alone in thinking people with a different skin color were subhuman. China and Japan had and still have a degree of loathing for non-Asians. India is little better. The insular policies of much of the middle east for the last few hundred years have hardly been conducive to a sympathetic view of the christian world. Fundamental Islam is a direct result of that insularism.

In other words, everyone's a racist at heart.

themadchemist

Jul 6, 2008, 07:31 PM

India is little better.

Actually, India's got this collective Stockholm syndrome. In general, Indians treat white people better than their fellow Indians, in my experience. Perhaps it has something to do with foreign allure or the power of the dollar/euro/pound or hospitality, but my gut tells me that it has a lot more to do with the ingrained subjugation of two centuries' colonization.

iJohnHenry

Jul 6, 2008, 07:38 PM

Those who are taken with the idea of a new Crusade ...

Not taken with it so much as believe for the last year that that is exactly what is happening.

Beat them at their own game, on their home ground, to reduce the risk at home.

skunk

Jul 7, 2008, 02:05 AM

Not taken with it so much as believe for the last year that that is exactly what is happening.

Beat them at their own game, on their home ground, to reduce the risk at home.I hope you are merely paraphrasing the White House's idiotic claims, rather than putting them forward as your own. You cannot seriously be suggesting that the violence created by the ignorance, arrogance and incompetence of both the planning and execution of the illegal and lie-based invasion and occupation of Iraq was a predetermined outcome designed to enhance the security of the "Christian world"? If so, your transparent revisionism beggars belief. If not, we hardly need this post hoc, propter hoc nonsense repeated.

és:

Jul 8, 2008, 03:49 AM

Beat them at their own game, on their home ground, to reduce the risk at home.

Who are they and what's their 'own game'?

As for reducing the risk at home... Are you serious?

skunk

Jul 9, 2008, 12:30 PM

The hypocrisy continues to boggle the mind:
Iran missile test 'provocative'

The US and Israel have condemned Iran after it test-fired a long range missile capable of reaching Israel.

Iran state media said nine missiles were tested in total, including a new Shahab-3, with a range of 2,000km (1,240 miles).

Iran has tested the missile before, but the latest launch comes amid rising tensions with the US and Israel over the country's nuclear programme.

US Under-secretary of State William Burns said the test was "provocative".http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7498214.stm
"Provocative" as opposed to Israel's recent little outing with 100 jets on a "practice long-range bombing run"? Strange, I don't remember the US saying anything about that.

obeygiant

Jul 9, 2008, 12:51 PM

The hypocrisy continues to boggle the mind:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7498214.stm
"Provocative" as opposed to Israel's recent little outing with 100 jets on a "practice long-range bombing run"? Strange, I don't remember the US saying anything about that.

Skunk, your memory is still intact! The US didn't say anything about the Israeli fighter practicing. However, the practice runs could have been in response to a provocative stance from Iran and their support of Hezbollah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It could be that Iran may be worried about the Israeli space program (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cAVJyBshh0). ;)

aLoC

Jul 9, 2008, 01:06 PM

"Provocative" as opposed to Israel's recent little outing with 100 jets on a "practice long-range bombing run"? Strange, I don't remember the US saying anything about that.

I think it's ok to judge Iran by a different standard to Israel. From my secular western perspective they're all off their nut over there, but Iran is more of it's nut.

Desertrat

Jul 9, 2008, 02:27 PM

To address the opening post's question: Per Stratfor, the answer is "No." We're fairly close to several agreements among the players of the middle-east which may well have things calmed down in the entire area.

http://www.stratfor.com Peter Zeihan's commentary, "The New Era" in their geopolitical intelligence report.

It seems to me that the primary issue would be that of winding down hostilities without losing face and without causing undue frustration among the more militant segments of the various populations.

'Rat

nbs2

Jul 9, 2008, 02:49 PM

The hypocrisy continues to boggle the mind:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7498214.stm
"Provocative" as opposed to Israel's recent little outing with 100 jets on a "practice long-range bombing run"? Strange, I don't remember the US saying anything about that.

Maybe he has a thing for pilots.

More on point, I agree with you. :eek: I'm sure that each side has provoked the other, what with there being more sabre rattling between the two than when the Leafs visit Buffalo. That Iran would get called out while Israel is ignored is distressing. Any parent will tell you that when both kids are misbehaving, you have to scold both - not just one.

skunk

Jul 9, 2008, 03:20 PM

To address the opening post's question: Per Stratfor, the answer is "No." We're fairly close to several agreements among the players of the middle-east which may well have things calmed down in the entire area.Stratfor's future analysis seems unduly optimistic and their past analysis unsupportably simplistic. As for "Israel not having been so secure for millennia", which millennia of Israel's existence is he talking about?

és:

Jul 9, 2008, 03:46 PM

I think it's ok to judge Iran by a different standard to Israel.

I think that's right but you've got it back to front. Israel hold far lower standards than Iran when it comes to this.

Mohamed El Baradei (the Director General of the IAEA) said that there is no evidence that they are making Nuclear weapons. 'Iran have signed the NPT. Iran agreed with the EU to suspend all Uranium enrichment (although it's their legal right to do so), if the EU would provide firm assurances on security issues (the very credible threat from the US and Israel to attack Iran). They lived up to their part of the deal, but the EU didn't. Under US pressure they didn't take any steps towards providing assurances' - Chomsky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx1ldODma3E).

Israel have hundreds of Nuclear weapons but won't sign the NPT. Israel break more international laws than any other country. Israel has occupied Palestine for 60 years and attacked most of the countries around it. They occupied south Lebanon for decades.

The US and Israel don't want Iran to have Nuclear weapons, nor do I, but it's rank hypocrisy for them to bully Iran over it when the are/have both partaken in either illegal wars and illegal occupations. The US are the only country to have used Nuclear weapons on civilians.

Badandy

Jul 9, 2008, 04:25 PM

I think that's right but you've got it back to front. Israel hold far lower standards than Iran when it comes to this.

Mohamed El Baradei (the Director General of the IAEA) said that there is no evidence that they are making Nuclear weapons. 'Iran have signed the NPT. Iran agreed with the EU to suspend all Uranium enrichment (although it's their legal right to do so), if the EU would provide firm assurances on security issues (the very credible threat from the US and Israel to attack Iran). They lived up to their part of the deal, but the EU didn't. Under US pressure they didn't take any steps towards providing assurances' - Chomsky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx1ldODma3E).

Israel have hundreds of Nuclear weapons but won't sign the NPT. Israel break more international laws than any other country. Israel has occupied Palestine for 60 years and attacked most of the countries around it. They occupied south Lebanon for decades.

The US and Israel don't want Iran to have Nuclear weapons, nor do I, but it's rank hypocrisy for them to bully Iran over it when the are/have both partaken in either illegal wars and illegal occupations. The US are the only country to have used Nuclear weapons on civilians.

Yes, but when was the last time you saw U.S. and Israeli citizens conducting suicide bombings against civilians in order to be granted passage into heaven?

skunk

Jul 9, 2008, 04:55 PM

Yes, but when was the last time you saw U.S. and Israeli citizens conducting suicide bombings against civilians in order to be granted passage into heaven?They don't have to: they have access to aircraft, tanks, Hellfire missiles, and the Security Council.

és:

Jul 9, 2008, 04:57 PM

Yes, but when was the last time you saw U.S. and Israeli citizens conducting suicide bombings against civilians in order to be granted passage into heaven?

I'm not really sure what that has to do with nations, war and nuclear weapons but what does it matter? "There is no moral difference between a stealth bomber and a suicide bomber, both kill innocent people for political gain" - Tony Benn.

I've much more problem with state terrorism than I do a single suicide bomber. Seeing more than a million dead in Iraq at the hands of the US government (that's without the millions dead from sanctions in Iraq, most of whom were woman and children. Nor the many millions that have had to flee their homes and seek refuge) and seeing what happened in Sabra and Shatila, and many other things, make me sick.

The US and Israel don't need to use suicide bombers, they have hugely advanced weapons.

Badandy

Jul 9, 2008, 04:58 PM

They don't have to: they have access to aircraft, tanks, Hellfire missiles, and the Security Council.

But those aircraft, tanks, and Hellfire missiles at least attempt to hit strongholds of the enemy, not marketplaces. To say that a group doesn't resort to heartless terrorism just because they have more efficient killing weapons is a little naive. You might not believe this, but I don't think every nation in the world would resort to the tactics suicide bombers have employed against innocents, even if they were put in a similar situation.

skunk

Jul 9, 2008, 05:05 PM

But those aircraft, tanks, and Hellfire missiles at least attempt to hit strongholds of the enemy, not marketplaces. To say that a group doesn't resort to heartless terrorism just because they have more efficient killing weapons is a little naive. You might not believe this, but I don't think every nation in the world would resort to the tactics suicide bombers have employed against innocents, even if they were put in a similar situation.Perhaps not every nation, but not every nation has to live with having to pass through a prison gate checkpoint run by an occupying army in order to travel through lands from which their forefathers were evicted by force majeure, and which are now enjoyed by an entire alien population whose military is subsidised by the most powerful nation on earth to the tune of some 3 billion dollars a year and whose flagrant and repeated flouting of UN resolutions has been aided and abetted by that same country for some sixty years. Must be a little galling for them, don't you think? In those circumstances you might even think of the entire civilian population as your oppressors and as legitimate targets.

