Mad Iranian President
August 29th, 2006 at 4:51 pm by David FarrarEvery time the President of Iran writes a letter, the more convinced I am that all stops must be taken to stop him gaining control of nuclear weapons.
His latest letter is to the German Chancellor non less and tries to bond by not only suggesting many of the problems of the world are due to the WWII Allies, but also again advocates the Holocaust never happened, stating:
But, does it not stand to reason that some victorious countries of World War II intended to create an alibi on the basis of which they could continue keeping the defeated nations of World War II indebted to them. Their purpose has been to weaken their morale and their inspiration in order to obstruct their progress and power. In addition to the people of Germany, the peoples of the Middle East have also borne the brunt of the Holocaust.
I mean how moronic do you have to be to write to the German Chancellor asking her to sign up to your holocaust denial theories. Seriously, he’s not all there and the only thing between him and some nukes is the UN. God help us.
The only comforting factor is the certain knowledge Israel will go in and bomb his nuke sites as a last resort to stop him gaining nukes. And of course the whole world will condemn them for doing so, while silently grateful to them all the same.
Related posts:
- Holocaust Denial Conference
- Iran duping the West
- Ahmadinejad goes more bonkers
- History will judge Bush a great President?
August 29th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
Thank you for reminding me of that, David.
I want to write something about WW2 and propoganda, internal 5th columns and their devastating effects, and that just ties in nicely.
JihadWatch is one of those scary sites where everything brought together is like a bad horror movie that can’t possibly be real. Yet, somehow it is.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
David what are you getting at the Iranian President didnt deny the holocaust of 1940s happened
He correctly said the Middle east is suffering its own holocaust again by Israel …this cant be denied in regards the Palestine people.
Where we all know they are suffering an acceptable injustice from Israel.
First the reason Isreal was given their land was due to guilt by the world re Holocaust and thus over night the Palestine were kicked out of a land which their families had for generations.
Now the unacceptable treatment Israel is dishing out to the Palestine people and as well the pot shot murders that are happening which could easily develop to be as bad as the horrors of the 1940s.
re Iran intentions re nuclear it doesn’t have it yet and probably wont have it for ten or more years…meanwhile many other countries have nuclear weapons why are you not jumping up and down about them !
Israel and US both have nuclear weaponary and by their action these last years we the world can be very concerned as to what is their prospective intentions to the future and to what countries.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Spot on David. There is only one leader in the world calling for the destruction of another state and the killing of allits citizens. The holocaust happened and the denier wants to do it again. No one should belittle this. Palestine is a mess, but it is not a holocaust. Israel must defend itself (but maybe less agressively) for the sake of the rest of the democratic world.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
I’m not keen to rely on Israel to take out Iran. That’s not exactly puppystomping for starters. And I’m betting if there is nuke development going on, it will be the most secret, most guarded thing the Iranians have. And any such attack from Israel will simply make the finishing and using of nukes an imperative for Iran, in retaliation.
That’s *even if* I thought there was a moral case for Israel, a card carrying covert nuke developer themself, to make aggressive strikes like that.
The UN path could actually work. Aggression short of invasion will not. Only the US has the power to invade, and they’re really a bit stretched too.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
The IAF weren’t able to take out a couple of Hizbollah bunkers a few meters across their border while they enjoyed total air superiority – I’m doubtful of their abilty to strike well hidden, heavily fortified targets thousands of miles away while engaging a hostile air force.
It’s more likely that Olmert will have his fighters bomb a bunch of Iranian mime schools and accordian factories, loose dozens of planes and declare the operation a triumph.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
There you go, injecting reality into the proceedings again – how rude!
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
Has this man had coaching?. His rantings are somewhat similar as Noddy, Sonic or Phil u in their defence of their beloved Lair bore party, in total denial of reality.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
Yeah, dim, Israel failed to destory every bunker they targetted in Lebanon. In fact, they didnt kill one hezbollah fighter, did they? But they did manage to score a bullseye on those moving cars and ambulances.
What an idiotic comment, seriously dude.
And a just as likley reason an Israeli strike would hit a “bunch of Iranian mime schools” is that the Iranians will have built their nuclear facilities underneath them. But that will just give those delightful Hezby apologists another opportunity to accuse Israel of targetting civilians and being rather quite brutish really.
If Iran gets nukes, Israel will be in peril. Iran has expressed a desire to destroy Israel, has supported attacks on Israel quite recently, and would finally have the means to eliminate whole cities. If you think that Israel wouldnt pull out all the stops to prevent that from happening then you are beyond help.
How many other national leaders have declared their desire to destroy an entire nation, to kill every last one of its citizens? And yet you guys think to laugh off the fact that the one, is getting nukes?
And Ben, HOW can the UN option work? Huh? How the fuck can the UN stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons?
What exactly does “global pressure” feel like? I bet it tickles.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
Be interesting to see the reaction (or not) to Africa’s latest thinking…
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
The UN has yet to even arrange a block on all nuclear and military tech transfer to Iran while they proceed to weapons capability unilaterally.
One reason why, is Russia gains from the tech sales and also from the ME instability resulting (via higher prices for it’s own energy exports).
The bare minimum is a SC Resolution that authorises sanctions on Iran should they acquire weapons (they say they don’t seek such weaponry, so they could hardly oppose something therefore harmless to them). Why would Iran seek for Russia or China to block this, or have them assist even if they did (for it would show their complicity in allowing this to happen)?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 8:56 pm
This analyst gives some thought to the issue beyond the superficial, even if it happens to be in this case published on counterpunch.
And why did he write to the Germans? What is he trying to do?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
You’re a sad, laughable little fellow aren’t you Kimble? Maybe you should cast your eyes over a real news source once in a while instead of sourcing your information from anonymous bloggers and conspiracy sites. You’d learn things like:
Financial Times
Lebanon Truce Takes Hold
14 August, 2006
Dumbed down (for Kimble) that means that after a month of sustained bombing against an ememy with no air defenses, Israel made no apparant impact on Hezbollahs ability to launch rockets into Israel. Zilch. Zip. This is an estimated 500-1000 guys hiding in villages WITHIN EYESIGHT of the Israeli border in a region Israel spent almost twenty years occupying.
But I’m sure they’d do a GREAT job targetting the heavily defended nuclear bunkers Iran has spent the last couple of decades concealing and fortifying.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
Pauline. Once again, rather than getting caught up in your anti israeli rhetoric, why don’t you go back to your history books? The majority of the land consituting Israel was purchased by Zionist settlers in the 50 or so years leading up to 1948 from absentee landlords living in Cairo and Damascus , it was not “stolen” from the local population. What is more, much of this land was the worst land in the region, which was brought back into productivity through the work of the settlers. In addition such settlers established schools and other infrastructure, the use of which was often extended to neighbouring arabs. When Israel was created BY THE UN, Israel extended its citizenship to all persons within its borders complete with property rights…the majority of these pesons kept that citizenship even after the attack on Israel by Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Syria.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
I have “analysed” the arguement.
Well when someone supporting a unitary state says, that is all the leader of Iran is proposing, I guess she is seeing him as an ally. One then needs to consider the arguement in that light.
She views Hamas and Hizbollah as part of a new moral movement seeking to end Israel’s existence (an objective she supports). There is however only one way to guarantee this unitary state has an Arab majority and we can assume they want a “moral” Moslem state as a cue to confidence in the “course of history”. Much as others required confidence boosting before launching Barbarossa.
“Israel failed to crush Hizbullah, but the outcome may be better for Israel now that Security Council Resolution 1701 has made the entire international community responsible for disarming Hizbullah. If the US-sponsored 1701 effort succeeds, the attack on Iran is a go.”
A call for the UN mission to be subverted (keep a private army supplied by foreign governments in place as a means to destroy a member state of the UN) as a way to secure “peace” for Iran.
What amorality.
“we will doubtless continue to read in every forum that Iran’s president – a hostile, irrational, Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying Islamo-fascist who has threatened to “wipe Israel off the map” — is demonstrably irrational enough to commit national suicide by launching a (nonexistent) nuclear weapon against Israel’s mighty nuclear arsenal.”
So she hopes to deter any such attack and support Iran acquiring the said technology.
“Virginia Tilley is … author of The One-State Solution: A Breakthrough for Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Deadlock”
A solution for a people, a solution for a state. No wonder the letter to the German President.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
You would have to dumb it down some way for the Kimbles or DPF’s of the world to ‘get it’.
A good place to start for both would be to read the recent Chatham House report on Iran – “Iran, its Neighbours and the Regional Crises”.
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/
Then perhaps we can have a grown up discussion sans mad mullahs and reductive crap which pays no attention to what’s actually happening.
The Iranians are playing a smart game here which is paying off substantially in terms of regional influence. You can continue to live out your neocon fantasies but sooner or later you’ll realise the rest of the world has moved on.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Danyl, we all know Israel could absolutely level Lebanon if she wanted to.
So make up your mind. Either Israel are incapable of doing this because their military might is overstated, and they are actually evenly balanced against surrounding enemies that are sworn to destroy Israel, or they have significant military capability and choose to withhold it to minimise civilian causalities.
I think Israel has sent a strong message to Hezbollah that next time around things may not go so easy for them.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
The bastard is a worry. Did any one see the 60 Minutes interview with him recently? A very scary person.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
I think you missed several things there SPC.
Firstly, from my observations, Tilley is right when she says Ahmadinejad’s comments are mostly directed at the government of Israel and not her people. Much of the western media portray it as otherwise but research will establish she has a point there.
Secondly Tilley touches on the blindingly obvious replication upon Iran of the Iraq-WMD-propoganda technique, which is obviously designed to justify an unjustifiable attack. Even the CIA has said they are 10 years away from developing a weapon, but let’s not worry about facts, let’s plant suspicion and let the media do its usual silent bias trick. And this has been happening for about 2 years now. I would have thought the pattern was completely obvious to everyone but apparently not.
One thing I think Tilley’s missed is that she misinterprets the relationship between the US and Israel. Personally, I think it’s fundamentally changed since Olmert’s War and while that’s still to become obvious, the hitherto close alliance in the next few months will become increasingly strained. I may be wrong but if I’m right that will completely change the dynamics of this Iran issue.
The reason for my question about why write the letter was: what does the President of Iran have in common with the German Chancellor? Forget the content of the letter, those words mean nothing, what was his calculation? As you probably know, Germany is a significant donator of arms to Israel, e.g. Merkhal gave Israel a Dolphin-class nuke-capable sub just after she came to power. Is Iran trying to affect that? I don’t think it’s that superficial. But what is Iran trying to achieve here?
Regardless of the unknowns in this developing picture, one thing’s pretty likely. This whole Ahmadinejad issue is not some simplistic “he’s a madman with a nuke” story.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
Ahmadinejad has got a PhD from Tehran univ in town planning which makes ideally qualified to drive a taxi in Auckland. The whole situation could be defused if NZ offered him a Co-Op taxi license.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
I’m no military expert but it seems to me that it is much easier to deal with large static targets (eg. reactors, centrifuges, research labs) than it is to deal with a bunch of guys who can rock up in a truck, fire a bunch of Katuyshas, and be off again in under a minute. The former target type having been dealt with successfully before in Iraq while the latter is a relatively new development AFAIK (at least new in terms of the scale that we saw last month).
The CIA estimate is actually 5-10 years. However, given how badly they over estimated Iraq’s capability while simultaneously grossly underestimating North Korea’s progress I’m not reassured in the slightest.
As for Mr Ahmadinejad, I’m not sure which is worse. That he might be as strange as he seems or that it is actually an affectation to help achieve some larger objective. Personally I lean towards sanity because of his academic work and his achievement in politics but regardless he is still playing a dangerous game in an unstable region.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
Methinks Danyl Mclauchlan ought to come clean about his unresolved Jewish problem. If he is going to spray “anti-Zionist” ejaculations throughout these discussion threads then perhaps he needs to explicitly home in on the essential matter troubling him. That is, the fact that a country occupying about one-tenth of one percent of all Arabia–or, if you prefer, one Jewish-majority nation, and a liberal democracy to boot, in a world of some 55 Islam-majority states and God knows how many Christian ones–somehow appears to give him unique existential offence. Why should this be? I think we need to be told.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:20 pm
Methinks Danyl Mclauchlan ought to come clean about his unresolved Jewish problem. If he is going to spray “anti-Zionist” ejaculations throughout these discussion threads then perhaps he needs to explicitly home in on the essential matter troubling him. That is, the fact that a country occupying about one-tenth of one percent of all Arabia–or, if you prefer, one Jewish-majority nation, and a liberal democracy to boot, in a world of some 55 Islam-majority states and God knows how many Christian ones–somehow appears to give him unique existential offence. Why should this be? I think we need to be told.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:30 pm
reid the reason why Germany, is in support of the myth about the establishment of Israel, which Iran seeks to overturn. Their line is that, the holocaust is either a lie to embarrass Germany, or is true and Arabs are paying the price with Israel being established afterward.
In actuality, the state of israel is a product of the Balfour Declaration and League of Nations mandate which the UN tried to implement in 1947. This is as an outcome of the nationalist movements of the 19th C in Europe as was also applied to areas coming out of empire elsewhere (including the Ottomon).