Badandy

Jul 9, 2008, 05:09 PM

Yes, but not to the tune of mercilessly killing innocents. Even worse, manufacturing justifications for the killing of innocents. Thinking someone a legitimate target and them actually being a legitimate target (yes, they exist) is quite a difference.

es: I don't know what else to say besides the fact that we do not aim our weapons intentionally at civilian populations.

és:

Jul 9, 2008, 05:10 PM

skunk

Jul 9, 2008, 05:12 PM

I don't know what else to say besides the fact that we do not aim our weapons intentionally at civilian populations.Does the lack of intentionality make any difference to the thousands who have died or who have lost family, friends, homes, jobs, country, pride or prospects?

és:

Jul 9, 2008, 05:16 PM

es: I don't know what else to say besides the fact that we do not aim our weapons intentionally at civilian populations.

well, they must be really bad shots with their laser guided bombs because over a million (just contemplate that number for a moment and imagine the pile of dead bodies) Iraqis have died for no other reason that they were Iraqis.

Have a look at Vietnam. Have a look at the antics of our countries. We're dripping with blood of men, woman and children.

I hate suicide bombers, they commit heinous crimes. I don't blame them for being angry, though. I'd be angry, too.

Badandy

Jul 9, 2008, 05:16 PM

You don't seem to have the faintest idea just what Israel have done or how many innocent people the US have killed. If you did you wouldn't be coming out with all this.

How many innocents did the U.S. kill in World War II? How many innocents did the British kill in World War II? It's terrible. I'm not trying to minimize what has been done, but I am trying to call to attention how it has been done. We don't try to kill innocents. They do. Whatever their justification, it's just not good enough (much like you think my "justification" is not either). If you'd like to excuse their actions because of necessity, you can. I call it depravity.

Does the lack of intentionality make any difference to the thousands who have died or who have lost family, friends, homes, jobs, country, pride or prospects?

Absolutely.

Person A: I accidentally ran over a guy with my car. I feel terrible.
Person B: I ran over this mother**** with my car, I'm going to heaven.

I know you said difference to the people who have died...

skunk

Jul 9, 2008, 05:20 PM

How many innocents did the U.S. kill in World War II? How many innocents did the British kill in World War II? It's terrible. I'm not trying to minimize what has been done, but I am trying to call to attention how it has been done. We don't try to kill innocents. They do.Bollocks. What about Dresden? Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Tokyo?Absolutely.How, exactly? :confused: I honestly can't see how your "A and B" scenarios would convince anyone.

és:

Jul 9, 2008, 05:20 PM

If you'd like to excuse their actions because of necessity, you can.

Come on Andy (I assume that's your name and that you're very, very bad!), I think we both know that I'm not excusing the deaths caused by suicide bombers.

I'm just saying that citizens killing themselves and others is so far away from what the US, UK, Israel and other countries have done.

Person A: I accidentally ran over a guy with my car. I feel terrible.
Person B: I ran over this mother**** with my car, I'm going to heaven.

If you honestly believe that scenario A is anywhere close to what's happening, you're blinkered.

Badandy

Jul 9, 2008, 05:29 PM

Bollocks. What about Dresden? Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Tokyo?How, exactly? :confused: I honestly can't see how your "A and B" scenarios would convince anyone.

The scenarios were meant to illustrate how there are two people dead, but the manner of their deaths indicates vast differences in terms of the two people who erred. It seems I'm a bit cornered by your examples from WWII, and I don't know how to respond to those at the moment. Those points have been argued to death by people far more informed on those subjects than I am.

Come on Andy (I assume that's your name and that you're very, very bad!), I think we both know that I'm not excusing the deaths caused by suicide bombers.

I'm just saying that citizens killing themselves and others is so far away from what the US, UK, Israel and other countries have done.

I know you aren't. It just bugs me a bit when Bush is compared to Chavez (who de-limbs (new word) people who vote for the opposition), when the U.S. military is compared to terrorists in their goals and aims, when our jails are compared to third world nations, and so on. It's nothing personal. America obviously has its faults, and I'm not trying to pretend we're perfect, but I think we get a little too hard of a rap on the internet than is deserved.

If you honestly believe that scenario A is anywhere close to what's happening, you're blinkered.

I think it was a necessary example to show skunk that even though two deaths occurred, they should not be viewed in the same light. Our (U.S and U.K.) scenarios are vastly more complicated.

és:

Jul 9, 2008, 05:49 PM

It seems I'm a bit cornered by your examples from WWII, and I don't know how to respond to those at the moment.

WWII is completely different. It was roles reversed, we were the ones being invaded. Now it's them and their families and their way of life.

It just bugs me a bit when Bush is compared to Chavez

Bush has no right to be compared to the great man :D

when the U.S. military is compared to terrorists in their goals

By the very definition, the US is causing terrorist atrocities. I'm similarly annoyed when people think that it isn't terrorism.

when our jails are compared to third world nations, and so on.

Not sure where that's come from? Are you talking about Guantanemo and other types

It's nothing personal.

Same here, definitely not personal.

I think we get a little too hard of a rap on the internet than is deserved.

Really? When you're killing hundreds of thousands, crippling millions, starving millions, forcing many more millions out of their homes, invading countries, stealing countries wealth, threatening Iran and much more, I don't think it's possible to be a 'little too hard'. Just my opinion.

I also wanted to add to your question about us not killing civilians on purpose, there are many cases (like Haditha and many others we do and don't know about) where innocents have been killed. There are video's of things on the internet. Israel, **** me - there are incidents that make your hair curl; soldiers killing kids point blank because they have a stone or airstrikes on beaches...

It's not as clean cut. It's terrible, terrible times.

EDIT:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfQDx9LytCI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZX1odzHdAo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgNInWQI-qU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=7FD1jHueZZc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0lVygyEo2E&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc-2iVQwBSE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPb0gtLl5kI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZX1odzHdAo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY2-JK6qKGg&feature=related

(above might be disturbing for some, but are just a scratch on the surface)

skunk

Jul 9, 2008, 05:56 PM

It just bugs me a bit ... when the U.S. military is compared to terrorists in their goals and aims, when our jails are compared to third world nations, and so on.How would you characterise the avowed intention to create "Shock and Awe" except as a terrorist aim? And how would you differentiate Guantanamo Bay, Bagram AF base, Abu Ghraib, the prison ships off Diego Garcia, special rendition, kidnapping and "disappearing" people off the streets, having them tortured by sub-contractors - and even direct labour - in "black" facilities in Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Romania, Poland and no doubt other places we haven't even heard about, from the practices of "third world nations"? I don't think you are being fair to most "third world nations", actually. Many have far higher standards.

Badandy

Jul 9, 2008, 05:58 PM

Really? When you're killing hundreds of thousands, crippling millions, starving millions, forcing many more millions out of their homes, invading countries, stealing countries wealth, threatening Iran and much more, I don't think it's possible to be a 'little too hard'. Just my opinion.

As you know, the U.K.'s hands have been no cleaner throughout history.

But, starving millions? We give millions upon millions in aid. We nearly feed a third of the world. Stealing other countries' wealth? How do you mean? Let's not forget about all the international organizations that are largely funded by the U.S.'s pocketbook. Many of these try to further human knowledge through science and various other goals.

Badandy

Jul 9, 2008, 06:02 PM

How would you characterise the avowed intention to create "Shock and Awe" except as a terrorist aim?

Displaying military power through bombing is not the same as displaying military power through purposefully killing innocents.

And how would you differentiate Guantanamo Bay, Bagram AF base, Abu Ghraib,

Because isolated incidents != business as usual.

having them tortured by sub-contractors

People commit crimes, and the U.S., certaintly, is no exception. Those people should be held accountable.

I don't think you are being fair to most "third world nations", actually. Many have far higher standards.

You mean places where the government wants to keep their populace in relative illiteracy and povert? And places where voting for the opposition gets your limbs chopped off (I meant Mugabe earlier, not Chavez)? Places where you will die if you go to prison? Where disease, lack of electricity, and lack of potable water are rampant? Where there is no rule of law?

We have our shortcomings, and even outright failures, but we aren't nearly as bad as people think.

skunk

Jul 9, 2008, 06:06 PM

As you know, the U.K.'s hands have been no cleaner throughout history. Indeed not. We were the experts once.

But, starving millions? We give millions upon millions in aid. We nearly feed a third of the world. Stealing other countries' wealth? How do you mean? Let's not forget about all the international organizations that are largely funded by the U.S.'s pocketbook. Many of these try to further human knowledge through science and various other goals.You may give millions in aid, but much of that aid is in the form of US goods supplied to the detriment of home-grown products, undercutting local producers and destroying local economies. As for "stealing wealth", yes indeed, the raw materials, environmental and human resources of countless countries have been pillaged by the US and other western countries from the beginning of European supremacy to the present day. Surely you knew this?

és:

Jul 9, 2008, 06:12 PM

As you know, the U.K.'s hands have been no cleaner throughout history.

"they had an empire so vast the sun never set upon it. This is because God wouldn't trust the British in the dark"

Believe me, I'm not having a go at the US and sticking up for the UK.

But, starving millions? Millions have died because US sanctions in Iraq.

Stealing other countries' wealth? How do you mean?

Come on, a little research into what's going on in Iraq. :D

skunk

Jul 9, 2008, 06:19 PM

Displaying military power through bombing is not the same as displaying military power through purposefully killing innocents.It is exactly the same. The person whose life is blown apart cares not how sorry the perpetrator may claim to be. If you drop a high explosive from 50,000 feet over a populated area, collateral damage is absolutely 100% guaranteed. There is little point saying "Oops!"

Because isolated incidents != business as usual.These are not "isolated incidents", this is policy. The torture, mistreatment, arbitrary detention and gross abuse of human rights and the Geneva Conventions is routine.

People commit crimes, and the U.S., certaintly, is no exception. Those people should be held accountable.But, like Blackwater and so many others, including the troops who carried out the inexcusable assault on Fallujah using banned weapons and tactics, they are not and will not be held accountable.

You mean places where the government wants to keep their populace in relative illiteracy and povert? And places where voting for the opposition gets your limbs chopped off (I meant Mugabe earlier, not Chavez)? Places where you will die if you go to prison? Where disease, lack of electricity, and lack of potable water are rampant? Where there is no rule of law?

We have our shortcomings, and even outright failures, but we aren't nearly as bad as people think.The third world is not defined as such places. The third world is defined as those nations which are undeveloped or underdeveloped industrially. This has little to do with their social or legal system or sense of justice.

és:

Jul 9, 2008, 06:26 PM

You mean places where the government wants to keep their populace in relative illiteracy and povert? And places where voting for the opposition gets your limbs chopped off (I meant Mugabe earlier, not Chavez)? Places where you will die if you go to prison? Where disease, lack of electricity, and lack of potable water are rampant? Where there is no rule of law?

We have our shortcomings, and even outright failures, but we aren't nearly as bad as people think.

Luckily, we don't judge ourselves by the standards of the very worst places in the world.

It's like saying 'sure, I'm an alcoholic that ran over a group of school kids, but at least I'm not a paedophile murderer. I'm not 'nearly as bad as people think'.

We must hold ourselves to higher standards than the poorest, least free, third world countries, we must obey the UN Charter and we must stop the killing.

hulugu

Jul 9, 2008, 08:37 PM

...It seems I'm a bit cornered by your examples from WWII, and I don't know how to respond to those at the moment.

WWII was fought with the idea of 'total war' and as such nearly everything could be a military target, including the civilian populations who were, it was assumed, supporting the war effort. The bombing of Dresden for example, including a point when the bombing stopped. The idea was during this quiet, emergency responders and civilians would come out into the open and thus could be killed by a second wave.

And, of course, Tokyo was bombed with incendiaries setting the entire city ablaze. The intent was to kill everyone, regardless of their status as civilians or not.

Of course, as the notion of war has changed in the US, we now make an attempt to avoid civilian casualties. If this is because of increased media coverage, a general squeamishness with regard to spilled-blood, or just the availability of technology that makes it easier to pin-point military targets, I'm not honestly sure. But, WWII (and many wars before it) used terror as a major—if unsuccessful—strategy. This cannot be forgotten.

Oh, and dismembered is a perfectly acceptable word, it comes from the Latin 'dis' for apart and 'membrum' for limb. ;)

How would you characterise the avowed intention to create "Shock and Awe" except as a terrorist aim? ....

Well, "Shock and Awe" was about shocking the Iraqi military so they would surrender immediately. The idea was to make the first few hours of the war so awful it would end immediately. It didn't really work, but if you could end a war before it began, I'd see this as a valuable way to fight a war. Suicide bombings are mostly about terrorizing the civilian population and transmitting a particular political message. Now, hitting a cafe full of people with a 2,000lb bomb from a stratospheric bomber and walking in with C4 strapped to your chest has the same result, but the intent is very different and intent does matter.

It is exactly the same. The person whose life is blown apart cares not how sorry the perpetrator may claim to be. If you drop a high explosive from 50,000 feet over a populated area, collateral damage is absolutely 100% guaranteed. There is little point saying "Oops!"...

If a plane flying at 50,000 feet suddenly plummets out of the sky because of a mechanical failure, slams into a building, and kills everyone in it, wouldn't that have the same result as someone actually aiming the plane at that same building?

I think intent does matter.

...We must hold ourselves to higher standards than the poorest, least free, third world countries, we must obey the UN Charter and we must stop the killing.

I agree.

SMM

Jul 9, 2008, 09:38 PM

I think it's ok to judge Iran by a different standard to Israel. From my secular western perspective they're all off their nut over there, but Iran is more of it's nut.

And, why should they be judged differently? Because they have the biggest lobby in America. I am beginning to believe the extremist right-wing Israeli government, is the most dangerous regime in the region.

Think about this. When the Palestinian people were forced to flee their homes, the refugee camps, the children born that year are now 60 years old. With each passing year, hope has faded. They have never known anything other, than life in a refugee camp. Where is the great American compassion for the downtrodden? Their story is seldom told. I would have expected Israel to feel pity in their plight, especially after just haven been through the holocaust themselves. Admittedly, extremists in the PLO did not make reconciliation an easy process. However, if a genuine effort was made, they would soon lose their following.

I supported Israel in every war. I am just no longer willing to give them a free ride on policies, which push the possibly for regional peace further from reach.

Badandy

Jul 9, 2008, 09:53 PM

Oh, and dismembered is a perfectly acceptable word, it comes from the Latin 'dis' for apart and 'membrum' for limb. ;)

I took Latin for six years, but it still doesn't prevent me from making up new ones at every opportunity.

And that was a good post.

Desertrat

Jul 9, 2008, 09:58 PM

Israel would indeed be far more secure if she and Syria can work out a deal over the Golan and Lebanon. That takes Hezbollah out of the equation and reduces dangers from the north. That in turn allows focus on the Palestinians, with the mix of negotiation coupled with force as necessary.

As far as Stratfor's optimism, all I can figure is that they're as bright as any of us, and they have numerous contacts working with them on these sorts of analyses on a full-time basis.

'Rat

SMM

Jul 9, 2008, 10:17 PM

WWII was fought with the idea of 'total war' and as such nearly everything could be a military target, including the civilian populations who were, it was assumed, supporting the war effort. The bombing of Dresden for example, including a point when the bombing stopped. The idea was during this quiet, emergency responders and civilians would come out into the open and thus could be killed by a second wave.

The bombing of Dresden was done for one reason, revenge. It was one of the most beautiful medieval cities in all of Europe. The Germans purposely did not place any military targets anywhere near it, including factories that would aid in the war effort. It had zero strategic value.

The British wanted a payback for the relentless bombing of London, and the English midland cities. As I recall, Chelsea was bombed heavily. That is why they destroyed Dresden.

Kurt Vonnegut's book, Slaughterhouse 5, was about his experience being there at that time. If you are familiar with the book, Billy Pilgrim is Kurt in the story. The original title was "The Children's Crusade", which refers to the Crusade, where the Pope send thousand of European children to take back the 'holy land'. Only a handful ever returned. The publisher did not think the name was clever enough, so it was renamed Slaughterhouse 5,The Children's Crusade.

hulugu

Jul 10, 2008, 12:23 AM

The bombing of Dresden was done for one reason, revenge. It was one of the most beautiful medieval cities in all of Europe. The Germans purposely did not place any military targets anywhere near it, including factories that would aid in the war effort. It had zero strategic value.

The British wanted a payback for the relentless bombing of London, and the English midland cities. As I recall, Chelsea was bombed heavily. That is why they destroyed Dresden.

Kurt Vonnegut's book, Slaughterhouse 5, was about his experience being there at that time. If you are familiar with the book, Billy Pilgrim is Kurt in the story. The original title was "The Children's Crusade", which refers to the Crusade, where the Pope send thousand of European children to take back the 'holy land'. Only a handful ever returned. The publisher did not think the name was clever enough, so it was renamed Slaughterhouse 5,The Children's Crusade.

You're right, the bombing was done out of revenge, but I think my point is still valid. World War II was fought with little regard to civilian populations, in some cases the civilians were the actual target. Dresden, the city itself and the people within, were the target that night.

skunk

Jul 10, 2008, 01:59 AM

Now, hitting a cafe full of people with a 2,000lb bomb from a stratospheric bomber and walking in with C4 strapped to your chest has the same result, but the intent is very different and intent does matter.Now you've got me really confused. In this example you haven't differentiated the intent at all.