Iran is a supporter of the rejection of an Israeli state by Arabs. This staement of their’s to Israel is not just to it’s government but to all the people in that state.
No Arab state recognised Israel between 1948 and 1967 (that is prior to the 1967 occupation of Arab land). One wonders if an end to occupation would change this policy. Hizbollah and Hamas and Iran are quite open even if occupation ended, they would still not recognise Israel.
The similarity between Iraq and Iran is that brinksmanship is involved. Saddam Hussein would not verify he was without WMD because he wanted to sustain the fear factor. One can suspect the West used this against him deliberately. The Presidnt of Iran wants to be seen as able to stand up to the West and build some regional hegemony. He may have been too provocative. But then there is the case of Tsarist Russia and their advancing border imperialism and the revolution of 1917. What followed was a regime defensive at first and then more globally challenging than the Tsar’s had ever been. Those who need the global revolution to sustain their domestic regimes credibility are the more potentially dangerous.
Also the fact is, being equipped by Russia as Iran is and having the oil revenues they do, they have the means to go nuclear (thus is no charade).
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 12:04 am
When there is a large flash in the western skies then we will all know that the Israeli air force has stopped the rot.
Correct me if I’m wrong, the Israelites have been part of the middle east dating back to the earliest recorded history, they as a lot of cultures were nomadic and traveled around the general area that they now inhabit.
My point is Israel has just as much right to exist as any of the other states, Iran, Iraq, Egypt. The Jews history in the area goes back well over 2000 years.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 7:26 am
I’m sceptical of Israels ability to ‘absolutely level Lebanon’ – I don’t think Israel has any bombing aircraft currently in operations so they’d have to use nuclear weapons. But I do think Israel were trying to minimise civilian casualities – I just think they did a really terrible job, mostly because their intelligence was terrible.
But you still can’t get past the fact that Israel had a full month with total air superiority and totally failed to achieve any of its strategic goals. They didn’t get their soldiers back, the didn’t destroy Hizbollah and they didn’t even dent the amount of rockets raining down on North Israel.
They DID manage to kill about a thousand civilians, cause billions of damage to Lebanon, undermine (probably fatally) one of the only other democracies in the Middle East and make their enemies in Hezbollah vastly more powerful and popular.
It’s not as if I’m being provocative here – most of the world has come to the same conclusions I have, including the Israelis who are baying for blood after the incompentent performance of their political and military leaders. So I’m amused by the outrage of posters like King Curtis who’s eyes are aflame after reading my ‘”anti-Zionist” ejaculations’. Go tell the Israelis they’re anti-zionist, chump – they’ve been saying the same thing for the last month.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 7:38 am
Danyl, if Israel failed so badly then why is Nasrallah now saying that Hezbollah made a mistake kidnapping the soldiers? They wont be doing that again for a while.
Israel did fail to destroy Hezbollah but they did considerable damage to the organisation, including taking out most of their long range missiles.
There is also that UN presence in Southern Lebanon. Getting the international community to honor its promises is achievement in itself.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 7:49 am
We don’t know if the IAF took out Hizbollahs long range missiles or not – we only have their word for it. And since – like Hizbollah – they spent the entire conflict lying like crazy I’m not really inclined to take them at their word.
As for your claim that they’ve done ‘considerable damage’ to Hezbollah – I’d really encourage you guys to start getting your news from the evil MSM instead of sites like ‘ZombieTime’ or ‘Little Green Footballs’.
Hizbollah hopes to engineer a quick recovery
Vote:Financial Times
28 August 2006
August 30th, 2006 at 7:58 am
Paulinem
Ahmadinejad has made Iran’s intentions vis a vis Israel perfectly clear – annihilation and their pursuit of nuclear weapons is integral to that goal (and that of regional domination). We can debate how long it will take them to get there but their goal is the same. Iran’s dissembling over UNSC resolutions and lack of co-operation over monitoring are actions that reinforce their verbal intentions. He has repeated many times over in public his belief that the Holocaust was a fiction something that makes his letter to Merkle all the more bizarre. Israel’s nuclear weapons are purely defensive – do you ever hear Israel threatening to wipe Jordan off the map.
Danyl
You can’t have it both ways concerning Israel’s military capabilities – in one breath they are the over armed bully overreaching in Lebanon and now they are the ineffectual lightweights who can’t deal to Iran because they couldn’t stop the Hezbollah rocket attacks. Had this been WW2 – Israel would have (and could have) wiped out Southern Lebanon and a good chunk of Beirut and everyone who didn’t leave would be destroyed. I’m not suggesting Israel should’ve done that but in 60 years since WW 2, the nature of war has changed. Israel went to strenuous lengths to avoid civilian Lebanese casualties (not always successfully). The Katusha rockets can be fired from the back of a truck from any road which can then drive off melding into the civilian populace. The rockets were clearly stored in or under residential areas or in well-prepared bunkers. We know how US troops dealt with Japanese defenders in bunkers in WW 2. Israel could’ve rooted out Hezbollah very successfully that way but again, modern wars are fought differently.
All reports I have read about the likely success of air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities point to mixed results. Even US bunker busting bombs can only do so much. Key targets will undoubtedly be buried beneath substantial civilian populations and key components have been scattered to avoid the situation the Iraqis faced when Israel bombed their nuclear development site in 1981. The best outcome that can be achieved militarily is a likely diminuation of the threat and a substantially inconveniencing delay to the nuclear development programme.
In the current political climate in the US, I do not see Bush (or his Republican or Democrat successor) authorising such a mission. What is more likely is giving/selling the Israeli’s the necessary technology as Israel is highly motivated, for the reasons stated above, to attend to the Iranian threat themselves.
Notwithstanding negative nay saying to the contrary, Israel has the specially modified fighter-bombers with the range to fly to Iran and back and they may get to use US bases in Iraq. Iran will likely respond will long range missile attacks that should be easily handled by Israel’s huge battery of Patriot anti missile missiles(and its more modern offshoots). As was the case with Hezbollah, Iran would prefer a proxy war and Syria poses little threat to Israel militarily (again outside of rocket attacks).
The Israeli military clearly made mistakes – they underestimated the anti tank weapons Hezbollah had and so it’s earlier version Merkeva tanks were vulnerable. Their reservists were less than optimally prepared but, more than anything else, the operational effectiveness of the IDF appeared to be blunted more by Olmert’s timidity and reliance on air power alone, than any lack of military capability to do the job at hand. Count on Israel to learn from its mistakes in this foray, replace incompetent politicians and military commanders, spend what it takes to upgrade its military and be even more prepared to deal with existential threats.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 7:59 am
So then why Nasrallah’s statements?
By the way I get most of my info from Haaretz and also other places like Michael Totten. I don’t know where you get the LGF thing from.
No doubt Hezbollah is rebuilding, that’s what you do if you’ve been damaged.
But anyway, the point DPF was making is that if the international community fails to deal with Iran then the probability that Israel may take action increases. That seems pretty clear and something to be avoided.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 8:24 am
I can’t find the link, but Iran has threatened US interests all over the world if the are attacked by the US or Israel.
Iran is a very insular and paranoid state. I feel this threat means they will destroy US corporate interests (soft targets) throughout the world, think about suicide bombers in Mcdonalds.
Iran has recognised that the US populace has not yet paid any price and will shift tactics accordingly.
Iran is allowed to play this game and there is nothing that can be done, the US has invested too heavily in Iraq to counter a strong Iran.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 8:32 am
Lets start on a differant angle, this is not about iran ,but the glory of the former PERSIA,EMPIRE this nut wants to restore that long lived empire and how it covered the whole region, He dosnt care about the palis, or the hizbollah, they are firewood to be thrown on the fire to heat things up.The terrible zionests is his ralling point,
Vote:PERSONLY i would hope Israel nukes him , low yield , im not mad but he is,,,
August 30th, 2006 at 8:34 am
I was stereotyping you. Sorry.
You guys make many points, some valid, some worthless. But you’re talking past my point, and that is that Israel failed to dislodge Hizbollah after a month of bombing and total air superiority. On the last day of fighting Hizbollah launched a record number of rockets. On the day AFTER the fighting ended they launched a massive PR and reconstruction campaign. That doesn’t sound like an organisation that’s been ‘considerably damanged.’
Israel couldn’t take out the teams of rocket launchers because they were hidden in secret underground bunkers? Well guess what? Irans nuclear facilities are going to be hidden in secret underground bunkers! Israel was limiting civilian casualties? In a sense, this is correct, but they didn’t hesitate to attack apartment buildings or heavily populated areas (like central Beirut) if their intelligence indicated there was a target there. And their intelligence was so consistently bad that the IAF pilots took to missing their targets on purpose.
Even if they did have the capabilty to go ahead with an attack I seriously doubt that Israels current government has the political will to bomb Iran. They simply can’t afford another catastrophe and they won’t trust the military not to deliver one.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 8:35 am
Lets start on a differant angle, this is not about iran ,but the glory of the former PERSIA,EMPIRE this nut wants to restore that long lived empire and how it covered the whole region, He dosnt care about the palis, or the hizbollah, they are firewood to be thrown on the fire to heat things up.The terrible zionests is his ralling point,
Vote:PERSONLY i would hope Israel nukes him , low yield , im not mad but he is,,,
August 30th, 2006 at 8:44 am
“The only comforting factor is the certain knowledge Israel will go in and bomb his nuke sites”
Oh joy another war in the middle east!
Can we take it that war, death and carnage are now official National Party policy?
Perhaps you can get your chums in the exclusive brethren to knock up a few leaflets for you.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 8:50 am
Danyl
What is your problem?
‘Ohh look.. wicked Joos are really weak he he.
The mighty Arab freedom fighters are much better fighters and better people.’
What a troll.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 8:52 am
Danyl, I don’t believe for a moment that an attempt by Israel to counter Iranian nuclear ambitions would be “successful”. I imagine that it would at best set back the nuclear programme for a period of time at a cost of who knows how many lives.
But, as with Lebanon, that’s what Israel might do – with the grudging approval of the majority of the centre left – if the UN process fails. Which is why I’m hoping the UN is successful in Lebanon and ultimately with Iran.
(There’s dark humour in France being shamed into commiting more troops by Italy. Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D’Alema’s comments in Haaretz in Haaretz are interesting – http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/754743.html)
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 9:05 am
A timely email I was sent and could be related to the Iranian President.
Maybe the Left is right. Perhaps diplomacy would be the best way to stop Muslim terrorists from killing us:
Starting point for negotiations:
Terrorists: We want you dead.
US: We want to live.
Negotiations begin:
US: We want to live.
How about if we offer to leave Iraq? Will you let us live then?
Terrorists: No. We wanted you dead long before you went into Iraq. Have you forgotten about the Iranian Embassy in 1979, the Beirut Lebanon Embassy (and the Marine Barracks) in 1983, Pan Am 103 in 1988, the World Trade Center in 1993 and 2001, the Khobar Towers in 1996, the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the USS Cole in 2000, and the Pentagon in 2001? You think this is only about Iraq?
U.S.: How about if, instead of stealing your oil, we pay you $70 a barrel for it?
Terrorists: No. You are already doing that.
US: What if we also give you billions of dollars?
Terrorist: No. You already do that, too.
US: What if we agree to live peacefully with you and let you run your own affairs, choose your own leaders, social rules, etc. You can kill political prisoners and non-Muslims. You can subjugate women, and we won’t interfere.
Terorists: No. You already let us do those things
US: How about if we promise to send you help for any natural disasters or disease outbreaks? At no charge?
Terrorists: No. You already do that. Offer something new.
US: What about if we give you nuclear and missile technology.
Terrorists: No. You already did that.
US: You are tough negotiators. All right, what if we let you kill all our Republicans and Joe Lieberman. Then will you let us live?
Terrorists: No. We want you all dead.
US: Ok, what if we throw in Israel and all the Christians, too?
Terrorists: No. All the infidels must die.
US: All right, our final offer: what if we agree to convert to Islam. We’ll make all our women cover themselves from head to foot and not let them drive or vote. Then can we live?
Terrorists: What about alcohol, pornography, abortion, nude dancing , free speech and capitalism?
US: We’ll gladly give up capitalism, but we really need the other things.
Terrorists: That is not compromise. You are refusing to negotiate.
US: All right. We’ll give up alcohol, pornography, abortion, and nude dancing and free speech too if we have to. Now will you let us live?
Terrorists: That’s tempting, but it’s not enough. You must die.
US: There must be something we can offer that you will accept in exchange for letting us live.
Terrorists: Our best offer is we want you all dead. We are, of course, willing to listen to your ideas. Islam is a religion of peace.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 9:07 am
Israel may be the regional hegemon but, as its lethal incompetence in Lebanon has shown, it is not omnipotent. Israel can no more destroy the Iranian nuclear program than it can fly to the moon. Iran’s nuclear facilities are to far away, to heavily fortified and to heavily defended. A unilateral Israeli strike on Iran could only occur by traversing U.S. occupied Iraqi airspace and with U.S. acquiesence, and probably with active U.S. support in the form of refuelling and possibly even participation. Even a reasonably successful Israeli/U.S. attack would only delay by a few months, not deny forever, the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Any active US involvement holds a high chance of triggering an all out Middle Eastern conflict between the United States and the Iranians and their respective proxies. Despite what the death cult right wing goons on this site and others like to think, the clear lesson from Hezbollah is that the over-stretched U.S. forces in the Middle East are not guaranteed victory in such a conflict.