If a plane flying at 50,000 feet suddenly plummets out of the sky because of a mechanical failure, slams into a building, and kills everyone in it, wouldn't that have the same result as someone actually aiming the plane at that same building?

I think intent does matter.In the first example, there is no intent at all, it's just an accident, so I don't see the relevance.

és:

Jul 10, 2008, 02:13 AM

JG271

Jul 10, 2008, 05:32 AM

More Iranian missile tests today and Condoleezza Rice condemning the tests, saying "We take very strongly our obligation to defend our allies and we intend to do that."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7499198.stm

I certainly hope military conflict does not arise.

solvs

Jul 10, 2008, 10:40 AM

Yes, Iran's testing (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5imNXpzGkU5rsB-aJjCQOzswp2d0wD91Q9TQG0) is disconcerting. Though our response is worrying me even more. This looks more and more like Iran is making the same mistake Saddam and Iraq did and trying to appear ready to retaliate as a defense. Like NK did. For negotiation purposes. But we're just going to continue to use it to claim they're a threat and that we need to go after them if all else fails, not that there will be any real else. Iran saying it won’t stop uranium enrichment (http://www.buffalonews.com/nationalworld/international/story/385923.html) doesn't help either. Even if it was a threat though, as said, we don't believe the administration anyway thanks to their screw ups and crying wolf. Only 7% support taking military action against Iran (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/05/only-7-percent-support-taking-military-action-against-iran/).

Ironically enough, despite all the talk and sanctions, American Trade To Iran Skyrockets During Bush Administration (http://foolocracy.com/2008/07/american-trade-to-iran-skyrockets-during-bush-administration-despite-sanctions/).

And for those still wondering, PNAC letters sent to President Bill Clinton:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5527.htm

és:

Jul 10, 2008, 10:48 AM

Yes, Iran's testing is disconcerting.

I mean, it's not like anyone else actually tests their weapons :D

Iran saying it won’t stop uranium enrichment

They said a long time ago that they would if the EU would give firm assurances of security from it's aggressors. However, they do have a legal right to enrich Uranium. I don't see why they should stop, just because Israel and the US have the hump about it.

Macky-Mac

Jul 10, 2008, 11:07 AM

.... I don't see why they should stop, just because Israel and the US have the hump about it.

of course it's not just Israel and the US that have "the hump" about it......it's your country as well, and France, Germany, Russia, the EU as a an entity, the UN, etc

Badandy

Jul 10, 2008, 11:13 AM

I don't see why they should stop, just because Israel and the US have the hump about it.

That would be a great reason to stop. It is just plain dangerous to the world to have nuclear technology in the hands of a country like Iran who has little respect for human rights, and who has displayed its viciousness in the past, is an "exporter" of terror, as well as aggression toward Israel.

The Israelis will fight. Their military combined with, I am sure, American funding, would seem like a good reason for Iran to stop the saber-rattling and what they are doing with Uranium.

solvs

Jul 10, 2008, 11:28 AM

I mean, it's not like anyone else actually tests their weapons
I meant because of our reactions to it, which is happening exactly as we feared.

It is just plain dangerous to the world to have nuclear technology in the hands of a country like Iran
To them, we are the ones to fear.

Looking at what we've done in Iraq, and things like Gitmo, can you really blame them at this point?

Badandy

Jul 10, 2008, 11:31 AM

To them, we are the ones to fear.

Stop calling for the destruction of Israel and funding terrorists that kill innocents, and there wouldn't be a problem from Israel.

Looking at what we've done in Iraq, and things like Gitmo, can you really blame them at this point?

Yes, Ahmedinejad is nuts.

és:

Jul 10, 2008, 12:17 PM

of course it's not just Israel and the US that have "the hump" about it......it's your country as well, and France, Germany, Russia, the EU as a an entity, the UN, etc

The US and Israel are the nations making threats toward them, though. They are legally entitled to enrich uranium.

It is just plain dangerous to the world to have nuclear technology in the hands of a country like Iran who has little respect for human rights, and who has displayed its viciousness in the past, is an "exporter" of terror, as well as aggression toward Israel.

Oh, for goodness sake. The hypocrisy makes me gag. Israel violate more international laws than any other country, they actually have nuclear weapons, hundreds of them, and won't even sign the NPT, something that Iran has done. Israel and the US have shown more 'viciousness' than just about anyone I can think of in the current international community.

The Israelis will fight. Their military combined with, I am sure, American funding

When attacked, Iran will fight back and they will do so with shocking detestation. I don't want to see this, so I want the threats, the propoganda and the lies to stop from the US and Israel.

would seem like a good reason for Iran to stop the saber-rattling and what they are doing with Uranium.

What they are doing with Uranium? You mean what they are legally entitled to do.

The director general of the International Atomic Energy Association suggested a plan for all Uranium enrichment to be done by a central power. Only one nation agreed, which nation do you think that was?

This hypocrisy has to stop.

és:

Jul 10, 2008, 12:21 PM

Yes, Ahmedinejad is nuts.

Although I'm far from in agreement with him on many things, he's not nuts. He's not even in charge of foreign affairs.

I bet you have fox news in your bookmarks, don't you Andy.

Badandy

Jul 10, 2008, 12:23 PM

Oh, for goodness sake. The hypocrisy makes me gag. Israel violate more international laws than any other country,

International laws? You mean putting to death homosexuals, killing journalists, and killing dissidents. All those things Iran has done.

When attacked, Iran will fight back and they will do so with shocking detestation.

It's not propoganda to suggest that Iran would get crushed by Israel and the U.S. militaries. It's quite apparent by looking at the resources/training of the opposing forces. That being said, I do NOT want to see a war, but people are kidding themselves if they think that Iran could actually last against Israel, let alone the U.S. getting involved. We still have the most powerful military the world has ever seen. Iran knows that.

What they are doing with Uranium? You mean what they are legally entitled to do.

If you want to believe Iran that they are going to use nuclear capability for JUST power, then by all means, go ahead. I'm inclined to think that a nation which openly calls for the destruction of a nation and exports terror around the world would not have entirely peaceful and pacifistic aims.

és:

Jul 10, 2008, 12:41 PM

International laws?

Yes, it's a fact that Israel are in violation of more UN resolutions than any other nation. Yet you're sanguine about them having nuclear weapons and constantly threatening Iran.

You mean putting to death homosexuals, killing journalists, and killing dissidents. All those things Iran has done.

I'm not apologist for Iran or some of the things they have done but that's fox news propaganda. You're falling for the same trap that a lot of people did over the illegal invasion of Iraq.

It's not propoganda to suggest that Iran would get crushed by Israel and the U.S. militaries.

You have no concept of what Iran are capable of, clearly. They might get beaten in the end, they will never be crushed (without the use of nuclear weapons).

people are kidding themselves if they think that Iran could actually last against Israel, let alone the U.S. getting involved.

As I've said before, they will destroy the straights or Hormuz, they will set the Persian gulf ablaze. El Baradai said that a war against Iran would turn the middle east into a fireball and he's right.

They would launch attacks against troops in Iraq with their 12.5m strong Basij army, there will be attacks to any country that attacks Iran. It won't be a war in Iran, it'll be a war in Israel, a war in London, a war in the US... A world was scenario.

I'm not claiming (and never have) that the US would not be able to defeat Iran. It's not a case of going over, beating them, then coming home and eating candied yams and celebrating a victory. There will be an insane loss of life, something I don't want.

We still have the most powerful military the world has ever seen. Iran knows that.

I have to say, I'm sick of this blase attitude. US might have more planes, ships and guns than any of the people it attacks but in warfare that doesn't really mean much.

If you want to believe Iran that they are going to use nuclear capability for JUST power, then by all means, go ahead.

Oh, get over yourself. It's not me that wants to believe it, the world authority in these matters, El Baradai from the IAEA has said that there is no evidence, none at all, that Iran are making Nuclear weapons.

I'm sure you know more than him because you heard some neo-con say so. How's the search for WMD's going, have you found them yet?

BoyBach

Jul 10, 2008, 12:49 PM

That would be a great reason to stop. It is just plain dangerous to the world to have nuclear technology in the hands of a country like Iran who has little respect for human rights, and who has displayed its viciousness in the past, is an "exporter" of terror, as well as aggression toward Israel.

I trust the irony of this post was intended?

és:

Jul 10, 2008, 12:53 PM

I trust the irony of this post was intended?

It'd make you laugh, if only it didn't make your weep.

obeygiant

Jul 10, 2008, 01:48 PM

You have no concept of what Iran are capable of, clearly. They might get beaten in the end, they will never be crushed (without the use of nuclear weapons).

As I've said before, they will destroy the straights or Hormuz, they will set the Persian gulf ablaze. El Baradai said that a war against Iran would turn the middle east into a fireball and he's right.

Oh, get over yourself. It's not me that wants to believe it, the world authority in these matters, El Baradai from the IAEA has said that there is no evidence, none at all, that Iran are making Nuclear weapons.

El Baradei also said that Iran could have nuclear capability in 6 months to a year. link (http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1797.htm)

The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said Iran could create a nuclear weapon in six months.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei spoke on Al-Arabiya television on June 20, 2008 discussing Iran's nuclear program, and the potential for the Middle Eastern country to produce a nuclear weapon.

"If Iran wants to turn to the production of nuclear weapons, it must leave the NPT, expel the IAEA inspectors, and then it would need at least, considering the number of centrifuges and the quantity of uranium Iran has...It would need at least six months to one year," ElBaradei said.

Israel isn't taking their chances with this, hence the war games. This still doesn't mean a war will begin.

They would launch attacks against troops in Iraq with their 12.5m strong Basij army, there will be attacks to any country that attacks Iran. It won't be a war in Iran, it'll be a war in Israel, a war in London, a war in the US... A world was scenario.

The Basij Army is mostly young boys and old men. The real numbers are much different

Personnel number

According to GlobalSecurity.org, "the precise size of the Basij is an open question." While Iranian officials "frequently cite a figure of 20 million", this appears to be based on what Ayatollah Khomeini's November 1979 decree indicating what should be the size of a people's militia.[3]
According to IRNA, there are currently 12.5 million members of Basij, of which 5 million are women.[10] Basij commander General Mohammad Hejazi has said there to be 11 million members across the country.[6]
However western estimates put the force variously at 3 million,[11] one million, [12] and as little as 400,000. A 2005 study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., estimates 90,000 full-time, uniformed, active-duty Basij members, 300,000 reservists, and a total of one million men that can be mobilized if need be. [3]
[edit]Member profile and benefits

Basij membership is thought to be comprised mainly of boys, old men, and those who recently finished their military service. [3]
The typical member will be male (there are some female members as well) over the age of 12. Members of the Basij usually get a several months slashed off their compulsory military service, which lasts 21 months for every eligible man in Iran. During the Iran-Iraq war, it was easier for the Basijis to obtain university entry as government universities had quotas reserved for persons actively involved in the war efforts. Members of Basij usually enjoy the support of their communities and are often recruited more easily than non-members for various positions, especially security related positions.
As the Basij is a volunteer paramilitary organisation, most Basiji are not permitted to carry a firearm except for special requirements. This means that only about 25% of Basij carry firearms, usually an AK-47. However there is no rule saying that they cannot use any other weaponry which has brought major controversy.
Also controversial is the fact that because the Basij is volunteer-based, its members cannot be sued for misbehavior as police or other public officials can. One can sue the chief of police but there is little chance of succeeding in a similar suit against an over-zealous 18-year-old member of Basij, no matter what he does.

I have to say, I'm sick of this blase attitude. US might have more planes, ships and guns than any of the people it attacks but in warfare that doesn't really mean much.

Actually it does mean quite a bit.

Thanatoast

Jul 10, 2008, 01:57 PM

Actually it does mean quite a bit.
Yeah, that the President doesn't know when to keep it in his pants because our overwhelming military toys have so totally cowed Iraq. Iran should be even eaiser, right?

Badandy

Jul 10, 2008, 02:07 PM

I have to say, I'm sick of this blase attitude. US might have more planes, ships and guns than any of the people it attacks but in warfare that doesn't really mean much.

It's not blase. Not only do we have more of them, we have better ones. We spend more than every country combined on our military every year. It's not arrogance to suggest that the money is doing something...

I'm sure you know more than him because you heard some neo-con say so. How's the search for WMD's going, have you found them yet?

How was your search in Iraq as well? I mean, your intelligence suggested the same thing. Did you find any?

I don't listen to neo-cons, I'm a "Goldwater" conservative if not slightly libertarian. I don't want war with Iran.

Thanatoast: As a matter of fact, they did work in Iraq. Most of our deaths have been due to insurgents using guerilla tactics, hiding in homes, suicide bombs, and the like. ANY military in the world is not impervious to guerilla tactics. It worked against Rome at the height of their power, and it works against us at the height of ours. It's inevitable that guerilla tactics are at least marginally successful.

Macky-Mac

Jul 10, 2008, 02:09 PM

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), held a news conference today;

Iran atomic bomb 'within years'
Iran may be between three and eight years away from producing a nuclear weapon, should it decided to do so, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has said.

His comments came a day after UN monitors said Tehran was flouting demands to halt its sensitive nuclear work.

ElBaradei told a news conference in Luxembourg on Thursday that he tended "to agree with people like John Negroponte and the new director of the CIA ... that even if Iran wanted to go for a nuclear weapon, it would not be before the end of this decade or sometime in the middle of the next decade".

On Wednesday the IAEA issued a critical report that said Iran had expanded its uranium enrichment programme in defiance of UN demands for its suspension, and warned that the watchdog's knowledge of Iran's activities was shrinking......
Al Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2007/05/2008525124234156476.html)

in a report from the end of last May:

Iran 'defying UN over uranium'
The United Nations nuclear watchdog says Iran is persisting in defying its demands to stop enriching uranium and is expanding its work.

In a confidential report obtained by AFP, the French news agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said: "Iran has not suspended its enrichment-related activities."

The document also said Iran had failed to give the co-operation IAEA inspectors need to "provide assurances about ... the exclusively peaceful nature" of Iran's nuclear programme.

The conclusion could open the door to new sanctions against Tehran..... Al Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2007/05/2008525134159777854.html)

Iran has various treaty obligations that require it to cooperate with the IAEA, and it's also in violation of recent UN resolutions by failing to cooperate.

obeygiant

Jul 10, 2008, 02:14 PM

Iran should be even eaiser, right?

No. I don't know where you got that it would be "easier". It would be a mistake for the US to attack Iran, not because the US couldn't win, but because crude oil would skyrocket and it would inflame an already tense area. Also Bush doesn't have the political capital to pull off something like this. Unless Iran does something stupid, which is questionable, US forces won't do anything. I think it would be in Iran's best interests to make their nuclear ambitions transparent and to start negotiating. Iran wants respect and the sanctions lifted, so they will have to live with the international community "looking in" to what is actually happening with their nuke power/weapons program.

és:

Jul 10, 2008, 02:27 PM

El Baradei also said that Iran could have nuclear capability in 6 months to a year.

So?

Israel isn't taking their chances with this

But they have Nuclear weapons and they have a horrific record. Do you not see the hypocrisy.

The Basij Army is mostly young boys and old men. The real numbers are much different

Wiki. Great source. :rolleyes:

I might edit it and say there is one hundred trillion 30 year old ninjas in the Basij army. That'll be real proof then.

It is what it is. 12.5 armed people, willing to kill and be killed. That's outside the normal army. It doesn't really matter if a lot of them are 50 or 17 or a woman. They will mobilise and cause havoc, that's all I'm saying.

Actually it does mean quite a bit.

No, it doesn't. As has been demonstrated, more than once, intelligence in warfare is very important and the US have proved (again, more than once) that it doesn't have much when it comes to war.

If they do want nuclear weapons, and there is no evidence that they do, then is it really a surprise? Rampaging through the neighbourhood and telling the world you're almighty. I'd want protection, too.

és:

Jul 10, 2008, 02:31 PM

It's not blase. Not only do we have more of them, we have better ones. We spend more than every country combined on our military every year. It's not arrogance to suggest that the money is doing something...

It's arrogance to think you're just going to crush them. Like Iraq, this is [b]almost[b] a war that isn't winnable, at least without the total annihilation.

How was your search in Iraq as well? I mean, your intelligence suggested the same thing. Did you find any?

I opposed the war, even with the clearly fabricated evidence. I'm not the UK government, I hate Blair for what he did and the people that voted for the war on a pack of lies. We're now almost as hated around the globe as the US and Israel. So your question really doesn't hold any relevance as I didn't conduct a search or build a case for war.

This is a case of "same ****, different day". At the end of the day, all this is craziness.

obeygiant

Jul 10, 2008, 03:09 PM

So?

Well you quoted what el Baradei said. You're not interested now?

But they have Nuclear weapons and they have a horrific record. Do you not see the hypocrisy.

Wiki. Great source. :rolleyes:

I might edit it and say there is one hundred trillion 30 year old ninjas in the Basij army. That'll be real proof then.

It is what it is. 12.5 armed people, willing to kill and be killed. That's outside the normal army. It doesn't really matter if a lot of them are 50 or 17 or a woman. They will mobilise and cause havoc, that's all I'm saying.

Okay. But the soldiers in the Basij army aren't even allowed to carry a weapon. Its like adding the Boy Scouts to the numbers of the US Military. Also wiki is a fine source for information, feel free to dispute it if you must, but the information in that article is annotated.

No, it doesn't. As has been demonstrated, more than once, intelligence in warfare is very important and the US have proved (again, more than once) that it doesn't have much when it comes to war.