Vote:In the current Middle Eastern environment Iran with nuclear weapons guarantees a Mid-East nuclear holocaust in our lifetime. Under its current policies, the state of Israel will not survive to see its 100th anniversary. Short of a bloody, protracted, and hideous all out war between the United States and Iran the Iranians will acquire nuclear weapons within ten years.
Given that it was the United States under the criminal cronyism of Bush and Cheney that tore up the rule book on international law and adopted an arrogant, aggressive unilateralism that has led to this new nuclear arms race, what we are seeing here is the bitter harvest of the reckless imperialism of the war mongering neo-con experiment.
August 30th, 2006 at 9:10 am
Riiight, holocaust of palastinians.Hmmm.
Vote:Danyl, the bombed/missiled ambulance was a fake. go to http://www.michellemalkin.com/archives/005802.htm for some detailed photoes. Its pretty obvious.You dont get rust forming in a matter of hours after having white hot explosive shatter it. It is disappointing that a lot of you have totally lost your objectivity.
August 30th, 2006 at 9:14 am
Southern Raider,
Maybe the US will get last minute help against the terrorists from the Elves at Rivendell.
They exist in your world, right?
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 9:17 am
Given the arab population in 1948 and 2006 along with the birth rate compared with Jewish population and birth rate the possible conclusion is that this “holocaust” being perpetrated is highly inept.
The Israeli’s seem to have mixed up their zyklon B and viagra.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 9:36 am
“Given that it was the United States under the criminal cronyism of Bush and Cheney”
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah leftist bullshit.. Utter worthless pro terrorist treasonist propaganda.. completley barren of any logical or truthful substantiation and designed only to give sustenance to and encourage the terrorists in their campaign of mass murder against the west….
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 9:38 am
“First the reason Isreal was given their land was due to guilt by the world re Holocaust and thus over night the Palestine were kicked out of a land which their families had for generations.”
This comment indicates extreme ignorance about the plight of the Jews just after WWII. For if you did know anything about the terrible situation faced by the millions of displaced Jewish refugees and the hundreds of thousands of Holocaust survivors then you would have seen that there were many compelling moral reasons for the formation of the state of Israel in 1948. Since you appear to be lacking such an understanding, may I recommend this short history of Israel? Here’s an excerpt where it is explained that:
After the war, the Allies’ policy was to force all refugees, including 250,000 Jewish Holocaust survivors, to return to their countries of origin. However, many of the German and Austrian Jewish survivors did not wish to live among the murderers of their families. Many Jews from Eastern Europe found that their properties had been seized and the new occupiers were violently opposed to their return. Many did not want to go and live under Stalinist rule. Over a thousand Polish Jews who did try to return home were massacred in anti-Semitic riots in several Polish cities. At least one, in Kielce, was inspired by a classic anti-Semitic blood-libel (that The Jews were kidnapping Christian children in order to drain their blood). Furthermore, a high proportion of Jewish survivors had become committed Zionists, and wanted to go to Palestine to help build a Jewish state. All Jews who refused to return to their countries of origin were detained by the Allies in camps in Germany and Austria. Those who were caught trying to make their way to Palestine were imprisoned in Cyprus.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 9:52 am
Jews have always lived in the land that was established as the State of Israel. Even under Roman, Crusader and Muslim rule there were still Jews living on this land. There was also a growing immigration of Jews to Israel from the late 1800′s to the early 30′s, thus well before the UN resolution.
Also you would find that most of the land was not wanted by the Arabs as it was desert or marshland. The Jewish people have toiled over the last 100 years to turn this area in a habitable and productive country.
Danyl maybe your the one that believes in fairies by supporting Palestinian rights. There is no such thing as a Palestinian eg all the residents of the west bank were actually part of Jordan. Palestine is a figment of the leftist world and created for propaganda reasons by the other Arab nations. The same reason Jordan didn’t integrate the Arabs who fled Israel into Jordanian society but keep them in refugee camps.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 9:53 am
Tom
War is and will always be an imprecise science. Few if any battles go according to plan. Few doubt that Israel could’ve easily destroyed Hezbollah in short order had it the will to stomach massive civilian casualties (as the Allies repeatedly inflicted in WW2) and the commensurate global condemnation. Fighting guerilla style insurgencies who have absolutely no problem with breaking all the old Geneva conventions of warfare has become the great dilemma for democratic nation states who fight war against Islamic jihadists (US&coalition vs Taliban/al Qaida/Shi’ite&Sunni militias and then Israel vs Hamas/Hezbollah/Fatah etc).
I think Tom and Danyl need to separate what Israel is capable of doing from what its political leadership has the stomach for. Imagine if Sharon was compus mentus – this war would’ve had an entirely different outcome.
The hurdles in dealing to Iran are certainly there but they are not insurmountable. Israel knows what a nuclear Iran could do so it is fatuous for Tom to state that their leaders would not have the stomach to attack. The US would gladly grant airspace over/landing right in Iraq just to have Israel do its heavy lifting for it. No one will destroy Iran’s capabilities but they can continuously undermine them. All analysis I have read show that disruption of key elements of the programme is not impossible and the set back is more like 5 years not months. Israel would try to send a message that pursuit of the nuclear option will be met with periodic bombing. Iranian air defences are weak and out of date and they have no airforce. There is no question of a ground war where there army size becomes an issue in their favour.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 9:57 am
I think a quick read of the comments here will be enough evidence to show that it is not only the Iranian president who appears to be a warmongering nutcase.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 10:22 am
So Sonic
Your response to Hitler/Imperial Japan’s invading armies would’ve been: flower petals as a symbol of peace?
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 10:35 am
We are being invaded by Japan fejj?
You would have think that might have made the news.
I blame the MSM.
Or is it the same old tired rhetoric from those whose historical knowledge is limited to 1939-1945 and know nothing about anything since?
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 10:50 am
“The reason for my question about why write the letter was: what does the President of Iran have in common with the German Chancellor?”
Well, the Europeans are leading negotaitions with Iran regarding the uranium issue. Germany have played a role in that. They are also due to take over the EC presidency in January 2007 (they were supposed to be in that role now but because of a looming election that was postponed).
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 11:09 am
A bit of the letter David somehow failed to quote.
“World War II came to an end with all its material and moral losses and its 60 million casualties. The death of human beings is tragic and sad. In all divine religions and before all awakened conscience and pure nature of mankind and the sense of right and wrong, the life, property and honor of people, regardless of their religious persuasion and ethnic background, must be respected at all times and all places.”
Sounds like the living re-incarnation of Hitler tome…
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 11:15 am
War is indeed an imprecise thing. However, its important we reiterate some general statements of fact:
1/ The world cannot allow, in the current Middle Eastern environment, an aggressive, theocratic Iran to acquire nuclear weapons sufficiently miniaturised to fit on top of an IRBM (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile), of which they posses an ample stock of proven design. A Middle Eastern version of peace via the fearsome logic of mutually assured destruction won’t work when at least one side welcomes death via nuclear annihilation as a matyrdom guaranteeing entry to heaven for its millions.
2/ The international communities ability to insist on Iran not acquiring these weapons has been undermined – perhaps fatally – by U.S. unilateralist exceptionalism and U.S. supported disproportionate Israeli aggression.
3/ Any attempt at a “surgical” air strike option has an EXTREMELY high probability of failure. Air Forces officers have promised the chimera of purely air power based strategic victories since the 1920’s. They have never succeeded yet.
4/ The potential consequences of attempting the above are so serious as to give even the most militant Israeli military officers serious pause for thought. It could include a general regional war. Almost certainly, it would provoke a rain of Iranian IRBM’s onto Israeli cities. The remorseless military logic of retaliation and escalation would lead to God knows where in the hate filled Middle East.
5/ The purely military solution to guaranteeing the knocking out of Iran’s nuclear program is a pre-emptive nuclear attack. Now, lets pause and think about that scenario for a second. The United States’ leading proxy – indistinguishable from the United States itself in the eyes of many Arabs – uses a nuclear weapon in a first strike on a nation that it is not at war with.
6/ Its huge mess, and bombastic beating of the war drums by armchair generals like David Farrar won’t help.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 11:21 am
Fejj:
Levan:
Redbaiter:
LOL – why don’t you guys just shit in your hand and throw it at your computer screen?
David:
You do know that you were the first person in this thread to mention a ‘holocaust of palastinians’? Maybe the rest of us should just leave you alone and you could have an argument with yourself?
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 11:38 am
Sonic
It was pretty clear that what I was after was what your preferred response would have been to German/Japanese agression if you lived back then.
Toms
Whose playing armchair general here? You are – in fact I am sure we all are making relatively uninformed laymans judgements. What are your authoritative sources for your EXTREMELY high probability of failure. Not all air campaigns are failures. The Israelis succeeded in destroying Iraq’s nuclear capability. NATO bombed Serbia into submission, the RAF destroyed the Ruhr’s industrial might with its famous dambusters campaign – I could site numerous other successes. The very success of certain key air campaigns has lured military planners into thinking all will succeed when clearly that is not the case. Airstrikes on Iran are problematic but not the hopeless case you detail IMHO.
Israel will never, in my opinion, strike first with nuclear weapons. Israel has long planned for Iranian missile strikes. Remember the Iraqi Scuds in the 91 Gulf War that were mostly duds or mostly intercepted by 1st generation Patriot anti missiles (Israel now has the 3rd generation version).
There is a huge difference between a democracy like the US possessing nuclear weapons and a theocratic dictatorship like Iran with the avowed ambition of destroying one of its neighbours. You are equating moral equivalence here that is laughable.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 11:49 am
danyl, “holocaust of palastinians”. Its in the very first post by Paulinem…You are fired up arent you.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Sure, successful air campaigns:
The Israelis were able to destroy Iraq’s nuclear ambitions easily enough because they were located in a building out in the open. Iranians learnt from that and located much of their nuclear research in secret underground facilities.
The RAF destroyed the industrial might of the Ruhr by carpet-bombing cities and causing civilian casualties on an enormous scale. Germans learnt from that and located various industries in underground facilities by late ’44.
Are you spotting a pattern here? Military solutions aren’t as easy as optimists wish for. Optimism re the use of military force is a recipe for big-time body counts and political humiliation.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
David, no holocaust but thousands of war crimes.
Just perusing the Israel press today and found this.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3297306,00.html
“Palestinian sources in gaza said that a five year old boy sustained moderate to severe injuried from IDF fire in a neighborhood east of Gaza City. According to the sources, the boy was shot in the back.“
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
That’s true. (I tend to scroll past her posts).
Carry on.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Danyl’s mind at work
” LOL – why don’t you guys just shit in your hand and throw it at your computer screen?”
Nice
Toilet jokes.
That’ll win the old argument.
Just for the record, my annoyance was at your obvious delight at pointing out Israel inability to wipe out Hezzy’s while you are the same ilk calling them everything under the sun because there are civilian casualties.
Vote:You want to poor scorn from both directions.
That’s very trollish.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
It’s clear the Iranian is asserting some regional Islamic leadership role (Persian revivalism as per the Babylon hubris phase of Saddam Hussein) with all the posturing look at me jibber jabber. Hopefully it’s all a way of sustaining their domestic Islamic coup/regime change (most democrats of the Tehrnn parliament were not allowed to re-stand at the last elections) and boosting the price for their oil.
But to be safer, we need the UN to place sanctions on military and nuclear tech transfer to Iran while there is no agreement. Also to state that should Iran ever acquire nuclear weapons this would be made permanent and be accompanied by more extensive sanctions. It’s time to start weakening their military capability and ensure some deterrent to ambition. Little different to how North Korea is treated now. Iran has an interest in an assurance that there is no intent to attack them unless they make public threats towards others.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
I don’t think this is a forum for a detailed debate about the success or otherwise of the Allied strategic bomber offensive in WWII. Suffice it summarise the consensus of opinion is the maintainence of the British night bomber offensive was at least as damaging in its distortionary effect on the British economy as it hurt the Germans, that the British were defeated in the Battle of Berlin in the winter of 1943-44, and it was only the destruction of the German fighter force in attritional battles in the summer of 1944 by the USAAF and the Normandy invasion that allowed the strategic bomber offensive to continue.
In other words, the strategic offensive against Germany was only successful after they were already beaten.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
toms rewriting history again.The german airforce was decimated during the battle of Britain then the yanks used long range P51′s to escort the bombers. It waa the escorts which made the difference.I just dont have enough space to detail why Germany lost the war but briefly it was because they made several wrong decsions .
Vote:Also Tom, I think you have forgotten about Air to air refuelling and how the US F111,s flew from the UK to Libya to nail the airport and how the Uk sent Vulcans to the Falklands. I’m sure Israel could easlily do the same to get at Iran.