When it comes to fighting a war or being in combat, I think the worldwide consensus is that the US Military does extremely well. Its why they call the United States and Military and Economic Superpower. Reasons to go to war or decisions made by politicians to go to war are sometimes suspect.

If they do want nuclear weapons, and there is no evidence that they do, then is it really a surprise? Rampaging through the neighbourhood and telling the world you're almighty. I'd want protection, too.

It's already been proven that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons and that program, in the eyes of the IAEA, was abandoned a short time ago. Speaking of rampaging thru the neighborhood, Iran has done some rampaging of it own which is partially why Israel is posturing this way. Its international consensus that Iran should not have nuclear weapons and keeping Iran from having them is in everyones best interest.

solvs

Jul 10, 2008, 04:11 PM

Stop calling for the destruction of Israel
That's not exactly what he said.

and funding terrorists that kill innocents,
Lots of countries do that, some of which we call allies, and the evidence they are any worse is tenuous at best.

Yes, Ahmedinejad is nuts.
Even if that was true, and far be it from me to defend him, he isn't in charge there.

International laws? You mean putting to death homosexuals, killing journalists, and killing dissidents. All those things Iran has done.
Yes because, again, no one else does that.

It's not propoganda to suggest that Iran would get crushed by Israel and the U.S. militaries. It's quite apparent by looking at the resources/training of the opposing forces. That being said, I do NOT want to see a war, but people are kidding themselves if they think that Iran could actually last against Israel, let alone the U.S. getting involved. We still have the most powerful military the world has ever seen. Iran knows that.
Which is they're afraid of us, and probably why they want nukes, to defend themselves. I mean, we're threatening them, we've helped their enemies against them, and we've done a lot of other things like actually attack their neighbor, unprovoked. All those things, and worse, you're saying would give us reason to attack them.

It's not blase. Not only do we have more of them, we have better ones. We spend more than every country combined on our military every year. It's not arrogance to suggest that the money is doing something...
Because we're doing such a bang up job in Iraq and the 'stans. Another war would be fine. :confused: You're acting as if a war with them would be purely militarily and there'd be no militias or insurgencies. There would be. Worse than what we have now that we can't handle.

As a matter of fact, they did work in Iraq. Most of our deaths have been due to insurgents using guerilla tactics, hiding in homes, suicide bombs, and the like. ANY military in the world is not impervious to guerilla tactics. It worked against Rome at the height of their power, and it works against us at the height of ours. It's inevitable that guerilla tactics are at least marginally successful.
So why wouldn't this happen in Iran the way it has with Iraq and the 'stans, and the way it did in 'Nam?

Look, when Iran becomes an actual threat, then we can be worried. When it's more of the admin crying wolf, making things worse, trying to link things that may not be there just as they did in Iraq, pardon our skepticism. Not that we could do anything about them if they were an actual threat. We're so bogged down elsewhere, how could we? Until then, it's all just talk, and just pissing us off, reminding us of the mistakes we've made everywhere else.

Badandy

Jul 10, 2008, 05:12 PM

That's not exactly what he said.

He, meaning Ahmedinejad?

solvs

Jul 10, 2008, 05:16 PM

He, meaning Ahmedinejad?

Yes. But even if he did (and it's questionable what he actually said), we've made similar comments about them. And again, he is not in charge.

Badandy

Jul 10, 2008, 05:28 PM

Yes. But even if he did (and it's questionable what he actually said), we've made similar comments about them. And again, he is not in charge.

He said Israel should be destroyed totally, that the genocide of the Jews was a myth, and wants to unite the Middle East under Islamic rule. When did we say anything equal and opposite of that to them?

solvs

Jul 10, 2008, 05:36 PM

He said Israel should be destroyed totally, that the genocide of the Jews was a myth, and wants to unite the Middle East under Islamic rule. When did we say anything equal and opposite of that to them?
You think that's what he said? Where'd you get that? I know he questions the Holocaust, I won't defend half of what some of them do over there, but he was actually saying he didn't think the state of Israel should exist. Nothing about blowing it up. Again, not defending, but he hasn't said what we've been told he's said, even after he later clarified. He's also a different religion than some other in the ME, there's the whole Shiite, Sunni, Kurd thing, so I don't know where you're getting the Islamic rule part either. But think of all of the stupid things our political leaders have said. How many of them come right out and say they want to bomb Iran? McCain sang it to the tune of Barbara Ann by the Beach Boys.

And again, he is not the one in charge, so while he panders politically, and our gov panders politically, all of our peoples are scared everyone's going to attack everyone, even though, hopefully, it's all just tough talk.

és:

Jul 10, 2008, 06:01 PM

Well you quoted what el Baradei said. You're not interested now?

Of course I'm interested in what El Baradei has to say, he's a world authority on these things. I said 'so' with a question mark, what are you implying. It means nothing.

Okay. But the soldiers in the Basij army aren't even allowed to carry a weapon.

Here they are, not carrying weapons.

http://vwt.d2g.com:8081/basij.jpg

http://vwt.d2g.com:8081/basij.jpg

Its like adding the Boy Scouts to the numbers of the US Military.

Do they look like boy scouts to you?

Also wiki is a fine source for information

No, it isn't. It's not a fine source when anyone can edit it and put what they like. I'm not disputing information, I'm saying it's not a valid source.

I think the worldwide consensus is that the US Military does extremely well. Its why they call the United States and Military and Economic Superpower.

Great job in Iraq and 'nam. That's why you're hated by many people around the world.

Speaking of rampaging thru the neighborhood, Iran has done some rampaging of it own

Which rampaging is that? The rampaging where it was attacked by a US backed Iraq/Hussein?

Its international consensus that Iran should not have nuclear weapons and keeping Iran from having them is in everyones best interest.

Rubbish. It's in a few selected powers interests for them not to have them. I don't want them to have nuclear weapons, they are not building nuclear weapons (according to IAEA), they have tried to make deals in the past and if given assurances on security they will again, no doubt.

Making Iran out to be the bad guys and giving reasons that are entirely hypocritical is nauseating.

és:

Jul 10, 2008, 06:03 PM

He said Israel should be destroyed totally

Have you got that quote?

that the genocide of the Jews was a myth

Have you got that quote?

When did we say anything equal and opposite of that to them?

Israel and the US have constantly threatened Iran.

I've no doubt that he's said some dubious things in the past and he's not a man I particularly admire but the misquoting of him is a joke. His "wipe Israel off the map" quote was actually "wipe Zionism from the page of history". Two very different things.

solvs

Jul 10, 2008, 06:27 PM

Is Iran Rational? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/09/is-iran-rational_n_111643.html)

Not to be a spoiler, but the answer might surprise you.

And finally someone get's it right (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/09/debbie-stabenow-gets-it-r_n_111708.html) (kinda).
MITCHELL: The Republicans are going to say that Barack Obama has been too soft on Iran in talking about negotiating with Iran, without preconditions. Does actions such as Iran's set the whole campaign on edge and make it tougher for someone with less foreign policy experience?

STABENOW: Well, actually, I say, no. A very strong no. Because, first of all, we've seen the relationship with Iran only get worse in the last eight years under the Bush/McCain policies. Eight years ago there were zero centrifuges, today there are 3,000 centrifuges. What we have seen is Iran being the biggest beneficiary from the war in Iraq, and policies that have gotten us to this point over the last eight years. I don't know how John McCain can argue that more of the same is going to make us safer. So, I believe very strongly that Barack Obama's focus on aggressive diplomacy, a focus on Iran as well as ending the war in Iraq, combining those two things, turning our focus to Iran, that is very serious threat, is a much better approach than what we've seen the last eight years.
Not going to say I fully trust Obama, but let's just say I don't trust more of the same from McCain.

Desertrat

Jul 10, 2008, 07:22 PM

"Because, first of all, we've seen the relationship with Iran only get worse in the last eight years under the Bush/McCain policies. Eight years ago there were zero centrifuges, today there are 3,000 centrifuges."

Now, if that ain't the damndest causal relationship I've run across in a helluva long time! That would give you a serious case of the dizzies, ROFL! :D:D:D

"By Allah! They elected Bush! Quckly! Acquire centrifuges!"

es, Israel has been the target of a genocidal endeavor since 1948. It's one of the rare immutable things in the modern world. One of my fonder memories of anything ever on TV was in 1967: In the UN, Abba Eban drawing himself up to his full 5'-6" and declaiming, "There are three million Jews. There are two-hundred-million Arabs. Is the distinguished delegate from Egypt trying to claim that we surrounded them?"

And, sure, I'm happy to live in Texas. Lotsa neat places around the world, that I've seen--England's not on the list, particularly as compared to Bavaria, the Philippines or Costa Rica--but I like the peace and quiet where I am. And it's nice to live where I don't have to lock my house when I go wandering about.

solvs

Jul 10, 2008, 07:35 PM

I did say kinda, but her point stands that his policies have made things worse.