August 30th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Only ONE nation has used a nuclear weapon against a defenceless civilian population…ever. The result was so shocking that there has been a unwritten taboo on using them ever since. Sure we have sustained a political “mutually assured destruction” delusion for some decades, but the moment any party ever breaks the taboo, and actually uses one…the walls of hell will break down. There will be, there can be, no winners.
The existence of nuclear weapons mean that in effect, the much scorned “appeasement” policy is the only one that can work in the long run.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
“The german airforce was decimated during the battle of Britain then the yanks used long range P51′s to escort the bombers”
You know I never new the Mustang was being used in 1940 before America even entered the war.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
“The german airforce was decimated during the battle of Britain then the yanks used long range P51′s to escort the bombers. It waa the escorts which made the difference” Ummmm… the battle of Britain was in the summer of 1940 dude.
And I think “it was only the destruction of the German fighter force in attritional battles in the summer of 1944 by the USAAF” sort of covers off your second point.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
obviuosly I meant a few years later when USA joined in sonic.Funnily enough the Mustang was based on Messerchmidt plans designed before the war. Could be wrong, but think an American working in the factory pre war took the concept back to the USA.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
Logix how would one appease Iran, should they be lieing about not seeking to acquire this weaponry?
How woulD one appease Hizbollah, should they place a nuclear warhead on one or two of their missiles?
There is a reason for UNSC Resolutions 1559 AND 1701 and for a few more in Iran’s case.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
My understanding David is it was a US design that was not very succesful, until the Brits put in Rolls Royce engines.
Update
More complex than that it seems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-51_Mustang
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
“Funnily enough the Mustang was based on Messerchmidt plans designed before the war..”
This is a fairy tale. The origins of the Mustang fighter are well documented and well known. In 1940, the British Air Purchasing Commission approached North American Aviation to build P-40′s for the R.A.F. Instead, North American offered to build an entirely new fighter. The Mustang was the outcoime of this. I think we can draw some obvious conclusions about the reliability of david’s military information.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
The Allies decided to not just win the war but to utterly destroy the military and industrial might of their enemies and to crush an ideology that had embarked on reckless and ruthless expansion. That led to military decisions that would be unacceptable to most everyone today – carpet bombing of cities with no appreciable military targets and of course the decision by Truman to drop the 2 atomic bombs. This was a calculated military decision to spare the US the estimated 1 million US casualties that would be lost invading the Japanese mainland.
When Israel comes to face a similar distorted ideology bent on its utter destruction it has few options that avoid needless civilian deaths and not the luxury of muted public opinion that the Allies faced in WW2.
SPC refers to UNSC 1559. The utter failure of the UN to enforce this resolution (the disarming of Hezbollah) is precisely the reason why Israel invaded Lebanon. Sure the captured Israeli soldiers became the immediate raison detre – doing the job the UN promised but failed to do for 5 years became the primary reason.
Thus is it highly likely that UNSC 1701 will suffer a similar fate. Already Lebanon says “no we won’t disarm them” and the French say “we’ll help” and then offer 200 troops and then are shamed by Italy into offering more. Kofi Annan is openly admitting that the disarming of Hezbollah is more like “We’ll ask them nicely and we expect them to comply”. Meanwhile Hezbollah says get stuffed we’re keeping our weapons but we just won’t flash them around as much. Israel catches Syrians rearming them and attacks the rearming convoy and everything is jumping all over Israel. Imagine the TAB odds on a successful full rearming of Hezbollah!
When it comes to diplomatic pressure on Iran, the same puny response from the UN is highly likely. The Chinese and Russians are actively fighting sanctions so the chances of any meanful sanctions with teeth coming out of the UNSC are minimal to nil. Meanwhile Iran continues to progress its programme openly thumbing its nose to the world. That is what the world is up against. Perhaps in little ole NZ so far away the prospect of a nuclear Iran holds little fear. Israel does not have that luxury
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Logix how would one appease Iran, should they be lieing about not seeking to acquire this weaponry?
Problems are not solved by more of the same kind of thinking that created them in the first place.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
I don’t think Israel will bomb Iran’s facilities. I don’t think they have sufficient air force capability to be reasonably assured of success. Their aircraft (F15s and F16s) can’t carry big enough bombs (other than nukes which they certainly would not use). The only air force with the capability is the US with B52s, B1Bs and B2s; plus re-equipping strategic missiles with non-nuclear warheads. Would the US succeed if they did it? Maybe, but there are no guarantees.
There are three options:
(a) let the UN do its thing (actually the P5 on the S.C.)
Vote:(b) bomb Iran – which may or may not succeed
(c) take the chance of Iran having nukes and rely on deterrence; which actually has worked in all other circumstances. There was no WWIII; there was no Indo-Pakistan war, once both sides had nukes. Is Iran ready to commit national suicide?
August 30th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
For what it’s worth, I don’t think Ahmadinejad is a moron. He’s a shit-stirrer. He blusters. He gains his political capital from annoying people. Hence the anti-Jewish cartoons. Hence his alliance with Chavez (who does likewise). Hence his letter to the German Chancellor denying the holocaust.
Wayne, I don’t count on the UN to defend Israel. I don’t think nuclear deterrence is the answer, either. Iran is not developing nuclear capability to defend itself–it is doing so to create instability in the region and attack Israel. Which suggests that national suicide is an outcome they are prepared to consider, for the sake of wiping out Israel.
Alternatively, Iran could just do to Syria what it has done to South Lebanon: attack Israel from Syria with nuclear warheads, leaving Syria vulnerable to a proportionate response from Israel, while Iran remains untouched.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
Hmmm… is this a case of “would the read Dr Wayne Mapp stand up”?
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
read = real
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
Alternatively, Iran could just do to Syria what it has done to South Lebanon: attack Israel from Syria with nuclear warheads, leaving Syria vulnerable to a proportionate response from Israel, while Iran remains untouched.
That would be a great plan and the IDFs General Staff would be certain to fall for it, having been born yesterday on a turnip truck.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
Dr Wayne Mapp (sic)
a and c are not options. The UN has been and will continue to be toothless with regard to Iran.
You are naive if you think c will ever work. The Soviets actually wanted to preserve their own skins (having lost 27 million people in WW2). Islamic jihadists consider it nirvana to die for the cause especially the cause of annihilating the hated Zionists.
b is an option but, as many have stated including me, not an easy option nor one with any guarantee of success.
However I do believe you underestimate the IAF’s strike power. The US developed a special series of planes – the F15I and F16I ostensibly especially for Israel that the Israelis have furthered modified. By all reports these planes can fly from Israel to most locations in Iran AND BACK without the need for a mid air refuel. I agree the US is unlikely to order airstrikes on Iran but it will do all in its power to assist Israel including even perhaps landing rights at its Iraqi airbases.
Danyl
Vote:I forgot to say – the s**t at the computer screen comment was a new low even for you.
August 30th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
“(c) take the chance of Iran having nukes and rely on deterrence; which actually has worked in all other circumstances.”
This might be a better short term option than (b) but then again it might not. It depends on what the clerics want in the long term. At present wiping out Israel is high on their list which just raises the probability of (b).
But it may be that the clerics’ bottom line is something else – who knows? But if I lived in Israel I’d be taking the holocaust denier very seriously and hoping that the international community, through the UN, can get its act togther and make good on all the peace rhetoric.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
David you read into the letter what you wanted to see. He no more denies the holocaust than he did in the 60 minutes interview screened a week or so ago. He contends that the Arab states were made to pay the price at the end of WWII by the creation of Israel.
As for Iraq developing nuclear weapons, why are any countries allowed nuclear weapons?? Lets not forget only one country has ever used nuclear weapons on another country and that country is the US.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
Maybe the Iranian has not read the Balfour Declaration, heard of the League of Nations mandate to establish a Jewish national homeland in Palestine and the subsequent UN partition plan to implement that earlier mandate (like 20 years older than the holocaust events).
Or maybe he imagines that the only reason the international committment was kept (in favour of Jews), was because of the holocaust, when “otherwise” another betrayal would have occured. He views the failure to betray Jews as something that has to be redressed by ending the existence of a member state of the UN. Which is why this is a collective security issue.
The whole idea of opposing the existence of a non Arab non Moslem majority nation state in the ME is xenophobic. The objection to Jews migrating back to this area and becoming a majority people in the mandate area, suggests a certain hypocrisy which migrant Moslems now living in the west should consider.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
I’m amazed how few have raised the very obvious issue of US and Israeli entanglement in the Iran issue. Why do you think Olmert’s war began? It was obvious from the outset that Olmert is an idiot and after a few days there was no calculation under which Israel would emerge victorious. I said that on this blog at the first opportunity and thousands of others were saying it all over the net. And what happened? Duh. So why did Olmert’s war occur?
To provoke Syria and Iran and give Bush’s neocons a chance to do a number on Iran. It didn’t work, because both Syria and Iran were remarkably restrained. Why? China was counseling them to hold back.
Someone mentioned the Iran-Russia relationship above, China is actually the more significant player in this region. China has always had the measure of Bush and the neocons and it’s interesting she has chosen to ally herself with Iran
Things are shaping up for a proxy fight, and the interesting thing is that Israel is indicating she wants to change sides.
BTW1, How come no one’s mentioned the possibility of Israel getting F22 Raptors – that would solve her airstrike capability problems. It’s an imminent possibility.
BTW2, Would the US military tolerate Bush ordering a first strike against Iran. They know it would initiate a massive uprising against the divisions in Iraq and the fleet in the Gulf, and they’ve had enough of Bush and his neocon fools.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
The reason why the recent military conflict began?
1 the Hamas militants chose to act to prevent a prisoners agreement having an impact (this decision came from Damascus/Meshaal).
Israel chose to respond with military force in Gaza.
2. Hizbollah (influenced by outside parties) then chose to up anti and do the same thing. They did this knowing how Israel had responded (so the recent statement by the Hizbollah leader that they did not know what would happen next, is at best only half true).
Israel chose to act in the same way as before – bombing, then soldiers. Any other course would have implied that they would take on Hamas, but not Hizbollah.
The Israeli government acted because the Israeli public wanted them to. It’s very IDF proud (egalitarian/conscription) and to rescue soldiers (wounded or hostages) they do what they do.
Speculation about motives on this part of it is only required, if one has no idea of the facts on the ground leading up to the event.
An easy surmise Hizbollah was asked to act to help out Hamas (show solidarity) – of course the war would at least distract attention from Iran’s UN problem (maybe even weaken western unity) and enable a statement of pan Arab solidarity in wartime to aid Syrian influence.
China’s interest is in a peaceful global market, they like flowing oil supply lines and economic growth. Though if Russia wants to push up oil prices by enabling a moderate form of Iranian showmanship, they might tolerate it in return for long term supply contracts from both parties. It also might assist in their own goal to have hegemony in East Asia (the consummation of Taiwan’s reinclusion) if the USA is occupied (weakened and stretched USA global capability) facing down Iran’s ambition in west Asia.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 11:18 pm
Pardon me joining the debate rather late and without having read all of the above comments, but I have a serious question. Skimming the comments above shows the usual repetition of allegations that Ahmedinejad wants to “wipe Israel off the map” (words like “annihilation” have been used). Now, the evidence we have at our disposal is:
1) Crazy Mr A was quoted by a journalist as agreeing with Khomeini’s statement that Israel must be “wiped off the map”.
2) The media spread this quote about, as per usual procedure. Reactions along predictable lines ensued, with the West understanding the comment to be a call for genocide against Israel.
3) The translation from the original has been contested, and interpreted as meaning that removing the “regime occupying Jerusalem” was a good idea. Later comments seem to indicate that he meant removing Israel from the Middle East to Europe, or the US.
4) The genocide interpretation has been officially denied by FM Manouchehr Mottaki.
5) Recently, Crazy Mr A has said: “We are not a threat to anybody, even the Zionist regime which is a definite enemy of the people of the region”. Kinda at odds with the genocide interpretation.
The wiki page on this seems to be fairly balanced, if you want more details.
Now, I think Mr A is indeed a bit of a nutter, and his letters to all and sundry are, well, both naive and odd, and indicative of a markedly different perspective to my own. However, I find it difficult to believe purely on absolute faith that he is poised with his finger on the trigger, ready to blow Israel and her inhabitants sky high. (He may be, of course, but I’d need more evidence to conclude that). So before we all reflexively erupt in a burst of anti-Iranian propagandism (“‘cos they’re eeeevil”), shouldn’t we weigh the evidence and decide if there really is a case to answer? And if there isn’t, don’t we really have to question our own motives for wanting to hate this loon so much? Why do we continue to judge him by a standard of evidence that we wouldn’t be happy to have applied to ourselves? Is there a real, defensible basis for continuing to repeat the claim, or is it just ideology speaking?
I’m genuinely interested in the thought processes being followed by those repeating this claim. Won’t be checking back here until tomorrow pm though, sorry.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 6:00 am
“But if I lived in Israel I’d be taking the holocaust denier very seriously and hoping that the international community, through the UN, can get its act togther and make good on all the peace rhetoric.” I think this is wishful thinking. How many UN resolutions did Saddam Hussein thumb his nose at – 7 from memory. Iran is following the same play book. Israel does not have the luxury of hoping, fingers crossed, the UN will stop Iran from going nuclear.