And if you read the first link, you would have seen that they offered to help us in the beginning and we basically shined them off.

Badandy

Jul 10, 2008, 11:15 PM

Have you got that quote?

Have you got that quote?

Oh c'mon. Do a google search, it's right there.

I've no doubt that he's said some dubious things in the past and he's not a man I particularly admire but the misquoting of him is a joke. His "wipe Israel off the map" quote was actually "wipe Zionism from the page of history". Two very different things.

And how will Zionism be wiped from the pages of history? The Holocaust quote said that the mass killing of jews was a myth.

iShater

Jul 10, 2008, 11:25 PM

es, Israel has been the target of a genocidal endeavor since 1948. It's one of the rare immutable things in the modern world. One of my fonder memories of anything ever on TV was in 1967: In the UN, Abba Eban drawing himself up to his full 5'-6" and declaiming, "There are three million Jews. There are two-hundred-million Arabs. Is the distinguished delegate from Egypt trying to claim that we surrounded them?"

That just says that Israel is much better at presentations and speeches than the other side. I mean if you look at the situation in the middle east right now, you would think Iran has already attacked Israel, Palestinians are beating the crap out of the Israelis, and the IDF is fighting for independence. :rolleyes:

We all seem to be forgetting that Iran was beaten to a pulp during the Iraq-Iran war, with cities destroyed, and Saddam using chemicals against them and the Kurds. That did not happen without approval from the US. To think now that they will forget that and will be willing to do whatever the west tells them to do is naive.

Would you give up the world paying you $150 for a barrel of oil and instead have to subsidize it and your natural gas in order to make electricity? I doubt it. You would go nuclear, which is what a lot of people in the states are even asking for as an alternative to coal/gas and even in some cases renewable resources.

It might not be the best energy solution when the world is going green, but Brazil is looking into it, Egypt, and a whole bunch of other countries. We need to be realistic, and stop just buying everything washington says. This administration has wasted a huge opportunities when 9/11 happened, and when Khatemi was in power to really allow Iran to be accepted for reaching out to the states. We are in no position to dictate to the world what it should do, morally or militarily at this time.

And how will Zionism be wiped from the pages of history? The Holocaust quote said that the mass killing of jews was a myth.
The misinformation of Zionism needs to be cleaned from the pages of history. We start by separating Judaism from the politics of Zionism. Simply put Judaism != Zionism, never was, and never should be.

Edit: I realize as part of my response I veered of the main topic, so apologies up front.

hulugu

Jul 10, 2008, 11:45 PM

Now you've got me really confused. In this example you haven't differentiated the intent at all.

In the first example, there is no intent at all, it's just an accident, so I don't see the relevance.

Oh, hell.

That's what I get for posting while trying to do two others things at once. My brain was still working on it and my fingers had already typed out the response and hit submit. My apologies for posting while distracted...

Let's forget those. Here's another:

A hostage situation has developed. A gunman is holding several people hostage, including one he is using as a human shield. There is a sniper positioned on a rooftop with a clear shot to kill the gunman. Let's assume that all other attempts have already been made to keep the situation from devolving. The sniper takes the shot, but the round goes through our gunman and hits one of the other hostages.

The same situation. The sniper cannot clearly see the gunman because of blinds covering the window. He takes the same shot and the result is the same.

The same situation. The sniper takes the shot, misses everything but a gas-line in the rear of the building, the line explodes and the building burns to the ground killing everyone in it.

The same situation. The sniper cannot see because of the blinds, so he fires a clip into the room, hoping to kill the gunman and no one else. He kills the gunman, but no one else.

The same situation. The sniper does the same thing, kills everyone in the room, including the gunman and all of the hostages.

Now, does intent matter? Do results matter over intent or action? I'm probably debating something I'm not even sure about, but I'm genuinely interested in this question.

iShater

Jul 10, 2008, 11:51 PM

a whole bunch of scenarios

I don't believe the end should justify the means. But intent, result, and consequences do. How is that for making it more complicated? :o

obeygiant

Jul 10, 2008, 11:53 PM

Of course I'm interested in what El Baradei has to say, he's a world authority on these things. I said 'so' with a question mark, what are you implying. It means nothing.

Thats fine. You just don't seem interested in the complete picture. I've given you a direct quote from el Baradei's mouth about how Iran could have a nuclear weapon in 6 months to a year and you still wonder why Israel is staging all these war games "rampaging" all over the place.

Here they are, not carrying weapons.

http://vwt.d2g.com:8081/basij.jpg

No, it isn't. It's not a fine source when anyone can edit it and put what they like. I'm not disputing information, I'm saying it's not a valid source.

Yes I see those weapons. Looks like they're fresh out of training camp. See that guy in the second row? I wonder where his gun is? Maybe he forgot it.

Just if you're wondering here is some background info on that army from a different source. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iran/basij.htm)

The precise size of the Basij is an open question. Basij membership comprises mainly boys, old men, and those who recently finished their military service. Article 151 of the Constitution says the government is obligated to provide military-training facilities for everyone in the country, in accordance with the precepts of Islam under which all individuals should have the ability to take up arms in defense of their country...

Other estimates place the force at 400,000. There are about 90,000 active-duty Basij members who are full-time uniformed personnel; they are joined by up to 300,000 reservists. The Basij can mobilize up to 1 million men.

They have been active in monitoring the activities of citizens, enforcing the hijab and arresting women for violating the dress code, and seizing 'indecent' material and satellite dish antennae. In May 1999 the Minister of Islamic Culture and Guidance stated in public remarks that the Government might support an easing of the satellite ban. However, Supreme Leader Khamenei, who makes the ultimate determination on issues that involve radio and television broadcasting, quickly criticised any potential change as amounting to “surrender” to Western culture, effectively ending any further debate of the idea. The “Special Basijis” are not permitted to participate in political parties or groups, although other members of the Basij can belong to political associations if they are not on a Basij mission and do not use the name or resources of the Basij for the association. Basijis can participate in specialist or trade associations.

Hezbollahi “partisans of God” consist of religious zealots who consider themselves as preservers of the Revolution. They have been active in harassing government critics and intellectuals, have firebombed bookstores and disrupted meetings. They are said to gather at the invitation of the state-affiliated media and generally act without meaningful police restraint or fear of persecution.

Actually I have seen footage of these guys swooping in on parades and such in Tehran.

Do they look like boy scouts to you?

Well they kinda do. Iranian style boyscouts. :)

Great job in Iraq and 'nam. That's why you're hated by many people around the world.

Well, we'll see when Obama gets to be president. Everyone will love us again. :P

Making Iran out to be the bad guys and giving reasons that are entirely hypocritical is nauseating.

They are not my reasons. They are the reality we live in. The reasons may be hypocritical but does it really matter? Does anyone really want Iran to have nuclear weapons. I'm guessing no. So here you are, back to where you started.

hulugu

Jul 10, 2008, 11:58 PM

....
The misinformation of Zionism needs to be cleaned from the pages of history. We start by separating Judaism from the politics of Zionism. Simply put Judaism != Zionism, never was, and never should be.

I'm not sure how fine you can make the distinction between modern Zionism and the Jewish religion. They are obviously intertwined since Herzl and Lord Balfour.

As for Iran's nuclear capability, it's seems obvious that they want it not just for power, but for an actual capability. It makes sense when you consider the Iran-Iraq War and the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. If this were studied as an ancient conflict, one could easily mistake US intentions as a prelude to a 'pincher-type' invasion. It also helps to notice that North Korea has been equally belligerent and has tested a nuclear weapon, but has yet to be invaded.

The Iranians rush towards nuclear capability is both a political game, both at home at abroad, a beginning energy infrastructure, and a military goal. Viewed this way, the Iranian nuclear program seems like a rational objective. We should steer Tehran away from such a program, but that's because nuclear proliferation is dangerous for everyone and not just because it's Iran.

I don't believe Iran is the special case that requires immediate military intervention when Pakistan and North Korea are selling nuclear technology to anyone they can and we continue to allow India and Israel to have the same technology that's only dangerous when the Iranians have it.

Iscariot

Jul 11, 2008, 12:25 AM

Stop saying Ahmedinejad said he wants to "wipe Israel off the map". It's not true, and I'm pretty sure most of you quoting it know this, and are simply repeating it because it makes a good sound bite. If your case against Iran is so airtight, then there's not reason to resort to fabrication and intentional misinterpretation.

hulugu

Jul 11, 2008, 12:33 AM

October 30, 2005
Text of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Speech

This is a translation, by Nazila Fathi in The New York Times Tehran bureau, of the October 26 speech by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to an Islamic Student Associations conference on "The World Without Zionism." The conference was held in Tehran, at the Interior Ministry.
The text of the speech was posted online, in Persian, by the Iranian Student News Agency (www.isnagency.com). Bracketed explanatory material is from Ms. Fathi.

"I thank God that I have had the opportunity to participate in the event today ….