Rocket Boy – get real. Ahmadinejad has made his Holocaust denial theory abundantly clear on several occasions in highly public fora. Just because he played word games with Germany in no way nullifies his intent. The US used its nukes to end the Pacific War sooner and save lives (American and Japanese). Its nukes became the deterrant that kept the Cold War exactly that; a cold war and not a hot war. Hitler told us he wanted to wipe out the Jews and surprise surprise – he was true to his word and tried to. The Islamic jihadists see the annihilation of Israel as their No 1 goal and the decadent infidel West is next on the list.
Reid – your unvarnished anti American bias is clouding your judgement. Bush’ co-called neo cons are frantically trying to use the very global diplomatic mechanisms his critics accuse him of previouly ignoring. Rice and Bolton are scrupulously and painstakingly trying to work with the P5 to a craft meaningful sanctions regime against Iran but with limited support from China and Russia (SPC highlights some good reasons why). There is supreme reluctance in the Bush administration to attack Iran for a variety of reasons.
You are right in that this is a proxy war but the US and Israel are under no illusions as to who pulls Hezbollah’s strings and hold Syria and Iran fully responsible for Hezbollah’s presence and provocations in Lebanon. Conversely Israel undoubtedly will end up fighting the war with Iran that the US should fight but wont mainly due to the greater immediate threat to it’s security – indeed its very existence.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 7:13 am
SPC said
But to be safer, we need the UN to place sanctions on military and nuclear tech transfer to Iran while there is no agreement. Also to state that should Iran ever acquire nuclear weapons this would be made permanent and be accompanied by more extensive sanctions…..
Why SPC should Iran be punished for having nuclear weapons ambitions …they dont have any yet !!
Why not the UN use all its muscle to pursade countries who do have nuclear weapons to destroy them ..we all know there are several of them.
USA postures itself as the leader of the free world ..well leadership comes with example to others …
I mean isn’t it a bit hypocritical at getting excited about Iran’s prospective intentions while it actually has 5000 nuclear weapons ready to be used of its own…
If you SPC are genuinely concerned at the nuclear threat of the use of this weapon …and yes I also agree any use of this horrible weapon is a threat to the free world and indeed the unfree world.
Then why not demand the so called leader of the free world to start destroying its 5000 nuclear weapons after all it wasnt so many years ago we (due to US pressure) witnessed USSR been requested to destroy its nulcear weapons ..well why stop there??
Don’t you think if US started leading by example …Israel and Iran would also take the hint..and we of the rest of the world could then look forward to a future of our planet
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 8:44 am
Paulinem
What UN muscle are you referring to? Like the ‘muscle’ they used to disarm Hezbollah under 1559 or the ‘muscle’ they used to protect the Tutsis from the Hutu militias leading to 800,000 dead Rwandans. Or the ‘muscle’ UN peacekeepers used to protect Bosnian Muslims from murderous Serb militias at Szrebreniza.
Just more lefty pie in the sky dreaming.
The US you hate so much funds 27% of the UN’s bloated and ineffeciently used budget not to mention housing the UN for free at its Turtle Bay high rise in New York.
Once again you assert bizarre moral equivalence between a democratic republic where leaders are regularly accountable to the electorate with a fanatical Muslim dictatorship who have gone on the public record as wanting to wipe another democracy off the face of the map (Israel).
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 9:21 am
Paulinem, I must say that your prose is as juvenile as your argument: sentences like “The US postures itself as leader of the free world… well with leadership comes example to to others” are only barely literate, I’m afraid. Are you sure you’re not a muslim troll wrestling with a second language?
And indeed your struggles here are reflected in what passes for your points. Do you really think that because the US has nuclear weapons we should allow them to everyone on the principle of fairness? I’m interested – if indeed I can decipher your reply.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 9:33 am
sonic and toms. You are right about what happenned when the order was granted and production began. My point is that one of the designers at North American had worked in Germany, I suspect at Messerschmidt. I’ll do some research as it annoys mne I cant be more precise. However, have you noticed the simarlarity of the wing? . Also, getting something into production in 117 days I think indicates they pretty much had the design all ready to go.Also, do you really think the yanks would want it known their most successful fighter was based on a GERMAN plane?Probably why its not common knowledge.Re-engineing it made it from an average aircraft into a great aircraft. I am fortunate in that I have been for a ride in one. Best sounding engine in the world that Merlin but alas at $3000 an hour to hire I cant afford to do it very often. Need to oppress a few more workers I suppose! Oh and btw you can shove your little slurs right up your trolling arse.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 11:13 am
toms, “fairy tale?” Edgar Schmued, born in Germany 1899 , studied engineering and design in aircraft engineering firms in Germany before working in Brazil for German aircraft manufacturers. Immigrated to the USA as a refugee (jewish?)and joined North American in 1935. Appointed Chief of Preliminary Design in 1936. The actual companies Schued worked for seems murky but given the times it is possible it was suppressed(Treaty of Versaille?).His boss, James Kindelberger (President of NA) visited Heinkel and Messerschmitt in 1938. He “took notes” of both production and aircraft design.
Vote:The british when they first saw the P51 were concerned it would be mistaken for a BF 109, they were that similar. Schmued went on to design many aircraft, the Sabre series among them.
August 31st, 2006 at 11:54 am
What slurs are you referring too exactly?
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 12:10 pm
To be safer, we need the UN to place sanctions on military and nuclear tech transfer to Iran while there is no agreement. Also to state that should Iran ever acquire nuclear weapons this would be made permanent and be accompanied by more extensive sanctions.
Paulinem
“Why SPC should Iran be punished for having nuclear weapons ambitions …they dont have any yet!!”
Iran would NOT be punished by a Resolution applying sanctions ONLY IF they acquired nuclear weapons (IF they truly don’t intend to acquire them).
Thus your objection is really the application of sanctions on Iran while they are at odds with the international community on Iran’s independent nuclear enrichment (they are offered international support for all they need for nuclear power alone).
Whether this is THE appropriate move or not, on this issue it IS FAIR.
There is cause for such sanctions for Iran’s aid in the arming of Hizbollah alone. With both matters before the UN the action is the minimalist action in the collective security of Israel and to sustain peace in the region.
You say THEY (Iran) don’t want nuclear weapons, well how does one reconcile this with the mixed messages from the next Ayotollah in line to replace the current number one. Or the recent comments of their Speaker?
The priority is maintaining the peace, when this is realised disposing of most of the nuclear weapons stocks would occur.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 12:27 pm
This thread turns on whether bombing will work or not; or, alternatively, the threat of bombing in order to force Iran to accept negotiation through the UN Security Council.
While the F15 is a formidable aircraft, it does not have strategic bombing capability. To take out Iran’s nuclear installation would require heavy rock penetrating bombs. They weigh many tonnes. An F15 could probably carry one, but its performance will be restricted. Even then they may not actually do sufficient damage. Israel would only be able to deliver small numbers. Nukes would work, but I am reasonably confident Israel would not use them. The only airforce with a reasonable likelihood of success is the USAF. They have strategic bombing capability, with the aircraft each carrying several large bombs internally. Will the US act if UN negotiations fail? That is pretty hard to predict. Let’s say 50/50.
That means deterrence has to be considered. The only question then is, will it work? After all, Iran would know that if they (or a proxy) uses nuclear weapons, they will receive a nuke strike and perhaps by the US as well as Israel.
It also means asking, what would an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel look like? I guess it would be most Israeli cities since I presume the Iranian objective would be to completely destroy Israel. One bomb would not do that. What would be the response? It would be the complete destruction of Iran; every city and every military installation, the whole country. That is what MAD is all about. Israel clearly can do that, and so can the US.
That leads to the ultimate question. Is Iran (or its leadership) willing for their country to be completely destroyed, i.e. virtually no survivors? From the Israeli perspective, even a 1% or, say, 5% chance that Iran would commit suicide would justify a pre-emptive strike to take out potential capability. If they thought it was a, say, 20% chance that Iran would do so, that could even justify a nuclear pre-emptive strike.
But the problem is, how do you assess the risk that Iran will commit suicide if Iran gets the bomb(s)? Is the Iranian president’s mad statement enough?
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Iran has shown that it’s prepared to sacrifice South Lebanon, using proxy Hizbollah who are prepared to commit suicide.
Iran and Syria know they cannot take out Israel alone. I think what is much more likely than a nuclear strike against Israel is Iran raising the aggression stakes, provoking an Israeli tactical strike against Iran’s facilities, in the expectation that Arab countries will leap to Iran’s defence.
Iran is relying on creating instability and aggression against Israel. Whether Israel has the capability right now isn’t the issue: by issuing a pre-emptive strike against Syria or Iran, they will potentially provoke a massive backlash from the rest of the Middle East.
Which leaves the option of the US taking unilateral action against Iran and Syria through air strikes as the only way of dampening Iranian aggression.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 12:43 pm
An 15E can carry the GBU-28 Bunker buster. Not sure about its performance though.
Vote:fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gbu-28.htm.
sonic, toms made the comment. As for you, what can we say.
August 31st, 2006 at 1:21 pm
The real threat of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, is that then there is no restraint on their adventurism via proxy – passing on WMD warheads to Syria or Hizbollah while encouraging Palestinian groups to attack Israel and forget about peace talks. This allied to a campaign to encourage Arab nations to renew their 1948 alliances to war on Israel (which broke down after Israel acquired nuclear weapons deterrence to convention army attack).
It’s about a nuclear umbrella under which Arabs can resume the old war alliance. Iran would push the butttons of any (post US presence) Shia majority Iraq government to unite Iraq via a war against Israel. The other leg of the campaign would be to de-stablise Egypt and Jordan.
Any US withdrawal from Iraq should be from the centre and the urban south – retaining bases in the north and perhaps near the Iraq/SA/Kuwait border. This would leave the Shia government vulnerable to resistance in the centre and yet unable to unite behind a war with Israel (or threaten Kuwait/SA either) while US forces remained in these areas.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 1:54 pm
“Any US withdrawal from Iraq should be from the centre and the urban south – retaining bases in the north and perhaps near the Iraq/SA/Kuwait border. This would leave the Shia government vulnerable to resistance in the centre and yet unable to unite behind a war with Israel”
So much for that old, we are invading Iraq to free the Iraqi people canard.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 2:22 pm
Dr Mapp, I think the military power question is important, but not the only issue in whether a bombing campaign would work. Given that US could easily lend Israel refueling facilities, the bombing range isn’t really that much of an issue.
To my mind the more serious question is intelligence. Do the would-be-aggressors actually know where to strike? The intelligence failures in Iraq don’t give me any confidence that such intel is at all certain.
And the definition of ‘success’ is also important. Blowing up a nuclear reactor may have absolutely no effect on the nuclear program if Iran already has enough weapons grade material. Or they may be able to purchase it. The aggressive move would most likely be condemned by every nation on the planet apart from the US. That could be very costly for Israel diplomatically.
I don’t see bombing as a credible option, unless Iran actually doesn’t have a nuclear weapons program. Then it could serve to launch a new round of middle east war, much larger than any that has ever happened before, and surely the ‘strike’ could be claimed as a success, regardless of the truth of the matter.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 3:07 pm
sonic
I myself, only supported intervention action to protect/liberate the Kurds and southern Shia from oppression and enable an end to sanctions against the Iraqi people. I was not one who supported sending US forces into Baghdad and trying to remake Iraq. It’s up to them to want to get along and build a democracy together, no one can (or should try) force them to.
As to Bush, if the Shia government asks them to go (mission accomplished), they should of course do so (leave the centre and urban south at elast – but Kurds might welcome bases in the north and Kuwait and SA ones to the south.
Besides no one ever talked about the Iraqi democratic regme change being more important than regional peace. And nation states break up all the time (Yugoslavia, USSR, Iraq was once three provinces) of the Ottomon empire and the Kurds were promised a state before Iraq was formed)
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Well it seems reasonable to suggest that Ahmadinejad has simply learnt the object lesson from his immediate neighbour to the west, on what can happen to a nation that does NOT have WMD’s.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 6:37 pm
To be more precise
1. when under a cease-fire term of verifying destruction of WMD, allow in inspectors. Rather than pretending to be at large and dangerous to cower locals to obedience and having this cited as cease-fire term breach.
2. while UN SC Resolutions are unlikely to be enforced by the UN, if there is a Resolution the USA might enforce it unilaterally, so get in first and buy off veto support in the Security Council.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 8:01 pm
The President of Iran has negligible influence in deciding his countries military planning or foreign policy. Iran is not a democracy – it is a theocratic dictatorship. The reason President Ahmadinejad has so much spare time to spend blogging, writing letters to various leaders and baiting George W Bush is because there’s not much else for him to do. His country is run by the Council of Guardians and the Revolutionary Guard, not him.
Irans nuclear policy didn’t just spring out of nowhere in the last couple of months. It’s been an ongoing project for decades. It was begun under the government of the Shah with the US providing hardware and scientific assistance and continued after the revolution. The original architect of the Iranian bomb was Seyyed Ali Khamene’i, one of the Ayatollah Khomeinis closest advisors, and the current Supreme Leader of Iran.