We need to examine the true origins of the issue of Palestine: is it a fight between a group of Muslims and non-Jews? Is it a fight between Judaism and other religions? Is it the fight of one country with another country? Is it the fight of one country with the Arab world? Is it a fight over the land of Palestine? I guess the answer to all these questions is ‘no.’

The establishment of the occupying regime of Qods [Jerusalem]was a major move by the world oppressor [ the United States] against the Islamic world. The situation has changed in this historical struggle. Sometimes the Muslims have won and moved forward and the world oppressor was forced to withdraw.

Unfortunately, the Islamic world has been withdrawing in the past 300 years. I do not want to examine the reasons for this, but only to review the history. The Islamic world lost its last defenses in the past 100 years and the world oppressor established the occupying regime. Therefore the struggle in Palestine today is the major front of the struggle of the Islamic world with the world oppressor and its fate will decide the destiny of the struggles of the past several hundred years.

The Palestinian nation represents the Islamic nation [Umma] against a system of oppression, and thank God, the Palestinian nation adopted Islamic behavior in an Islamic environment in their struggle and so we have witnessed their progress and success.

I need to thank you for choosing this valuable title for the conference.

Many who are disappointed in the struggle between the Islamic world and the infidels have tried to spread the blame. They say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan.

Let’s take a step back. We had a hostile regime in this country which was undemocratic, armed to the teeth and, with SAVAK, its security apparatus of SAVAK [the intelligence bureau of the Shah of Iran’s government] watched everyone. An environment of terror existed. When our dear Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder the Iranian revolution] said that the regime must be removed, many of those who claimed to be politically well-informed said it was not possible. All the corrupt governments were in support of the regime when Imam Khomeini started his movement. All the Western and Eastern countries supported the regime even after the massacre of September 7 [1978] and said the removal of the regime was not possible. But our people resisted and it is 27 years now that we have survived without a regime dependant on the United States. The tyranny of the East and the West over the world must should end, but weak people who can see only what lies in front of them cannot believe this.

Who could believe that one day we could witness the collapse of the Eastern Empire? But we have seen its fall during our lives and it collapsed in such a way that we have to refer to libraries because no trace of it is left. Imam [Khomeini] said Saddam must go and he said he would grow weaker than anyone could imagine. Now you see the man who spoke with such arrogance ten years ago that one would have thought he was immortal, is being tried in his own country in handcuffs and shackles by those who he believed supported him and with whose backing he committed his crimes.

Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks.

For over 50 years the world oppressor tried to give legitimacy to the occupying regime and it has taken measures in this direction to stabilize it. About 27 or 28 years ago they took a major step and unfortunately one of the leading countries made a mistake which we hope will correct it.[an apparent reference to the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel].

Recently they [the Israelis] tried a new trick. They want to show the evacuation from the Gaza strip, which was imposed on them by Palestinians, as a final victory for the Palestinians and end the issue of Palestine with the excuse of establishing a Palestinian government next to themselves. Today, they want to involve Palestinians with mischief and trick them into fighting with one another over political positions so that they would drop the issue of Palestine.

They want to convince some of the Islamic countries that, since they evacuated the Gaza strip with good intentions, the legitimacy of their corrupt regime should be recognized. I hope Palestinian groups and people are aware of this trick.

The issue of Palestine is not over at all. It will be over the day a Palestinian government, which belongs to the Palestinian people, comes to power; the day that all refugees return to their homes; a democratic government elected by the people comes to power. Of course those who have come from far away to plunder this land have no right to choose for this nation.

I hope the Palestinian people will remain alert and aware in the same way that they have continued their struggle in the past ten years.

If we get through this brief period successfully, the path of eliminating the occupying regime will be easy and down-hill.

I warn all leaders of the Islamic world that they should be aware of this trick. Anyone who recognizes this regime because of the pressure of the World oppressor, or because of naiveté or selfishness, will be eternally disgraced and will burn in the fury of the Islamic nations.

Those who are sitting in closed rooms cannot decide for the Islamic nation and cannot allow this historical enemy to exist in the heart of the Islamic world."

Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/30iran.html).

Iscariot

Jul 11, 2008, 12:53 AM

Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement.

"Wiped off the map" is an English idiom, and as such there isn't an equivalent in Persian (and most languages, likewise). It is impossible for him to have said that.

hulugu

Jul 11, 2008, 01:01 AM

"Wiped off the map" is an English idiom, and as such there isn't an equivalent in Persian (and most languages, likewise). It is impossible for him to have said that.

This was from the translator via the Times' Tehran office. I have no idea how accurate this translation is since I don't speak Persian, but I thought it would be useful to have the actual speech.

Do you have a more accurate translation to the speech?

Iscariot

Jul 11, 2008, 01:27 AM

Do you have a more accurate translation to the speech?

I'm wary of any translation of anybody that includes obvious foreign idioms like that one.

Persian is a difficult langauge to translate to English from, but breaking down "بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود"* you get "world, time" "deletion, obscure" "page, sheet" (and some weird stuff like "prism", and some of the words make other phrases like "bathroom", "pickle", "scurvy" (Persian is big on compounding)). So a better translation might be something along the lines of what Juan Cole and others suggest as "vanish from the page of time".

I'm not about to speculate Ahmadinejad's intent, but he certainly didn't say "wipe from the map", since he couldn't. The Times' isn't the only translation like that, IIRC some Iranian soldiers purposefully reinforced that statement.

_____________
*Official text on his website

Macky-Mac

Jul 11, 2008, 01:46 AM

I'm wary of any translation of anybody that includes obvious foreign idioms like that one.

Persian is a difficult langauge to translate to English from, but breaking down "بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود"* you get "world, time" "deletion, obscure" "page, sheet" (and some weird stuff like "prism", and some of the words make other phrases like "bathroom", "pickle", "scurvy" (Persian is big on compounding)). So a better translation might be something along the lines of what Juan Cole and others suggest as "vanish from the page of time".

I'm not about to speculate Ahmadinejad's intent, but he certainly didn't say "wipe from the map", since he couldn't. The Times' isn't the only translation like that, IIRC some Iranian soldiers purposefully reinforced that statement.

_____________
*Official text on his website

If I recall, the "wiped off the map" translation originated with the official Iranian government translators for the conference......and soon turned into a war of the translators with their varying political agendas.

The New York Times did a lengthy follow-up article on the story. Here's part of it discussing the translations by Cole and others who agree with him;

...But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran's most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say "wipe off" or "wipe away" is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.

The second translation issue concerns the word "map." Khomeini's words were abstract: "Sahneh roozgar." Sahneh means scene or stage, and roozgar means time. The phrase was widely interpreted as "map," and for years, no one objected. In October, when Mr. Ahmadinejad quoted Khomeini, he actually misquoted him, saying not "Sahneh roozgar" but "Safheh roozgar," meaning pages of time or history. No one noticed the change, and news agencies used the word "map" again.

Ahmad Zeidabadi, a professor of political science in Tehran whose specialty is Iran-Israel relations, explained: "It seems that in the early days of the revolution the word 'map' was used because it appeared to be the best meaningful translation for what he said. The words 'sahneh roozgar' are metaphorical and do not refer to anything specific. Maybe it was interpreted as 'book of countries,' and the closest thing to that was a map. Since then, we have often heard 'Israel bayad az naghshe jographya mahv gardad' — Israel must be wiped off the geographical map. Hard-liners have used it in their speeches....

and on it goes.....the article is here;

NYTimes follow up article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?ex=1307678400&en=efa2bd266224e880&ei=5088)

hulugu

Jul 11, 2008, 01:53 AM

...So a better translation might be something along the lines of what Juan Cole and others suggest as "vanish from the page of time"....

Does this really change what was said? I understand the nuances and the problems of translation, I'm just not sure that there's a significant difference between "wipe off the map" and "vanish from the page of time."

Agathon

Jul 11, 2008, 02:02 AM

I'm not sure how fine you can make the distinction between modern Zionism and the Jewish religion. They are obviously intertwined since Herzl and Lord Balfour.

How about the fact that many Jews are not Zionists. Even then, there is a great deal of diversity among those who are Zionists. Some support a two state solution, some are extreme Likudniks.

There's a great deal of effort expended to try to associate Zionism with the extreme right wing position.

Does this really change what was said? I understand the nuances and the problems of translation, I'm just not sure that there's a significant difference between "wipe off the map" and "vanish from the page of time."

I take it you aren't a native English speaker then. "Wipe off the map" commonly means take some action to destroy or obliterate a city or a country. For example, the Allies tried to wipe Dresden off the map. "Vanish from the page of time" is akin to the English phrase "Vanish from the pages of history", which roughly means "become defunct". For example, the Holy Roman Empire has vanished from the pages of history (it's defunct and no events involving it can be recorded any more).

Anyway, this would be merely academic and there would probably be peace in the middle east if the US government wasn't under the thumb of AIPAC. I can't think of any country that is so submissive to the will of another. The colonies of the British Empire used to behave like this, but that's long over now.