The Ayatollahs were eager to develop nuclear technology because their belligerent neighbour, Saddam Hussein – who invaded Iran in 1980 and fought a war with them for eight years – was also known to be developing nuclear capabilties. This threat on their western border – which only vanished three years ago – has been Irans primary motive for their nuclear program. There are various secondary reasons, bound up with hubris and national pride.
The Council of Guardians is unlikely to attack Israel with nuclear weapons, partly because it would ensure the total annihilation of their country – they take their guardianship of the various sacred cities and tombs dotted around Iran very seriously – but also because as in many muslim nations, the existence of Israel serves a useful propaganda tool. So long as their people hate and fear the Jews they are less likely to attempt to overthrow their own loathsome dictators.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 9:32 pm
Danyl, I think that’s the first sensible thing I’ve heard someone from the ‘right’ on this site say about Iran. The same comments go for every country that has developed or is developing nuclear weapons. Those were:
-The democratically elected leadership has only token power, and really a shadowy bunch of elites has huge influence
-The decision to develop nukes is not made by individuals
-These decisions were made long ago
-The decision is primarily in response to an overwhelming and/or nuclear threat
-Secondary considerations of hubris and national pride are also big factors.
-They are unlikely to be used against another nuclear power
-It serves the interests of those in power to create a tangible enemy, preferably along completely unreasonable lines like race or religion, to divert attention from local problems.
Naturally this is a neverending cycle, because the development is threatening to neighbors. It will never stop, unless those with nukes already take the lead. Which doesn’t give me any hope when I hear that the most powerful of them is not only not stopping, but is actually developing the ones they have even further.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 9:32 pm
fejj, you said: Reid – your unvarnished anti American bias is clouding your judgement.
fejj, the fact that I, and many others, think Bush is the worst President ever, and his hubris filled administration is full of corrupt incompetent criminals, and the congress is likewise, does not make me anti-American.
If you think it does, your thinking is flawed and your judgement is clouded.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 11:45 pm
Danyl, I think that’s the first sensible thing I’ve heard someone from the ‘right’ on this site say about Iran.
hehe Ben you’ve got Danyl all wrong. He is a self-confessed leftie.
Vote:September 1st, 2006 at 5:35 am
Reid
I note your “many others” comment links to Keith Olbermann a noted far left and vehement anti Bush commentator – hardly representative of America. Just so you know – his show is one of the lowest rated cable shows on American TV. The highest rated commentator on all US television networks – you guessed it Fox New’s Bill O’Reilly and O’Reilly is a strong Bush supporter and his viewers, knowing that, still watch him in the millions. Fox consistently out rates CNN 3 to 1 and O Reilly’s audience is still larger than all his same time slot competitors COMBINED (including Keith Olbermann). I guess the TV viewers of America dont share your view.
Oh and can you please tell us which specific crimes and which specific Bush administration official have been convicted (let alone indicted) for those crimes.
As for Congress, former Republican Duke Cunningham of San Diego is doing time for taking bribes. A similar fate awaits Louisiana Democrat William Jefferson caught by the FBI with $90k cash in his freezer – bribes his aides (now co-operating with authorities) say he received from Nigerian business interests he assisted.
So maybe fejj should’ve said that you suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome instead. Yes – many on the left do think he’s the worst President in history – but many in the US think otherwise – after all he did INCREASE his vote by almost 5 million in 2004 from 2000 and was the 1st majority supported President since his father election in 1988. Clinton’s share of the popular vote was 38% and and 48% in 92 and 96 due to Ross Perot splitting the right’s votes. Perhaps you are letting your partisan world view colour your thinking.
Vote:September 1st, 2006 at 6:21 am
Two comments back to Wayne:
1) If Iran has nukes, it is not as simple as wwill they use them or not. Having a nuke will change their behaviour significantly as they will feel able to act with some impunity. Undoubtedly they will become more aggressive
2) In relation to Pakistan and India (and their nuclear campability is unwelcome incidentially) they do not wish to wipe each other out. They have a border dispute over some territory, but have fruitful relations in many other areas. I am unsure that we can use them as a model for what Iran would do.
Vote:September 1st, 2006 at 10:44 am
“Bill O’Reilly and O’Reilly is a strong Bush supporter and his viewers, knowing that, still watch him in the millions.”
Yeah, and that’s a damn scary thing, hi main form of argument is to shout over the top of people he disagrees with – I’ve even seen in repeatedly shout “shut up!” at someone who was winning an argument with him. Did you also know that 60% of fox viewers think that the US found WMDs in Iraq? Did you also know that 80% of fox viewers thought that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 plot. Such is the pathological lying that goes on with fox news.
Vote:September 1st, 2006 at 10:54 am
You will all be lefty greenies after you relise that free market capitalism is unsustainable – bring on peak oil!
Vote:September 1st, 2006 at 11:45 am
well no we won’t philip john, but good of you to look forward to a world where we cant operate basic society.
personally, once the supermarkets are all closed, I will take to eating environmentalists, that I will cook over a nice gaia warming open coal (mmm that lignite) fire.
You sound a bit like an eater.
Vote:September 1st, 2006 at 11:46 am
I think the one thing American administrations, Republican or Democrat, have come to agree on with regards to Iran over the course of the last ten years is that the status quo is unacceptable. In other words, the current situation, in which European companies, Chinese companies, Indian companies, Japanese companies, etc. are free to sign big commercial deals with Iran, energy sector or otherwise, but U.S. companies are only allowed to sit idly by and watch, is something which the military-industrial complex has come to view as intolerable. Is it any coincidence that the current flurry of activity with regards to Iran — and in my view, the present flurry of activity began about ten years ago — coincides with the planning of several massive (100 billion dollar plus) projects such as the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline, or the LNG projects under study between Iran, China, and Japan? Both the Clinton and Bush administrations have tried to find sollutions to the, “unacceptable status quo,” either by reaching a, “grand bargain” with Iran and ending American sanctions, or through the use of military force. In my view, I doubt big-business cares one way or the other, they just want to do deals with Iran. At this point, it seems unlikely that the, “grand bargain” scenario will ever come back to the forefront, even with a new administration, which leaves the military option. Iraq seems to have scared everyone away from this option though, since what’s the point of spending half-a-trillion dollars taking over a country if they’re just going to backstab you and insist on forming an independent government anyway? That’s no good. No one wanted that. So now this third scenario seems to have emerged, this completely ridiculous third scenario, in which the U.S. is supposedly going to, “pressure” the rest of the world to, “join us,” in imposing sanctions on Iran. China and Russia have already made it very clear that they don’t want anything to do with it. Japan says they won’t agree to any sanctions having to do with Iran’s oil or natural gas industries. The European countries are playing a double game. It’s laughable. Iran, meanwhile, has reached out very effectively to the global communtity. Pole after pole shows that the enormous majority of human beings on this planet believe that the U.S. is far more of a threat to global stability than Iran (Is it any wonder?). Admanidejad is one of the most respected and admired leaders on Earth. Even the long-held Iranian belief that the U.S. is the great Satan has come to be seen as almost moderate. You’d be hard-pressed to find someone that doesn’t believe that these days. To make a long story short, people have woken up. The remarkably short-lived American Empire is drawing to a close. Bin Laden’s stated stragtegy is that for every $1000 he spends, he forces the U.S. to spend a billion. It’s a great strategy. Very smart. The European’s elaborated a strategy at the beginning of the Iraq war whereby they would refuse to contribute a penny, thus draining the U.S. of wealth and preventing us from launching more wars in the future. Another great strategy. Overwhelmingly successful. The Iraqi’s, even in the face of the carnage of the American invasion, elaborated a strategy, with the help of Iran, Europe, and the rest of the world, whereby they would come out of this period of incredible suffering with an independent government. They achieved it. The world is united, but not against Iran. Look for the U.S. to continue searching for solutions for, “the Iran problem,” just don’t expect them to find any, because there aren’t any, military or otherwise. Meanwhile, expect the rest of the world to contine forward with their complex, adaptable, multi-faceted, and wildly-successful strategy to put an end to the American Empire.
Vote:September 1st, 2006 at 12:06 pm
re Danyl’s last post – something we don’t know is the clerics’ bottom line. It’s possible that the issue is just a bargining tool.
One overlooked issue is that this is a test for the Nuclear Non-Prolifcation Treaty and the ability of the international community via the UN to control nuclear weapons. If the UN fails with Iran then that does not bode and other countries are bound to follow.
Just because the US is against Iran getting the bomb doesn’t mean that there aren’t good reasons for the centre left to have the same view.
Vote:September 1st, 2006 at 12:22 pm
“Just because the US is against Iran getting the bomb doesn’t mean that there aren’t good reasons for the centre left to have the same view.”
bingo – both National and Labour support NZ’s anti-nuclear legislation. Why anyone in NZ thinks they should support Iran’s “rights” in this area is beyond me.
Which is different, of course, from supporting the hyped rhetoric eminating from both the USA and Iran.
Vote:September 1st, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Philip John
Sigh – a genuine nutty died in the wool socialist greenie complete with oil conspiracy theories. Where does one begin.
The only nations that admire and respect Admanidejad are Iran’s proxy states like Syria and the largely Hezbollah dominated Lebanon plus the usual rouge states like Cuba and Venezuela – perhaps states that PJ admires, respects and wishes the west were more like (ie no free press, no trade unions, no/near extinct opposition political parties and progressively impoverished citizens) because socialism as we know is oh so effective and efficient at delivering wealth to the masses.
Cite us the genuine scientifically conducted polls (not poles) supervised by reputable polling organisations in mainstream western democracies (not internet polls on CNN) that show “the enomous majority of human beings” that think that the US is more of a threat to global stability than Iran.
Maybe in your little Green Party touchy feely encounter groups everyone thinks America is actually the great Satan and its Empire (sic) is about to collapse. Fortunately that is not a view shared by almost the whole world.
Oh and since I missed the last issue of “Socialist International” or “Workers of the World Unite” could PJ please enlighten us on this “complex, adaptable, multi-faceted, and wildly-successful strategy to put an end to the American Empire”. Oh I forgot – of course peak oil!!!
Vote:September 1st, 2006 at 11:42 pm
kiwi in america: Wealth isn’t everything. And capitalism’s hardly doing a great job of delivering basic needs (let alone wealth) anything near equitably or efficiently to said masses.
BTW, have a read of this before dissing peak oil so casually. The concept is maturing from the early overhyped doom days, and surprising people are taking it seriously. I’m not saying you should take it on faith – just that you should investigate it before writing it off on what may be purely ideological grounds. It could be important, y’know – what if they’re right?
Oh, and to get back to the topic – I’m disapointed that no-one even tried to honestly explain why they’re prepared to apply different standards of evidence to Ahmedinejad’s comments than they do to others, particularly as a war may be at stake. Please? I’m sincerely interested in what the thinking is behind this, as it really looks like a Monty Python witch trial to me.
Vote:September 2nd, 2006 at 5:40 am
K1
Show me an economic system other than capitalism and a country that has operated that system that has clearly demonstrated an ability to generate higher living standards to the most people. There isn’t one. Look at all the countries in the world with the highest standards of living – Sweden, Switzerland, the US etc. They are all capitalist economies – yes there are undoubtedly flaws in all those countries but you cannot deny the results over time. Look at the countries that actually try to fully implement socialism – Cuba, North Korea, Albania (under the previous regime) – all have vast impoverished masses in their ‘utopia’.
As for peak oil, I have this contribution to make. Currently in my role as a financial broker I am advising a small US oil exploration company that has found oil in a 74,000 acre site in the continental US (ie not Alaska or in the Gulf of Mexico). I have seen the 3 D seismic test results and the expert geological test results from preliminary drilling. The anticlines (the folds of rock in which oil/gas settle) are so numerous and large that this will be the largest oil find in the continental US since the late 1920s. The estimated reservoir of hydrocarbons is approximately 1 billion barrels of oil that can be extracted in about 2 years from now by the time all the necessary holes are drilled and lasting for approximately 30 years. There are no caribou or near extinct owls that will be disturbed for all the tree huggers to get their knickers in knot over – just vacant barely used marginal land. The most recent US Geological Survey estimates of 7.7 billion barrels of remaining recoverable oil in the ANWR reserve in Alaska. You are probably wondering why this oil was not discovered previously – it is because a thin layer of sedimentary rock separates the surface rock from the actual anticlines and only modern exploration technology has enable the geologists to see beneath such rock. I have no doubt that the same technology will assist oil companies in further successful exploration in other locations around the globe.
Such finds will not resolve the long term issue of hydro carbon dependency but they will provide sufficient for the needs of the world’s economies until developments in automotive and other engine technology enables the world to obtain its primary energy needs from non extractable sources such as oil.
I refer you Greenies to former Greenie Bjorn Lomborg’s book “The Skeptical Environmentalist where he tracks and debunks a range of ‘the sky is falling on our heads’ scare tactics from the environmental lobby groups of which peak oil is but one of many.
Vote:September 2nd, 2006 at 10:23 am
kiwi in america: I’m wary of enhancing my reputation as being a one-issue threadjacker, so don’t want to spend too much time on this here. I’m not saying “capitalism bad, socialism good”, nor “OMG peak oil is the end of the world”. The issues are a bit more complex than that.
My initial point was in response to your para about hardly anyone admiring and respecting Iran because socialism isn’t good at delivering wealth to the masses. I don’t admire Iran, but I do have sufficient respect to grant them the right to construct a society that is quite different to what I would create. I recognise that they (like Cuba) may have different values that don’t include the endless pursuit of ever greater wealth (what’s the point, when it’s a game you can’t win?) Note, wealth isn’t the provision of basic needs. If all you value is more wealth, then capitalism is great – for some. I just find it hard to settle for something so, well, dumb. I have no desire to be more wealthy (and by local standards, I’m not particularly) – yet life will undoubtedly be too short for me to achieve all the things I do want to do.
All countries have issues – I’d suggest Cuba and Iran aren’t complete basket cases (NK may well be), neither are the US or UK, but none are perfect, as we agree. I’m interested to see what emerges from the mix of political and economic systems that is going on in China and Russia – they may be better models for the future. But, you’ll note I live in a capitalist society (by choice). This doesn’t mean I can’t see significant flaws and be open to considering ways that improvements could be made by hybridising “socialist” and “capitalist” ideas. It’s not a black and white issue. You’re coming across as being the typical “my team is better than your team” ideologue that is frequently found here.
PO isn’t incompatible with finding new fields or technologies (although 1b bbl is fairly big by recent discovery standards, it’s not a game-changer). It’s really about what adaptations we need to make to our societal systems in response to resource shortages, and whether current market-driven mechanisms are indeed the best way to achieve these. Will we change and adapt to a peak in the near future (assuming there will be one for this discussion)? – Yes, undoubtedly, and to varying degrees, like we always do. But what’s the likely path that change will follow (varies by locality), and what behaviours should we be encouraging now to optimise the change? How is this best achieved?
BTW I’ve read Lomborg. He has some good points but his arguments aren’t solid enough to be persuasive in most cases and it’s clear from rudimentary research that his data is selective. (The same applies to many green zealots, of course).
Still no answers about why there’s all this selective quoting going on about Mr A’s alleged “wipe out Israel” comments? Why is that?
Vote:September 2nd, 2006 at 10:42 am
New major find = 1000mbbl.
Current oil consumption = 85mbbl/day
How many days does this new discovery provide?
Vote:September 2nd, 2006 at 10:43 am
K1
Agreed on oil – alot of money in the US is being poured into researching alternative energy sources and I have no doubts it will pay off. In 50 years time, oil is unlikely to have the primacy it now has.
About Lomborg, most of the studies he cites seem to be large and reputable (some even by UN agencies). He is really saying the media largely swallow the environmental lobby groups version of events unquestioningly and create a wave of inaccurate and exaggerated claims. He has dealt to several sacred cows (eg acid rain) and casts aspersions over the distorted reporting of others (eg global warming).
Further discussion on capitalism vs other genres is, as you say, not appropriate on this thread. I was reacting more to phillip johns irrational rants. My contention however stands – capitalism, whilst an imperfect mechanism, still delivers more wealth to more people.
On Admanidejad we must agree to disagree. He has made repeated public statements to wipe Israel off the map. There’s no selective quoting – just because he may be a little less blunt when writing to Angela Merkle. Iran’s proxy Hezbollah also has constantly, relentlessly and publicly stated the same thing. Arab nations surrounding Israel (before the various peace treaties) also not only said the same thing but attempted on four occasions (1948, 1956, 1976 and 1973) to do exactly that – wipe out Israel. Israel, of necessity, did and still does what is necessary to protect its people and will do the same with the Iranian threat.
Vote:September 2nd, 2006 at 11:11 am
“On Admanidejad we must agree to disagree. He has made repeated public statements to wipe Israel off the map.”
Please provide a credible source (not derived from the initial NYT report) that supports this statement. And what do you think about the recent “no threat to anybody” comments? That’s the selective quoting to which I refer.
Vote:September 2nd, 2006 at 12:46 pm
K1
“All the conditions for the removal of the Zionist regime are at hand,” 10 July 06 Israel National News
Anti-Zionism conference in Tehran last October was first reported by Al Jazeera 26 October 2006
“The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world. The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land,” he said. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,”
27 Sep 04 AFP reported “During a military parade last week, Iran showed off its range of ballistic missiles draped in banners vowing to “crush America” and “wipe Israel off the map”. “The Shahab-3 missiles, with different ranges, enables us to destroy the most distant targets,” said an official commentary accompanying the parade, which was carried live on state television.
23 July 06 AP reported: Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declared Sunday that Israel had “pushed the button of its own destruction”
3 for starters – watch this space.
Vote:September 2nd, 2006 at 4:57 pm
K1 – I can add a few more to the list that ‘kiwi in america’ has started.
“Wiping out the Zionist regime is not just a religious and national obligation but is a human and communal responsiblity that no Muslim and liberal person can avoid…there is no country called Israel in the world’s political geography” Hossein Shariatmadari,editor of the Iranian daily ‘Kayhan’, July 17 2006.
“Jews are real enemies and the world without Jews is peace, beauty, justice and prosperity for human beings” Dr Satia Lubris, lecturer at North Sumatra University, Indonesia, July 20, 2006.
“All our thoughts and prayers are with God to help the Muslims smash the Jewish aggressors and pour fire and brimstone on their heads” Islamic website, Dagestan, August 3 2006.
“Every child, woman and elderly person is in danger of being annihilated by the blood sucking beast called Israel” Columnist Hadija Muhammad, Syrian daily ‘Tishreen’, August 9 2006.
That is only a selection of what I have read….plenty more where they cam from.
Notice how our Lefty MSM won’t publish any of these quotes eminating out of the Middle East and our neighbour Indonesia. Can’t have Muslims looking like racist, anti-Semitic monocultural bigots can we now?
Vote:September 2nd, 2006 at 4:59 pm
K1 – I can add a few more to the list that ‘kiwi in america’ has started.
“Wiping out the Zionist regime is not just a religious and national obligation but is a human and communal responsiblity that no Muslim and liberal person can avoid…there is no country called Israel in the world’s political geography” Hossein Shariatmadari,editor of the Iranian daily ‘Kayhan’, July 17 2006.
“Jews are real enemies and the world without Jews is peace, beauty, justice and prosperity for human beings” Dr Satia Lubris, lecturer at North Sumatra University, Indonesia, July 20, 2006.
“All our thoughts and prayers are with God to help the Muslims smash the Jewish aggressors and pour fire and brimstone on their heads” Islamic website, Dagestan, August 3 2006.
“Every child, woman and elderly person is in danger of being annihilated by the blood sucking beast called Israel” Columnist Hadija Muhammad, Syrian daily ‘Tishreen’, August 9 2006.
That is only a selection of what I have read….plenty more where they cam from.
Notice how our Lefty MSM won’t publish any of these quotes eminating out of the Middle East and our neighbour Indonesia. Can’t have Muslims looking like racist, anti-Semitic monocultural bigots can we now?
Vote:September 2nd, 2006 at 5:22 pm
“It is forbidden to be merciful to them. You must send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable”
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef on the Arabs
April 2001
“The 6 million Holocaust victims were reincarnations of the souls of sinners, people who transgressed and did all sorts of things that should not be done. They had been reincarnated in order to atone”
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef on the Holocaust
August 2000
I doubt either of these stories were covered by our local media here either. There are a lot of crazy people in the Middle East, and not all of them are Arabs.
Vote:September 2nd, 2006 at 6:43 pm
Given that K1 asked specifically for quotes from Ahmadinejad, these additional ones are off-topic. And, what Danyl said. When it comes to demented statements that never made the local papers, how about: “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”
Vote:September 2nd, 2006 at 6:56 pm
You leftists can never play with a straight bat can you Milt? You know very well it was said in jest, yet you post it here amongst those quotations said with serious intent, and you don’t offer one word of clarification. Just one more example of the same old same old stinking cowardly deceit that typifies the writings of socialists..
Vote:September 2nd, 2006 at 8:16 pm
Of course people are taking peak oil seriously (but they don’t know how to manage the transition without ending the free market).
As for the Greenhouse Effect while the right downplays it, Pentagon types like Andrew Marshall regard it as the major issue for global security (managing regional instability resulting). While he maybe exploiting the issue to sustain a global security position (maybe as much for energy reasons – either oil supply to the market or in a world post peak oil), this is still a “risk management” position. That shows it is being taken seriously (with oil supply/peak oil instability) by the Pentagon.
Vote:September 2nd, 2006 at 8:37 pm
K1, Russia and China are two of the most polluted nations of earth, they are not of our future, but of our “corrupt” past. Neither as a valid media, or the checks on government that we would expect of any power we would want having much of a say on our future.
As for Iran and the statements which come out of this nation, there is a pattern of reckless bravado, tempered by a subsequent moderation. This is a tactic of double speak, designed to both provoke and then obstruct any reaction. It’s like they are softening up their “reactionary” audience to cry wolf, then have “appeasers” cite the subsequent apologetics in negation. For what purpose is this orchestration going on? So those who cry wolf tire of it or people tire of hearing this. Then what?
Vote:September 2nd, 2006 at 10:18 pm
4 from k-i-a, and 4 from sally:
kia 1: Close. He doesn’t like Israel, and wants it to be removed from the ME. Has suggested to Europe, or the US, as I recall. Yes this isn’t terribly useful or practical, and just ain’t gonna happen. No it doesn’t mean he’s a genocidal maniac we gotta nuke. Not news either – Iran has vehemently been opposed to Israel since about 1979 as I recall. Israel doesn’t exactly love Iran, either. (Some interesting bits in the rest of the speech, though. Will read further).
kia 2: This is a rehash of the possible mistranslation from Oct 2005.
kia 3: Part of “Sacred Defense Week” – not a boast of impending genocide. Be interesting to get some opinion of the original translation in this early case too, given the questions around the Oct 2005 occurrence revolve around the phrase not having any direct meaning in Farsi.
kia 4: Saying that Israel “cannot end the business that they have begun” sounds to me that he’s just trash-talking them to boost Hezbollah during the war. Says the people of the region will respond. Close to the same time, the chairman of the army joint chiefs said that Iran would never join the current fighting.
sally 1-4: Quotes from a newspaper editor, a lecturer, an “Islamic website” and a columnist (not Ahmadinejad, who we were discussing) only proves that there are arabs that hate Zionism, Israel, and jews. Gee, that’s a surprise. Hardly the confirmation of clear and present danger from official Iranian policy I was looking for, though, you must admit. As Danyl’s point shows, there are some nutty jewish sources, too.
Look, there’s a lot of craziness in that part of the world, and there has been for a long time. None of the parties involved are anything close to squeaky clean, Mr A is a shit-stirrer for a range of reasons, Israel, Hamas, and Hezbollah (and many others) are all guilty of heinous activities, and no-one can agree on which is action and which is retaliation. It’s not the first time we’ve seen this in the world, and I’d suggest most similar cases that end fairly well involve a period of reconciliation and acknowledgement of the other side’s rights. Some balance. Repeating the “Iran is dangerous” meme isn’t going to bring peace to the ME. Repeating the “death to America/Israel” meme isn’t either. I’m just advising a moderate approach to the issue.
Suggesting consequences only if nuclear weapons are developed in Iran (as had been floated above) is a much more sensible starting position than sanctions unless enrichment is stopped. Of course, for any real chance of peace on a larger scale getting Israel to sign the NNPT and begin nuclear disarmament would be required too.
What would you do if you were in Ahmadinejad’s position? How well would you sleep at night?
Vote:September 2nd, 2006 at 10:53 pm
Redbaiter (much though you should always just be ignored, I just can’t this time): “in jest” my arse.
SPC: I don’t want us to emulate Russia and China as is. But I don’t think the US/UK are the pinnacle of civilisation either. I’m interested to see what good things may come from the mix of systems in Russia and China once the dust setles.
“For what purpose is this orchestration going on?” Not sure I understand your point. What else can they do? They don’t have the option to roll over and play dead. They’re increasingly under threat. They’re quietly cosying up to their big friends (Russia and China), being very visibly friendly to similar ideologies (Venezuela), and running a lot of rah-rah, “bring it on”/oil weapon propaganda at home to keep the populace confident and distracted. They’re being looked to for leadership in the Muslim world – perhaps everyone else took a step back and they volunteered. They’re a very different society to most western models, probably quite proud of what they have, don’t admire the west for religious and political ideology reasons, and want to keep what they have – probably see it as a better model and would want to see the model adopted by others. They’re in a weaker position militarily (who isn’t, when compared to the US), and may be thinking of nukes to even things up. But they may also be telling the truth when they say they aren’t. There are about a million ways to approach this that will deliver a better outcome than threatening them further.
In short, I don’t think there is enough evidence they’re metaphorically about to invade Poland, and the govt and media actions in the west aren’t nearly defensible (yet). The aggression is unwarranted, not useful, and frankly, immature. A war in the ME is probably the most unwinnable – so why don’t we skip the idiotic stage and go direct to working out a solution like adults?
Vote:September 3rd, 2006 at 7:10 am
someone earlier on mentioned neo-con fantasies..
how’s this from local fantasist zen tiger..?
“..I think Israel has sent a strong message to Hezbollah that next time around things may not go so easy for them…”
(i mean..tee-hee..!..eh..?
and sideshow bob said (re danyl mcl..)
“.Has this man had coaching?. His rantings are somewhat similar as …(others..and Phil u…?..”
yeah…
in that he’s quite good/effective at using the ‘humour mirror’ as a weapon to puncture the political pretensions/posings/posturings of you lot..?
yeah..i can see your point..
(and thanks for the back-handed compliment..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 3rd, 2006 at 11:58 am
Well Redbaiter, let me offer some clarification then, in the interests of playing with a straight bat.
The comment I quoted is in this column. Readers can assess for themselves the supposed comic intent of the piece – it certainly isn’t apparent to me.
It wasn’t apparent to the editors of the National Review either, who dropped Coulter’s column because of it. You can read their statement here.
Is that clarification enough for you? Feel free to elaborate on your own interesting theory that it was written “in jest”.
Vote:January 9th, 2007 at 2:29 am
Basically nothing seems worth thinking about. I haven’t been up to much these days. I just don’t have much to say right now. I can’t be bothered with anything , but whatever.
Vote:February 7th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
I can’t be bothered with anything these days, but such is life. I don’t care. So it goes. More or less nothing seems worth thinking about. I’ve just been hanging out waiting for something to happen, but that’s how it is.
Vote:February 27th, 2007 at 9:37 am
I’ve just been staying at home not getting anything done. I’ve basically been doing nothing worth mentioning. My life’s been pretty unremarkable these days. Eh.
Vote:March 2nd, 2007 at 3:59 am
Basically nothing seems worth thinking about. I haven’t been up to much these days. I just don’t have much to say right now. I can’t be bothered with anything , but whatever.
Vote:March 14th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
I haven’t been up to much these days. Today was a loss. Nothing seems important. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me these days.
Vote:April 1st, 2007 at 5:04 am
I just don’t have anything to say , but shrug. So it goes. Not much on my mind recently. I can’t be bothered with anything recently.
Vote:April 2nd, 2007 at 6:54 pm
I haven’t gotten anything done recently. I’ve just been hanging out doing nothing. I haven’t been up to anything these days, but it’s not important. Today was a total loss.
Vote:April 4th, 2007 at 9:34 am
I just don’t have much to say recently. Such is life. I’ve basically been doing nothing. Basically nothing seems worth bothering with. Oh well.
Vote:April 5th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
My life’s been pretty dull recently. Shrug. My mind is like a void. I haven’t gotten anything done lately. I can’t be bothered with anything recently.
Vote:April 7th, 2007 at 6:15 am
I just don’t have much to say recently. Such is life. I’ve basically been doing nothing. Basically nothing seems worth bothering with. Oh well.
Vote:April 8th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
I can’t be bothered with anything these days, but such is life. I don’t care. So it goes. More or less nothing seems worth thinking about. I’ve just been hanging out waiting for something to happen, but that’s how it is.
Vote:April 10th, 2007 at 5:04 am
Not much on my mind these days, but what can I say? It’s not important. I just don’t have much to say lately. I’ve just been letting everything pass me by recently, but eh.
Vote:April 11th, 2007 at 5:32 am
Not much on my mind these days, but what can I say? It’s not important. I just don’t have much to say lately. I’ve just been letting everything pass me by recently, but eh.
Vote:April 11th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
I can’t be bothered with anything these days, but shrug. I just don’t have anything to say recently. I haven’t gotten much done recently. Nothing seems worth thinking about.
Vote:April 12th, 2007 at 2:44 am
Not much on my mind right now, but it’s not important. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me. I just don’t have anything to say right now.
Vote:April 12th, 2007 at 11:32 am
I’ve more or less been doing nothing worth mentioning, but eh. My life’s been really bland today. I don’t care. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me these days. That’s how it is.
Vote:April 12th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
retty much nothing seems worth thinking about. My life’s been completely dull , not that it matters. I’ve just been staying at home waiting for something to happen.
Vote:April 13th, 2007 at 4:21 am
I’ve just been staying at home waiting for something to happen. Whatever. Not much on my mind lately. I guess it doesn’t bother me.
Vote:April 13th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I just don’t have anything to say right now. I haven’t been up to anything recently, but it’s not important. I’ve just been sitting around waiting for something to happen, but shrug.
Vote:April 13th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
I feel like a complete blank, but I don’t care. Pfft. I’ve pretty much been doing nothing worth mentioning.
Vote:April 14th, 2007 at 6:06 am
I haven’t been up to anything recently, but so it goes. Such is life. What can I say? Pretty much not much exciting going on to speak of. I haven’t gotten much done lately, but I don’t care.
Vote:April 14th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
My life’s been basically bland today. More or less nothing seems worth thinking about. My mind is like an empty room. I’ve more or less been doing nothing to speak of. Not much on my mind recently.
Vote:April 15th, 2007 at 10:23 am
I just don’t have anything to say right now. I haven’t been up to anything recently, but it’s not important. I’ve just been sitting around waiting for something to happen, but shrug.
Vote:April 15th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Not much on my mind. I don’t care. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me , but shrug. Whatever. I feel like a void.
Vote:April 16th, 2007 at 4:32 am
I haven’t been up to much these days. Today was a loss. Nothing seems important. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me these days.
Vote:April 16th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Not much on my mind these days, but what can I say? It’s not important. I just don’t have much to say lately. I’ve just been letting everything pass me by recently, but eh.
Vote:April 16th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
I just don’t have anything to say , but shrug. So it goes. Not much on my mind recently. I can’t be bothered with anything recently.
Vote:April 16th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Basically nothing seems worth thinking about. I haven’t been up to much these days. I just don’t have much to say right now. I can’t be bothered with anything , but whatever.
Vote:April 17th, 2007 at 5:13 am
Not much on my mind lately. My life’s been completely boring these days. I’ve just been hanging out not getting anything done. So it goes.
Vote:April 17th, 2007 at 8:52 am
I can’t be bothered with anything these days, but such is life. I don’t care. So it goes. More or less nothing seems worth thinking about. I’ve just been hanging out waiting for something to happen, but that’s how it is.
Vote:April 17th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
I’ve just been staying at home not getting anything done. I’ve basically been doing nothing worth mentioning. My life’s been pretty unremarkable these days. Eh.
Vote:April 17th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
My mind is like a bunch of nothing, but I guess it doesn’t bother me. I haven’t been up to anything recently. I’ve pretty much been doing nothing to speak of.
Vote:April 18th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
I can’t be bothered with anything these days, but such is life. I don’t care. So it goes. More or less nothing seems worth thinking about. I’ve just been hanging out waiting for something to happen, but that’s how it is.
Vote:April 18th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
I can’t be bothered with anything these days, but shrug. I just don’t have anything to say recently. I haven’t gotten much done recently. Nothing seems worth thinking about.
Vote:April 18th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
I’ve just been staying at home waiting for something to happen. Whatever. Not much on my mind lately. I guess it doesn’t bother me.
Vote:April 18th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
retty much nothing seems worth thinking about. My life’s been completely dull , not that it matters. I’ve just been staying at home waiting for something to happen.
Vote:April 19th, 2007 at 1:05 am
I just don’t have much to say recently. Such is life. I’ve basically been doing nothing. Basically nothing seems worth bothering with. Oh well.
Vote:April 19th, 2007 at 8:28 am
I just don’t have much to say recently. Such is life. I’ve basically been doing nothing. Basically nothing seems worth bothering with. Oh well.
Vote:April 19th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Not much on my mind these days, but what can I say? It’s not important. I just don’t have much to say lately. I’ve just been letting everything pass me by recently, but eh.
Vote:April 19th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
I feel like an empty room, but eh. Nothing seems worth doing. I haven’t gotten much done today.
Vote:April 19th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
I’ve just been staying at home not getting anything done. I guess it doesn’t bother me. Shrug. I haven’t been up to anything. I haven’t gotten much done today.
Vote:April 20th, 2007 at 12:30 am
I haven’t been up to anything recently, but so it goes. Such is life. What can I say? Pretty much not much exciting going on to speak of. I haven’t gotten much done lately, but I don’t care.
Vote:April 20th, 2007 at 4:50 am
I can’t be bothered with anything these days, but shrug. I just don’t have anything to say recently. I haven’t gotten much done recently. Nothing seems worth thinking about.
Vote:April 20th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
I just don’t have anything to say right now. I haven’t been up to anything recently, but it’s not important. I’ve just been sitting around waiting for something to happen, but shrug.
Vote:April 20th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
I haven’t been up to anything these days. So it goes. I can’t be bothered with anything these days.
Vote:April 20th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
I’ve just been staying at home waiting for something to happen. Whatever. Not much on my mind lately. I guess it doesn’t bother me.
Vote:April 20th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
I can’t be bothered with anything these days, but such is life. I don’t care. So it goes. More or less nothing seems worth thinking about. I’ve just been hanging out waiting for something to happen, but that’s how it is.
Vote:April 21st, 2007 at 8:13 am
I just don’t have anything to say right now. I haven’t been up to anything recently, but it’s not important. I’ve just been sitting around waiting for something to happen, but shrug.
Vote:April 21st, 2007 at 5:42 pm
I haven’t been up to anything recently, but so it goes. Such is life. What can I say? Pretty much not much exciting going on to speak of. I haven’t gotten much done lately, but I don’t care.
Vote:April 21st, 2007 at 11:29 pm
I haven’t gotten anything done recently. I’ve just been hanging out doing nothing. I haven’t been up to anything these days, but it’s not important. Today was a total loss.
Vote:April 22nd, 2007 at 3:13 am
I’ve more or less been doing nothing worth mentioning, but eh. My life’s been really bland today. I don’t care. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me these days. That’s how it is.
Vote:April 22nd, 2007 at 11:29 am
I haven’t been up to much these days. Today was a loss. Nothing seems important. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me these days.
Vote:April 22nd, 2007 at 12:48 pm
I haven’t been up to anything today. I don’t care. I’ve just been staying at home not getting anything done. Basically not much happening right now. Maybe tomorrow. I guess it doesn’t bother me.
Vote:April 22nd, 2007 at 6:45 pm
I haven’t been up to much lately. I’ve basically been doing nothing , but it’s not important. I can’t be bothered with anything recently. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me lately.
Vote:April 22nd, 2007 at 11:13 pm
My life’s been basically bland today. More or less nothing seems worth thinking about. My mind is like an empty room. I’ve more or less been doing nothing to speak of. Not much on my mind recently.
Vote:April 23rd, 2007 at 3:38 am
I haven’t gotten anything done today. I feel like a fog, but what can I say? I’ve just been letting everything wash over me lately, not that it matters. Shrug.
Vote:April 23rd, 2007 at 11:28 am
I’ve just been hanging out not getting anything done. What can I say? I’ve basically been doing nothing worth mentioning, but pfft. Not that it matters. Pretty much nothing exciting happening to speak of. I haven’t been up to much these days.
Vote:April 24th, 2007 at 2:21 am
I just don’t have much to say recently. Such is life. I’ve basically been doing nothing. Basically nothing seems worth bothering with. Oh well.
Vote:April 24th, 2007 at 6:48 am
retty much nothing seems worth thinking about. My life’s been completely dull , not that it matters. I’ve just been staying at home waiting for something to happen.
Vote:April 24th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Not much on my mind these days, but what can I say? It’s not important. I just don’t have much to say lately. I’ve just been letting everything pass me by recently, but eh.
Vote:April 24th, 2007 at 11:25 am
I haven’t been up to much today. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me. Basically nothing seems worth bothering with. I’ve just been hanging out doing nothing. I just don’t have anything to say right now. More or less nothing happening.
Vote:April 24th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
I just don’t have anything to say , but shrug. So it goes. Not much on my mind recently. I can’t be bothered with anything recently.
Vote:April 25th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Not much on my mind right now, but it’s not important. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me. I just don’t have anything to say right now.
Vote:April 25th, 2007 at 6:53 am
I feel like an empty room, but eh. Nothing seems worth doing. I haven’t gotten much done today.
Vote:April 25th, 2007 at 10:57 am
I can’t be bothered with anything these days, but such is life. I don’t care. So it goes. More or less nothing seems worth thinking about. I’ve just been hanging out waiting for something to happen, but that’s how it is.
Vote:April 25th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
I’ve just been staying at home not getting anything done. I’ve basically been doing nothing worth mentioning. My life’s been pretty unremarkable these days. Eh.
Vote:April 26th, 2007 at 12:18 am
I haven’t been up to anything these days. So it goes. I can’t be bothered with anything these days.
Vote:April 26th, 2007 at 6:25 am
Not much on my mind these days, but what can I say? It’s not important. I just don’t have much to say lately. I’ve just been letting everything pass me by recently, but eh.
Vote:April 26th, 2007 at 11:59 am
retty much nothing seems worth thinking about. My life’s been completely dull , not that it matters. I’ve just been staying at home waiting for something to happen.
Vote:April 26th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
I haven’t been up to much these days. Today was a loss. Nothing seems important. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me these days.
Vote: