“We do not have this phenomenon”
September 27th, 2007 at 5:58 am by David FarrarI have to give kudos to Columba University for not giving the kid gloves treatment to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As Liberty Scott reports he was given a deservedly tough time.
There is a tendency to romanticise and overlook the flaws of foes of the United States, because one may disagree with US policy towards that country. But one exchange served well to remind us of how bad things are.
Ahmadinejad was asked about the treatment of homosexuals in Iran and replied
“In Iran we don’t have homosexuals like in your country,”
“In Iran we do not have this phenomenon, I don’t know who has told you that we have it,”
They certainly do their best to make this statement come true by executing homosexuals. Of course they also execute female victims of rape. Yes the victims.
September 27th, 2007 at 6:13 am
“In Iran we don’t have homosexuals like in your country,”
I hear the GOP has shoulder tapped him to run for Congress in Utah.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 6:39 am
Ha ha ha ha.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 6:50 am
dpf..do you have some/any evidence of a standard practice in iran of the execution of (female) victims of rape..?
or was that one just plucked from a convenient orifice..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 6:55 am
Phil, try Googling “Iran Rape Victims”. Plenty to see there, and not a DPF orifice in sight.
Vote:G
September 27th, 2007 at 7:26 am
Grant, most of the articles I found were about Nazanin Fatehi who was convicted for killing one of her would be rapists but later exonerated, there were articles about a 16 year old in 2004 who was stoned to death after getting pregrant by her brother.
The law seems to say that if it was nonconsensual ie. she resisted or was forced, the woman has not not commited a crime. But it looks like she has to convince the court of her innocence.
Given the widespread assumption in the West that the man is guilty, well
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Hi Andrew. You’re right, that search leads to a few stories about Nazanin Fatehi, but if you have the time cast your net a bit wider and there are certainly plenty of articles regarding this theme, which isn’t I must add in fairness, exclusive to Iran. There are also plenty of links to articles where people who here would be considered victims of rape, have been lashed for illicit sex in Iran.
Vote:But in my view anywhere that makes sex outside marriage illegal and can impose capital punishment for it is a)somewhere to be avoided, and b) somewhere to be held up for public scrutiny and ridicule.
Also Phil, I’m struggling to find the bit in the orginal post about the execution of rape victim being a standard practice.
G
September 27th, 2007 at 8:05 am
“There is a tendency to romanticise and overlook the flaws of foes of the United States”
True of the left, the opposite is true of the right. Any flaw is exaggerated into gigantic proportions, The fact is that Bush and Osama have both proved themselves to be very good at killing people. As far as I know Ahmadinejad’s body count is still pretty modest.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 8:10 am
I was thinking the Republicans should run the President in Idaho where their toilet cruising Senator has trouble controlling his foot in a toilet booth. But Democary has this way of permitting a country to renew itself bloodlessly. Like the Bush era will soon be closed and America can renew itself especially over Iraq. The US is still the best of the best. For instance Helen Clark goes on about the Amercanisation of Health but that system still results in developing most of the new advances in health and her precious socialised system can simply free-load off.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 8:12 am
““There is a tendency to romanticise and overlook the flaws of foes of the United States”
You mean like when the media was telling us that Saddam was the new Hitler bent on blowing up the world, or today when it is Ahmadinejad who is, er, the new Hitler bent on blowing up the world.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 8:25 am
um..grant..
what is ‘unfindable’ about dpf saying..?
“..Of course they also execute female victims of rape. Yes the victims..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 8:28 am
I heard on the TV this morning that he was kind of misquoted – at least his intention. He was trying to say there is no “gay” culture like there is in the US and that any persons with same sex inclinations would be underground.
Vote:It’s all about how something is translated, they said.
September 27th, 2007 at 8:29 am
in fact..the more i think about this one..dpf..
it seems you have set a new benchmark in (in)credibility..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 8:33 am
Umm Phil, speaking of credibility, still cant find where you reckon DPF said it was standard practice as per:
Vote:‘dpf..do you have some/any evidence of a standard practice in iran of the execution of (female) victims of rape..?”
G
September 27th, 2007 at 8:37 am
The reason the Americans get so much shit is because they insist on interfering with everybody else.
Kind of a “people who live in glass houses should not throw stones” backlash.
But the US is obviously a far better place to live than most other places in the world.
And I don’t think anybody would complain if they came out insisting that in the 21st century barbaric treatments of homosexuals and rape victims had to end, assuming this was aimed at all countries indulged in such behaviour.
Their problem is that they’re far more likely to target say Iran for different reasons, say its power in relation to the Middle East. While Iranian policy is freaking awful it’s hard to believe the US administration actually cares about these Iranian victims…
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Odd as it may seem but murderous dictators have a habit of announcing their intentions quite publicly before actually carrying them out. Hitler made his views on Jews quite plainly obvious and his solution came as no surprise. Hitler’s intentions for “lebensraum – or living room” were all well signalled in advance. Each incremental act of invasion in the 30′s was met with more mealy mouthed appeasement and denial of any nasty intentions on the part of Hitler from his fawning fans on the left.
I see the same pattern with Ahmadinejad. He and his theocratic masters fervently believe Allah approves of their plans to wipe out Israel, disrupt the Zionist ‘domination’ and deal to the Great Satan and allies. Iran’s fingerprints are all over some of the attacks in Iraq and its support of Syria and Hezbollah is blatant and extensive. Iran seeks to support Shia domination over Iraqi Sunnis and foment unrest in Iraq enough to drive out the US enabling their proxies to take over Iraq. Hezbollah (and Hamas) advertise their primary goal – that of the destruction of the state of Israel. It would appear the Syrians were caught red-handed with North Korean nuclear material – who knows if this was destined for either Hezbollah or Iran to assist in their genocidal goals.
Columbia University gave a highly public forum to a manipulative dictator with American blood on his hands (Iranian IUDs found multiple times in Iraq and Ahmadinejad’s key role in the capture of the US Embassy in Teheran). Whilst Bollinger’s blunt attacks were welcome, the propoganda value for Ahmadinejad and his regime of such a visit was huge.
The hugest irony is the ambivalence of the left over Ahmadinejad. Most on the left loudly proclaim the rights of gays and yet remain silent about the comments of a man who believes there are no gays in Iran because his regime tortures and kills them.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 8:44 am
Grant, haven’t you conceeded that They don’t “execute female victims of rape”? That under Iranian law only women who the court concludeds weren’t raped are subject to punishment? (and yep, in our modern western eyes state punishment for extramarital sex is unreasonable – though it wasn’t always so)
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Andrew, ahhhh no.
Vote:G
September 27th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Funnily enough we have enough lefties wringing their hands about Bush instead of protesting about the state of Iran and their treatment of gays, women and general human rights abuses.
I guess this will all be addressed once Bush leaves the White House and the people who apparently really care about these issues will have some spare time on their hands :p
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 8:59 am
sorry – should have read IEDs
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:00 am
KIA ” Ahmadinejad … plans to wipe out Israel”
From Wiki:
Translation of phrase “wiped off the map”
Many news sources have presented one of Ahmadinejad’s phrases in Persian as a statement that “Israel must be wiped off the map”[3][4][5], an English idiom which means to “obliterate totally”,[6] and “destroy completely”, such as by powerful bombs,[7] or other catastrophes.[8]
Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:
The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[9]
According to Cole, “Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ because no such idiom exists in Persian” and “He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse.”[10]
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly:
[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.[11]
Iran has repeatedly rejected the allegations that Ahmadinejad has stated ‘Israel must be wiped off the map’. [12][13][14] On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel “wiped off the map,” saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. “Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned,” Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. “How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime,” he said. [15][16][17]
In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner stated that Ahmadinejad had said that Israel was to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole and Steele, Bronner said: “But translators in Tehran who work for the president’s office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/en/), refer to wiping Israel away. Bronner stated: “..it is hard to argue that, from Israel’s point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat. Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel. So did Iran’s president call for Israel to be ‘wiped off the map’? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question.”[10]
I’m sure this has been pointed out to you before KIA, but I guess there’s nothing to stop you lying.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:05 am
KIA, “I see the same pattern with Ahmadinejad” so you’re into that psychic mind reading stuff, most of us in the West judge people by their words and actions rather than relying on making up stuff about them, perhaps you should get a job in crime prevention.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Thanks for all that Andrew. Can I take it however, that no matter what variations there are in the translation of his remarks, that he does not wish the nation of Israel well?
Vote:G
September 27th, 2007 at 9:14 am
“and not a DPF orifice in sight.”
Small mercies.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Issues of translation aside, I find it easy to believe that Ahmadinejad sincerely wants to destroy Israel. But the reality is that an Iranian attempt to destroy the Jewish State would be similar to, say, Mexico announcing they’re going to wipe out the US – slightly frightening and weird, but not really practical or even possible.
The muslim’s know they don’t have to go to war with Israel – another few decades and demographic decline will take care of their enemy. In the interim Israel is far more valuable as a propaganda tool to keep their people distracted from the brutality and incompetence of their own tinpot dictatorships.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:19 am
dean..now listen carefully..
1)..scroll up to the post by dpf..
2)..cast your eyes to the end of the post written by dpf..
(are you still with me..?..)
3)..read the last two sentences..
4)..if still confused..get an adult to explain..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:19 am
“deal to the Great Satan and allies.” what, like Reagan’s “evil empire”?
“Iran’s fingerprints are all over some of the attacks in Iraq” Lots of peoples fingerprints are on attacks in Iraq, US, UK, lots and lots of outfits opposing the occupation, eversince the US invaded it’s been a war zone.
“Iran seeks to support Shia domination over Iraqi Sunnis.” The US has virtually ensured thats going to happen, is it better than Sunni domination over Shia? much a muchness.
“It would appear the Syrians were caught red-handed with North Korean nuclear material – who knows if this was destined for either Hezbollah or Iran”
Presumably you, that’s clearly the inference we are supposed to draw
“to assist in their genocidal goals.”
What “genocidal goals”?
Oh sorry, forgot you’re psychic.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Andrew W
Sorry – Juan Cole is a well known anti-Israel America hating academic so his views are decidedly biased and skewered in Iran’s favour but a nice try.
Parse his words via the excuse of poor translation all you want – I believe the following list of quotes makes his intentions pretty clear – I guess each one of these has been poorly translated eh!!
•”We don’t shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world.“ 1
•”The wave of the Islamist revolution will soon reach the entire world.” 2
•”Our revolution’s main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam, the Mahdi.” 3
•“Soon Islam will become the dominating force in the world, occupying first place in the number of followers amongst all other religions.” 4
•“Is there a craft more beautiful, more sublime, more divine, than the craft of giving yourself to martyrdom and becoming holy? Do not doubt, Allah will prevail, and Islam will conquer mountain tops of the entire world.” 5
•”What is important is that they have shown the way to martyrdom which we must follow.” 6 [President Ahmadinejad’s comments on an aircraft crash in Tehran that killed 108 people in December 2005].
• Ahmadinejad praises Iran for being able to recruit thousands of suicide bombers a day. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad praised his country’s ability to recruit “hundreds of suicide bombers a day,” saying “suicide is an invincible weapon. Suicide bombers in this land showed us the way, and they enlighten our future.“ Amadinejad said the will to commit suicide was “one of the best ways of life.” 7
•“This regime (Israel) will one day disappear.” 8
•“The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm.” 9
• Israel is “a disgraceful stain on the Islamic world” 10
• Israel is doomed to be “wiped from the map” in “a war of destiny.” 11
• Ahmadinejad said that “the countdown for the destruction of Israel” has begun. 12
• Zionists are „the personification of Satan.“ 13
•”In the case of any unwise move by the fake regime of Israel, Iran’s response will be so destructive and quick that this regime will regret its move for ever.” 14
• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that the Holocaust is a “myth.” 15
• “Them (the West) invented the myth of the massacre of the Jews and placed it above Allah, religions and prophets.” 16
Iran, its nuclear ambitions and sanctions:
• “By the grace of Allah, we (will be) a nuclear power.” 17
• Ahmadinejad fired off a fresh barrage of warnings to the United Nations, saying Iran did “not give a damn” about demands to freeze sensitive nuclear work. 18
• “Iran does not give a damn about resolutions.” 19
• “The Islamic republic of Iran has the capacity to quickly become a world superpower. If we believe in ourselves… no other power can be compared to us.“ 20
• “Iran’s enemies know your courage, faith and commitment to Islam and the land of Iran has created a powerful army that can powerfully defend the political borders and the integrity of the Iranian nation and cut off the hand of any aggressor and place the sign of disgrace on their forehead.” 21
• “Our enemies should know that they are unable to even slightly hurt our nation and they cannot create the tiniest obstacle on its glorious and progressive way.” 22
• “In parallel to the official political war there is a hidden war going on and the Islamic states should benefit from their economic potential to cut off the hands of the enemies.” 23
1 Naïm, Mouna, “Damas et Téhéran entendent “résister” ensemble,” Le Monde, January 21st, 2006
Vote:2 Pryce-Jones, David, “A Particular Madness—Understanding Iran’s Ahmadinejad,” National Review, May 8, 2006
3 Agence France Presse, April 28th, 2006
4 March 5th, 2006
5 MEMRI, July 29th, 2005
6 La Guardia, Anton, “’Divine mission’ driving Iran’s new leader Ahmadinejad’s confidence,” The Daily Telegraph, January 14th, 2006
7 Cohen, Dudi, “Iranian President lauds suicide bombers invincible,” YnetNews, April 1st, 2007
8 “Iran: Ahmadinejad annonce la «disparition» d’Israël,” Libération, May 11th, 2006
9 Baldwin, Tom, “The state of Israel will soon be history, says Iran’s President,” The Times, April 15th, 2006
10 Agence France Presse, April 28th, 2006
11 Agence France Presse, April 28th, 2006
12 “Ahmadinejad: Countdown to Israel’s destruction has begun,” YnetNews, June 3rd, 2007
13 “Satan in Person,” Süddeutsche Zeitung Online, March 1st, 2007
14 Williams, Stuart, “Ahmadinejad says Iran ready for ‘final nuclear step,” Agence France Presse, November 16th, 2006
15 Naïm, Mouna, “Damas et Téhéran entendent “résister” ensemble,” Le Monde, January 21st, 2006
16 Ghazi, Siavosh. “Ahmadinejad qualifie de “mythe” l’Holocauste, ne cède pas sur le nucléaire,” Agence France Presse, 14 December, 2005
17 “Les prix du pétrole reculent avec la dissipation des craintes sur l’essence,” Agence France Presse, April 27th, 2006.
18 Agence France Presse, April 28th, 2006
29 Agence France Presse, April 28th, 2006
20 Agence France Presse, April 28th, 2006
21 Agence France Presse, April 28th, 2006
22 Agence France Presse, April 28th, 2006
23 “Ahmadinejad threatens the Western world”, Süddeutsche Zeitung, January 22nd 2006
September 27th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Firstly – congratulatuions to Columbia for inviting him to speak. Universites are there to explore and air all sorts of views and ideas. Its a pity we dont have that in NZ (I see a report Y/Day that Margaret Wilson will go from speaker if she can get some position at Waikato University – where she did have something to do years ago in the Law school. Well, thats a further restriction on free speach at Waikato……)
Secondly – Apparently its true – they dont have homosexuals in Iran. Some say its a gene (that is responsible for homosexuality) and if that is so then it would have been breed out some thousands of years ago. By keeping the gene pool pure they have prevented products of mutations getting back into the country.
Vote:Interesting.
September 27th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Andrew W
Vote:“most of us in the West judge people by their words and actions rather than relying on making up stuff about them” – exactly my point. Look at his words – actions will follow just like Hitler – you don’t have to be a mind reader.
September 27th, 2007 at 9:22 am
“Juan Cole is a well known anti-Israel America hating academic”
In’t it great being KIA, a man who actully speaks the language tells himj that the translation is wrong, but KIA can just ignore it cos he is an American America hater!
Lets ask the question KIA, do you want America to attack Iran?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Grant “he does not wish the nation of Israel well?”
Fair comment, but that’s not genocide, would you say Bush Wishes Iran well? Both sides need to step back from this war mongering. “speak quietly but carry a big stick makes sense but too many people are talking big.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:28 am
“I hear the GOP has shoulder tapped him to run for Congress in Utah.”
Snide not funny. What is funny is that in a poll on Daily Kos, a far left web site that would probably suit the politics of Danyl, 40% of respondents preferred Ahmadinejad over Bush.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:29 am
um..!..make that..”grant listen carefully..”
(y’know..!..dean..grant..those ‘glenfield’ names..so easy to confuse..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Andrew W
Iran claims to want to help the US in Iraq and yet blatantly undermines their public platitudes by sending in military operatives (some whom the US forces have captured) and arming Shi’ite militias with explosive devices. But that’s OK because well all kinds of barbarism exists in Iraq.
The Sunni are 20% of the population of Iraq and decidedly a minority and one easily dominated by the Shi’ite bent on revenge after the domination by Saddam’s Sunni dominated Baathists ruled Iraq. Iran knows this and would love for the Shi’ites to wipe out their centuries old Sunni opponents. This intra Muslim antipathy long pre-dated any US involvement. Ah but Ahmadinejad reassured the UN that he is a man of peace so we must be OK.
Andrew – why do you think the Syrians end up with North Korean nuclear material when they have no identifiable nuclear energy programme of any type?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:30 am
“Bush and Osama have both proved themselves to be very good at killing people.”
This is a very easy accusation for any moral relativist and conscienceless coward to make. Name one person Bush has killed.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:32 am
KIA, plenty of similar claims, boasts, and politicing has been made by Western and Christian leaders, and some of those comments are out of context, which site did you get that from?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Sonic
Vote:Only if diplomatic efforts and sanctions fail to stop Iran gaining nuclear weapons. I note the new French President has much the same view now. I believe Israel will do the heavy lifting for the US is it ever gets down to it. I actually believe the West can constrain Iran diplomatically and financially to back down but you have to leave the military option on the table.
September 27th, 2007 at 9:33 am
“most of us in the West”
The day someone like you speaks for the west, (a terrorist supporting coward who sees Osama Bin Laden as the moral equivalent of George Bush), is the day the west is really in trouble. How about just speaking for Andrew W.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:36 am
What does it matter what site – he made the comments and they are all referenced. Im waiting for your views on why the Syrians had North Korean nuclear material.
Vote:Name a Christian leader of a sovereign nation who has threatened to wipe another country off the map.
September 27th, 2007 at 9:38 am
The only country that has actually been “wiped off the map” in the mMiddle east is a place called Palestine.
None of you seem concerned about that.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:39 am
“Iran knows this and would love for the Shi’ites to wipe out their centuries old Sunni opponents.”
More mind reading
“why do you think the Syrians end up with North Korean nuclear material when they have no identifiable nuclear energy programme of any type?”
So a nuclear weapons program has been identified?
Has Israel got a nuclear weapons program?
“the Syrians end up with North Korean nuclear material”
Have they?
It wouldn’t surprise me if other nations are working to develop nukes, that doesn’t make them evil, it does make them a potential threat to their enemies, the big mistake you make is assuming that Muslims and Christians must be enemies, that easily turns into a self forefilling prophecy.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Name a Christian leader of a sovereign nation who has threatened to wipe another country off the map.
Vote:Hitler, Reagan. And as pointed out Ahmadinejad didn’t threaten to wipe Israel off the map, though I’m sure he would like to see most of the recent Jewish immigrants to Israel emmigrate.
September 27th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Phil, sorry, but for all your smart arseness, I still cant see where DPF said the execution of rape victims is standard practice. He said it happens, which believe it does, not that it is standard practice as per your response:
Vote:dpf..do you have some/any evidence of a “standard practice” in iran of the execution of (female) victims of rape..? – my quote marks.
And what’s the Glenfield thing all about?
Are you implying that people with my name should live there? What a very odd thing to say. You’re like so last century man… don’t you know it’s G-field now bro.
G
September 27th, 2007 at 9:46 am
The invitation to this piece of murdering totalitarian filth should never have been issued. Pansy wansy bleating about “free speech” from knee jerk brainwashed pseudo liberals is just light years off the real issue. The man is a criminal on many levels, not only through torture and murder against the citizens of Iran (those who dare to advocate for democracy) but he also supplies guns weapons and manpower to kill American soldiers in many different parts of the globe.
He should not even be permitted to set foot in the US for UN business or any reason, other than if the purpose is for his arrest, trial and execution as occurred in respect of Saddam Hussein.
These treasonist scumbags at Columbia with their precious little blinkered minds need to be defunded and the institution shut down for what is the most scurrilous suck up to terrorism that the world has so far witnessed from the left. Not only does the legitimization of this little tyrant send a message to all of the people in Iraq fighting for freedom, it betrays the soldiers fighting against Ahmadinejad’s agents in Iraq.
While these disgusting weasels at Columbia whine about “free speech”, and are prepared to accommodate filth like Ahmadinejad, the refuse to let conservatives speak, frequently physically attacking and shutting down visitors who are not leftists with practically no censure from Lee Bollinger and the rest of the administration. Many other universities just straight out refuse to entertain speakers who might say words that threaten the left’s long term totalitarian objectives.
This is nothing but a treasonist cowardly act by Columbia University. I hope that institute and Lee Bollinger pay dearly in the long term for their vulgar misjudgment.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:50 am
KIA, a preemptive stike against Iran shouldn’t be considered as an option, with a popular government and 80 million people talking to Ahmadinejad makes sense, he has a reasonable sense of humour Hitler didn’t.
Vote:But carry a big stick.
September 27th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Red is again providing evidence that the Muslim world has more to fear.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Does anyone have any sites I can go and read the “atrocities” committed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? I see a lots of browbeating rhetoric but no backing up….
And one person Dubya has killed? Saddam.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Andrew
You are most determined to ignore the blindingly obvious. Read the Sunday Times article re the Syrian nuclear material http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2461421.ece
A nation that states its desire to wipe out another nation that is predominantly of a religion historically in conflict with the religion of the aggressor nation is decidedly the last country you would want to see obtain nuclear weapons. When was the last time Israel ever threatened to wipe out one of its neighbours – by conventional or nuclear weapons?
I don’t assume Christians and Muslims to be enemies but clearly a number of Muslim dominated nations have a problem with the Jewish state of Israel to the extent that they continue to push for its annihilation. As I recall wars in 1948 and 1974 were fought by Israel to prevent that goal from being achieved and the one in 1967 was fought proactively for the same reason. I’m sure Hezbollah and Hamas are only really pretending to hate Israel – they’ve been mistranslated.
Sonic
Vote:in 2000 Ehud Barak offered Arafat 97% of what he asked for re an independent Palestinian state. All he had to do was renounce terrorism and recognise Israel’s right to exist (as the Egyptians and Jordanians did) but that wasn’t enough so no Palestinian state followed by another bloody Intafada
September 27th, 2007 at 9:59 am
“Red is again providing evidence that the Muslim world has more to fear.’
If you took your prolific and incomprehensible gibberish elsewhere, it might be possible to have some kind of logical discussion on some issue on Kiwiblog. Hopefully without a flood (10 posts on this thread alone) of narcissistic crap from brain damaged attention seeking old fools who shack up with bimbos half their age in a frantic attempt to stave off fast approaching mental and physical impotence.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 10:00 am
“And one person Dubya has killed? Saddam.”
What a pathetic lie. Saddam was tried and dealt with by the Iraqi justice system. Moron.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Danyl – I agree Iran can’t destroy Israel but they can one day inflict losses which would be unacceptable, and I think we both know the Israeli response wouldn’t be restrained.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Andrew – Hitler was a dictator in case you forgot – he was never actively practised any religion. Reagan never threatened to annihilate another country – he described the Soviet Union as an evil empire – that’s quite another matter.
We all know the Iranians love their leader since he presides over rocketing unemployment, dwindling petrol supplies due to crumbling oil refineries, he indulges in vicious suppression of womens rights, freedom of the press, free trade unions and persecution of gays and other minorities. But hey I guess he won the ‘election’ so its all good.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 10:05 am
“But hey I guess he won the ‘election’ so its all good.”
The left love totalitarians, (Ahmadinejad, Ghadaffi, Gastro, Stalin, Mao) and bit by bit, they’re working towards the same kind of “election” here in NZ.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 10:12 am
“In the interim Israel is far more valuable as a propaganda tool to keep their people distracted from the brutality and incompetence of their own tinpot dictatorships.”
A fact not lost on Arafat who set up the PLO in 1964 when the West Bank and Gaza needed liberating – the West Bank and Gazza being at the time occupied by Jordan and Egypt. With friends like these, he must have thought.
I agree, Ahmadinejad, like many other Arab leaders, prefers the open wound of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 10:14 am
“they continue to push for its annihilation.”
Stop making up claims of planned genocide and we might get somewhere.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Of course AhMAD is right. Anything unlslamic is “suppressed.” He makes oppression seem like a virtue!
Vote:Sonic_ although this has little to do with the topic of what the Hitler imitator said , but since you go on about it Palestine was never a “country”, but states of Israel (monarchies) existed centuries before 1948 and centuries before Arabs invaded Jerusalem (Muslim caliph colonisation).
Most of the area previously known as “Palestine” is now in the hands of Jordan.
The Ottomans (a nasty oppressive empire) never seemed to give their Arab brothers a state in ”Palestine”. Neither did Jordan and Egypt between 1948 and 1967,
September 27th, 2007 at 10:22 am
Andrew W, claims that Ahmadinejad wants to destroy Isael in the short term might be a bit exagerted (in the long term there’s a stronger case) but it is unquestionably true that he actively works against a solution of the Isaeli/Paelstinian conflict, playing the same old game of using the Palestinians as cannon fodder for his own politiclal purposes. It’s been happening since 1949.
What ever his real words, and he sure gets a great deal of a benefit of a doubt from some, his intent is to never allow a settlement. Which is bad enough if one does want a Palestinain state.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Andrew W
From Hezbollah’s 1985 Manifesto “our struggle will end only when this entity [Israel] is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no ceasefire, and no peace agreements …” http://www.standwithus/pdfs/flyers/hezbollah_program.pdf
And this from Hamas leaders (source Wikipedia)
Dr. Ahmad Bahar, acting speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council,refers to Israel’s Jewish citizens as a “cancerous lump” and prays to Allah to “count them and kill them to the last one, and don’t leave even one” see Palestine Media Watch website http://www.pmw.org.il/
or this in an article published on April 23, 2007 in the Hamas paper Al-Risalah, its author Kan’an Ubayd stated: “… the extermination of Jews is good for the inhabitants of the worlds on a land, to which Allah gave his blessing for the sake of the inhabitants of the worlds.” http://pmw.org.il/bulletins_apr2007.htm#b030507
Oh that’s right – they were probably mistranslated as well!!
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Andrew W
From Hezbollah’s 1985 Manifesto “our struggle will end only when this entity [Israel] is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no ceasefire, and no peace agreements …” http://www.standwithus/pdfs/flyers/hezbollah_program.pdf
And this from Hamas leaders (source Wikipedia)
Dr. Ahmad Bahar, acting speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council,refers to Israel’s Jewish citizens as a “cancerous lump” and prays to Allah to “count them and kill them to the last one, and don’t leave even one” see Palestine Media Watch website (www.pmw.org.il)
or this in an article published on April 23, 2007 in the Hamas paper Al-Risalah, its author Kan’an Ubayd stated: “… the extermination of Jews is good for the inhabitants of the worlds on a land, to which Allah gave his blessing for the sake of the inhabitants of the worlds.” http://pmw.org.il/bulletins_apr2007.htm#b030507
Oh that’s right – they were probably mistranslated as well!!
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Fair points Neil, ” playing the same old game of using the Palestinians as cannon fodder for his own politiclal purposes”
Is a charge that could also be leveled at many conservative Western politicians, so little has been done by the US to push Israel into serious efforts at a resolution. Some in the US have found the ongoing conflict useful in generating outside enemies.
Vote:Bush used Saddam as a focus for rallying rightwing sentiment, that’s often the reality of politics.
It cuts both ways.
September 27th, 2007 at 10:38 am
KIA, you are doing exactly what the Islamists are doing, using hate talk to justify a position of hate, of refusing to seek negotiation. There are political Hawks on both sides, in terms of peaceful resolution those hawks are the real enemy.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Ahmadinejad, like many other Arab leaders, prefers the open wound of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Ahmadinejad isn’t an arab, but more importantly he’s not a leader – Iran is not a democracy it is a theocratic dictatorship. It’s run by the army and the council of guardians. Ahmadinejad doesn’t get any say in his countries policy towards Israel, Palestine, nuclear weapons or any other important matters of policy.
Not only is this guy a buffoon, he’s a largely powerless buffoon. It’s one thing to go about wailing and pearl-clutching that third-world despots like Saddam are ‘the next Hitler’, its even more risible for politicians and pundits in the US and their sock-puppets on this thread be to be cowering in fear of a dimwitted puppet like Ahmadinejad.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 10:42 am
RB: “If you took your prolific and incomprehensible gibberish …”
What a joke you are red.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 10:42 am
“so little has been done by the US to push Israel into serious efforts at a resolution.”
What, so the Camp David agreement never happened?
“Bush used Saddam as a focus for rallying rightwing sentiment, that’s often the reality of politics.”
Saddam was a dictator, Israel is a democracy. There’s no moral equivalence.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Danyl, he may be a puppet but presumably he’s saying what his masters want him to say. God knows what the clerics hope to achieve by having such a buffoon front for their country but my bet is that it doesn’t include peace with Israel or a move to democracy.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 10:50 am
“What, so the Camp David agreement never happened? ”
So you’re crediting Carter with the last serious US attempt at resolution, and that between Egypt and Israel?
I agree.
“Saddam was a dictator”
Saddam was an impotent dictator, he posed no serious threat to Iraq’s nieghbours at that time or the US, fact. That was not what Bush was claiming.
Vote:Israel is only a democracy if you exclude millions of people who live in the territories she has controlled, a bit like apartheid South Africa in that respect.
September 27th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Andrew W, there was also Clinton’s efforts and many other examples but I only needed one to refute your claim.
As for Saddam, many people living under his regime might disagree with you on what sort of menace he was. Bush’s attack on Saddam is hardly comparable to the Iranian position on Israel.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Andrew W
“of refusing to seek negotiation” – you know Andrew I support diplomacy as much as the next person but there are limits in dealing with sworn idealogues who will never surrender their pathological hatreds. Bill Clinton had Yasser Arafat more times to the White House and Camp David than any other world leader in his entire 8 year presidency as he attempted a legacy peace settlement in Palestine. Many thousands of man hours were expended by his administration (who contained a number of quality diplomats who did the negotiating at the Oslo Peace talks) on the very diplomacy you suggest. As I posted earlier, Clinton got Barak to move further than any Israeli PM to 97% of what Arafat and the Palestinians asked for and what was the result – Arafat still spat the dummy and ordered his bloody intafada.
Now Hamas are locked in mortal combat with Arafat’s annointed Fatah successor (Abbas). Abbas is seen as more moderate because Fatah have come to the view of the Jordanians and Egyptians, that peace with Israel is better all round. But Hamas wont budge from its avowed position – to destroy Israel – even as Gaza (that they now wholly control) has descended into anarchy and bloodletting.
So Andrew how do you propose you negotiate with such intransigence? Israel will grant the Palestinians pretty much all they ask for to the extent of uprooting settlements on the West Bank (as they did in Gaza before the handover to the PA) in exchange for a renunciation of terror and recognition of the right of Israel to exist but these two conditions remain unacceptable to Hamas and Hezbollah. So this is not about sabre rattling hawkishness as you allege – its about Israel trying to deal with fanatics who continue to destroy their own people as they siphon funds from the West not to pay wages and run hospitals but to wage terror and rain Kassem rockets down on Israeli towns and villages (Hamas) or corrupt and interfere (by the murder of politicians if neccessary) with the running of the sovereign nation of Lebanon (Hezbollah)
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 11:09 am
“Clinton got Barak to move further than any Israeli PM to 97% of what Arafat and the Palestinians asked for”
That 97% figure is of course nonsense. Israel was still planning to hang onto Jerusalem, the best parts of the West bank, and there would have been no right of return for refugees forced from their homes in 1949 and 1968.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 11:42 am
“there was also Clinton’s efforts and many other examples but I only needed one to refute your claim.”
The efforts of Carter and Clinton were comendable, they weren’t the hawks I was refering to.
“As for Saddam, many people living under his regime might disagree with you on what sort of menace he was. ”
He was a dictator, like many others. I said he wasn’t a serious threat to Iraq’s neighbour – which you don’t seem to dispute.
He ran a cruel regime, not a civil war though.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 11:54 am
“He ran a cruel regime, not a civil war though.’
What is a cruel regime if not a civil war?
‘The efforts of Carter and Clinton were comendable, they weren’t the hawks I was refering to.”
No US administration has sort to hinder a resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian confict, some right wingers might have wanted this but no US president has. In contrast, there have been many leaders of Middle Eastern countries that have inflamed this conflict for their own purposes.
On the other hand there have been Middle Eastern leaders who have wanted peace such as Sadat and even Arafat. But Ahmadinejad, no. Or if his clerical masters think otherwise they’re playing a risky game.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 11:57 am
“So Andrew how do you propose you negotiate with such intransigence?”
As Sonic points out the 97% is nonsense.
Realistically there is no easy solution, it’s a chicken and egg situation, The Palestinians won’t soften their position until they see a realistic chance of a viable Palestinian state, which requires Israel to softens its position, Israel won’t change as long as it is backed by the US, and it believes it’s better off taking a hard line. The US won’t stop backing Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians as long as the Muslims can be portrayed as wanting to slaughter all Israelis.
What will change, and it’s something Sharon recognised, is that Israels position demogrphically is weakening, also the US is losing its position as an inexaustable allie, when Israelis accept that they are no longer invincible to serious Palestinian attack they might decide that a resolution is neccessary; trouble is that by that stage Palestinians might no longer be interested.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
“What is a cruel regime if not a civil war?”
If you don’t know you ain’t ever gonna learn.
“No US administration has sort to hinder a resolution..” but for real political reasons they have never put serious pressure on both sides to work towards a resolution.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
The only country that has actually been “wiped off the map” in the mMiddle east is a place called Palestine.
None of you seem concerned about that.
Now which countries started that particular war then, hmmm let me think…….
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Sonic
Not quite right my friend – portions of Jerusalem were to be part of the Palestinian side of the partition and in exchange for portions the Israeli’s wanted to keep, they offered land elsewhere near the West Bank to compensate. The portions of the West Bank to be retained were militarily strategic heights.
As for refugees forced from their homeland – more Palestinian propoganda. In wars people flee from battlefields. Jews fled from what was to be the Palestinian state to Israel and vice versa. Arab commanders encouraged Arabs to flee from the Israeli part of the partition to the West Bank in preparation for the planned annihilation by Egypt, Jordan and Syria that of course never happened. Benny Morris (an Israeli historian not particularly favourable to Israel in his book “Righteous Victims”) details the flight of some 300,000 Arabs from the Israeli territory in page 255 onwards. He states “there was no Zionist to expel Arabs or intimidate them into flight”
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
That’s true AW – A recently resigned UN ambassador in the middle east has publicly stated that the US isn’t interested in resolving the Israel-palatine issue. The US won’t even talk to the democratically elected Hammas party leadership, even since it has stopped supporting terrorist activities (The Israeli government has officially recognised that Hammas is no longer a terrorist organisation).
This is likely a result of the powerful pro-Israeli lobby group in Washington. To give some idea of how powerful they are ….
During the 6 day war of 1967 (which declassified US intelligence communications show the Israelis started) the US sent in a signals intelligence spy ship (the USS Liberty) to monitor the Israeli-Egyptian battle. The US hierarchy objected to this – identified the boat (declassified NSA documents show this) and laid waste to it and massacred one third of its crew (over 30 people). What was the US’s response? Oh could you please give us a couple of million in reparations? oh you don’t want to? ok then ….
http://www.geocities.com/attackliberty/
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Sorry –
That should have bee ….
“The Israeli hierarchy objected to this – identified the boat (declassified NSA documents show this) and laid waste to it and massacred one third of its crew (over 30 people).”
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Roger
So how do you define Hamas still firing Kassim rockets into residential areas of Israel deliberately targetting civilians if not terrorism. The US refuse to deal with Hamas because they still won’t formally renounce terrorism (and recently re-iterated their refusal publicly) or recognise the right of Israel to exist. The US do however deal with Fatah and Abbas who has renounced terrorism against Israel and is prepared to negotiate with Israel over the issue of the West Bank. Its that simple.
A former UN ambassador from the Middle East is guaranteed to be biased against Israel based on the consistent anti-Israel stance that the UN and all its organs has taken
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
KIA, your argument that anyone who disagrees with the conserative right position on Israel is guaranteed to be biased, with the inference that anyone who agrees with that position (probably except red) must be objective, is looking a little..biased.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Are you trying to persuade us that a UN ambassador to an unnamed Middle East country is not biased against Israel? Does it occur to you that such biases exist or I’m guessing you see the consistent anti-Israel stance of the UN as neutral, objective, middle of the road nothing to see here folks move on??
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Since you can’t even name him, how the hell can you accuse him of bias? simply because you disagree with him? KIA is objective, anyone he disagrees with is biased? If that’s your line of reasoning, i guess you can never be proved wrong in your own eyes.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
KIA, how do you see the problems with Iran being solved? Nuke it?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
“A former UN ambassador from the Middle East is guaranteed to be biased against Israel based on the consistent anti-Israel stance that the UN and all its organs has taken”
Are you kidding? The UN heiarchy instructed the ambassador to stop communications with Hamas – this order, according to the ambassador, came at the behest of the Americans.
“The US refuse to deal with Hamas because …. they still won’t recognise the right of Israel to exist.”
This is just semantic rubbish i’m affraid.
“Noam Chomsky has criticized the term “right to exist” by saying it is unique to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and not a normal term used in international relations. He said that, “The US and Israel have demanded further that Palestinians not only recognize Israel’s rights as a state in the international system, but that they also recognize Israel’s abstract ‘right to exist’, a concept that has no place in international law and diplomacy, and a right claimed by no one. In effect, the US and Israel are demanding Palestinians not only recognize Israel in the normal fashion of interstate relations, but also formally accept the legitimacy of their expulsion from their land. They cannot be expected to accept that, just as Mexico does not grant the US the ‘right to exist’ on half of Mexico’s territory, gained by conquest.”"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_exist
“So how do you define Hamas still firing Kassim rockets into residential areas of Israel deliberately targetting civilians if not terrorism.”
As far as I know – the Israeli government no longer views Hamas as a terrorist organisation. BTW – even Hamas is still carrying out such crimes it cannot be ignored – it’s just too popular amongst the palistinian people. To stop the blood shed it’s necessary to involve Hamas in negotiations.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Here’s the story about the UN envoy/ambassadorr – makes for very ineresting reading.
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN1337665520070613
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
“to be cowering in fear of a dimwitted puppet like Ahmadinejad.”
Nobody is cowering in fear. Like the left in the west, Ahmadinejad is a danger to democracy and freedom. The tyrannical little scumbag needs to be dealt to. As for being powerless, tell that to the millions who advocate for democracy in Iran and are suppressed by Ahmadinejad’s forces. Or the Israelis murdered by Hezbollah. Or the thousands of Iraqis blown up by his agents in that country. Human lives have never figured in the equation for any of the power obsessed totalitarian dictators who have historically featured as poster boys for the left.
You keep kissing his arse with all your academic mates Danyl, and giving him a global platform for his anti-Israel anti Democracy anti American garbage. There’ll be a reckoning one day.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
So in summary we have the President of Iran wanting to some way some how get rid of the Jews. He also admits that gays dont last very long in his country.
Meanwhile our Prime Minister a feminist by her own definition and her gay colleagues show little more than contempt towards the Jews and suck up to Islam who show a (cough) less than tolerant attitude to wimmin and gays.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Red, gd, how do you see the problems with Iran being solved? Nuke it?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Seemed a simple enough question…
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
AndrewW Good idea And I will volunteer to press the button.
But seriously and I do mean this if the West is not careful it will find itself getting pushed further and further and having to give up more and more of the freedoms we value.
Alas these people are a one way street (bit like Socialists in NZ) Want it all their own way. Expect everyone to allow them to do what they want but wont allow the same . Think alcohol as just one example.
No 50/50 here mate It all 100% them or death to the infidels.
So we have to be very careful especially with our own Gumint who will give all away at the drop of a hat to appease these people.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
“No 50/50 here mate It all 100% them or death to the infidels.”
So does that mean you see it as a question of the genocide of Muslims vs the genocide of “infidels?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
No Andrew as a peace loving WASP I have always taken the view of Live and let Live. As long as my neighbours dont ram their religion etc down my throat and tell me to either convert or die then I am quite happy that they do as they wish Conversely I wont ram my religion down their throat and threaten them with death if they dont convert .
You see thats the difference. Its THEM who say convert or die NOT me.
Its THEM who says that whilst they can ridicule my religion and I must stand and take it THEY threaten me with death if I do the same to them
Remember the cartoons. I am expected to take it all on the chin and if I dare to complain Im told to Get a life Get over it Dont be a whimp.
And yet no one dares to say the same to the Muslims out of fear not just from them but from the so called liberals (who are anything but)
But then if you say blacks white I have to agree with you.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Western academics, so trendily into appeasement, believe terrorists like Ahmadinejad can be deflected from their course if they are just given enough. Give them Gaza, give them the West Bank, give them guns, money, and land. Give them the opportunity to speak at prestigious western universities.
What do the terrorists learn from this?
To go on doing what they are doing. To continue to be totalitarians. To continue to murder. To continue to kill innocents. To continue to jail and torture dissenters. To continue to persecute minorities in their own country.
Columbia and Bollinger, in this stupid dumbfuck leftist intoxication with appeasement, did more to encourage terrorism against the west with their legitimization of Ahmadinejad than any so called retaliation from any western country’s armed forces.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
I don’t think either of you answered that simple question. All you said was they’re the threat we have the right to defend ourselves and our culture. I don’t dispute that we all have the right to defend ourselves, and while I accept that the Hawks of Islam shouldn’t be trusted by those they see as their enemies, you offer no suggestions on how to neutralise that threat if it exists.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
“I don’t think either of you answered that simple question.”
Can we get something straight? I’m not trying to answer your question. I am not interested in dealing with the irrational drivel of self obsessed unintelligible multi posting attention seeking wankers.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
“they offered land elsewhere near the West Bank to compensate. The portions of the West Bank to be retained were militarily strategic heights.”
We keep the hills, you get a bit of the desert to compensate.
It’s like the robber offering you a bit of your stuff back if you shut up about the robbery.
“Now which countries started that particular war then, hmmm let me think…….”
If you mean 1968, that would have been Israel.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
I should know not to expect sensible comment from you red, my mistake.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Andrew W My answer was that concerned with Live and Let Live. I have never ever advocated for the genocide of any peoples however I and all Christians are the subject of a genocide threat by the Islamists.
Its a matter of degree, At one end of the continum we have the situation where an Muslim is standing in fron of me and threatening to kill myself and my family unless I convert.
At the other end we are where we are now. Me safely in this benign environment according to Dearly Beloved Heavenly Leader and them away over there ( although some of “them” are resident in NZ.
So of course I dont have an immediate fear but I am not complacent as I dont trust the Gumint to protect me and my family.
In fact this Gunmint couldnt protect a flea.
And thats the rub. Any government that cant /wont protect its citizens isnt worthy of governing.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Sonic yes – in 1968 Israel bombarded Egypt – although Egypt had amassed some of its forces on the Israely border, US diplomats of that time now admit that Israel needn’t have launched the attack. Israel executed tens of thousands of disarmed POWs – Areil Sharon being one of the commanders that oversaw these most heinous international war crimes.
Also – in the 1956 Suez Canal incident – Israel invaded Egypt at the behest of the French and British shipping companies, after the Egyptian government had nationalised a waterway that ran through its own country. Israel has always been the aggressor – so it’s understandable why its militarist government is so universally hated in the middle east.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
“them”
“the Islamists”
All of them? Or just some?
What about Bush “you’re either with us or against us” does that mean we’re against them? All of us?
Big sweeping statements GD, lots of rhetoric, not much substance.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
“At one end of the continum we have the situation where an Muslim is standing in fron of me and threatening to kill myself and my family unless I convert.”
I don’t think that actually happens gd, you’ve been the victim of far right propaganda. There are Muslims in almost every country on Earth, I doubt you can give an example of that actually happening.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
“I was mistranslated / taken out of context” is rapidly becoming the new last refuge of the scoundrel.
It seems Muslim radicals read off the same playbook – that’s exactly what Sheik Catsmeat said when pulled up for comparing female rape victims to uncovered meat, and then again when he said something else inflammatory and stupid, and then again… till the sensible Muslims defrocked him, or whatever the Islamic equivalent is.
If he’s so frequently mistranslated on everything from his intentions toward Israel to the existence of gays in his country, why doesn’t the President travel with, and insist only on using, his own translator? You know, the guy wheeled out to explain away his remarks to Western audiences?
Or could it be that the inflammatory rhetoric is designed for the home audience, and the bland reassurance for the international one. Could, in fact, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, be dog whistling in Persian?!
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Here’s some interesting excerpts from a letter written by several Iranian intellectuals for the president of columbia university.
2- Why, in 1953, did the US administration overthrow the Iran’s (democratically elected – my emphasis) national government under Dr Mohammad Mosaddegh and go on to support the Shah’s dictatorship?
3- Why did the US support the blood-thirsty dictator Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iraqi-imposed war on Iran, considering his reckless use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers defending their land and even against his own people?
5- Why has the US military failed to find Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden even with all its advanced equipment? How do you justify the old friendship between the Bush and Bin Laden families and their cooperation on oil deals? How can you justify the Bush administration’s efforts to disrupt investigations concerning the September 11 attacks?
hehehe and this last one is classic ..
7- Was the US invasion of Iraq based on international consensus and did international institutions support it? What was the real purpose behind the invasion which has claimed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Where are the weapons of mass destruction that the US claimed were being stockpiled in Iraq? ”
http://farsnews.com/english/newstext.php?nn=8606300370
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
“till the sensible Muslims defrocked him”
Which illustrates the point that there are extremists and moderates, too often people try to tar the lot with the extremist brush.
“Could, in fact, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, be dog whistling in Persian?!”
Undoubtedly so to some degree, but I still think he doesn’t advocate genocide – the charge that the conservative right insist on trying to pin on him.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
BTW … I forgot the hat-tip for “phil whoar”, RE my last comment
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Come on david c So all of them are peace loving people and none of them wish us harm NO of course not idiot get a grip and try and not be a smart arse all you life and take people out of context Gets tiring after a while
Andrew W Im not refering to the good ones dummy and well you know it If I have to explain myself then clearly you either cant or wont see the point Im making so no point in my trying to debate on a snesible level with you.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
OK gd, here’s a simple piece of logic, if you want the extremists to come to power, oppress and demonise the population they represent.
Vote:If you want moderates to come to power, support and befriend that same population.
September 27th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
So what are you trying to say gd? you don’t seem to have a very clear position. Is it that we should be support the US’s efforts to kill as many Islamic terrorists as is possible? Is it that we should be shutting down the terrorist training camps?
Well if it’s either of those we need to be invading Pakistan – where the vast majority of Islamic terrorists over the last 20 years have been trained by the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence (established by the CIA in the late 1970s). The only problem is that the US lists Pakistan as an ally, and continues to support the Pakistani government to the tune of approximately $1 billion every year. bugger hey?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Hitler came to power as a result of German alienation from the rest of Europe as a result of the treaty of Versailles, post WWII, Germany and Japan bacame two of Americas closest allies as a result of the Marshal plan. Simple aye?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
GD…
“none of them wish us harm”
I daresay there are as many “Islamists” out there who wish us harm as there are any other major religion.
There are always going to be insane nutjobs who promulgate a hard-core viewpoint from any religion – Ian Paisley springs to mind – but let’s not tarnish them all with the “baddie” brush huh?
p.s try not to abuse me in your posts, it just makes you look a little…juvenile
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Sonic and Roger
The war was June 1967 not 1968. Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran by military force – an act recognised under international law as an act of war especially given the lifeline that the straits were for shipping to Israel. Various Arab leaders had made clear their plans to attack Israel in a co-ordinated strike and indeed the Egyptians massed an invasion force on the Israeli border. Israel struck Egypt, Syria and Iraqi airfields proactively in self defence, they pleaded with Jordan to stay out but Jordan attacked Israeli positions in Jerusalem and Israel struck back there as well.
Roger
Do you honestly believe the Iranian academics questions to Columbia were not written at the behest of the very regime who controls any and all freedom of speech in Iran (including blocking internet sites, banning blogs and preventing key broadcasts of live cable like CNN). You all seem determined to acquit Ahmadinejad of any malicious intent. Just today he reiterates his desire that Israel be annihilated at the UN.
Andrew W
Vote:I don’t support nuking Iran. Ive stated before diplomatic and economic sanctions properly supported by the UNSC and fully implimented will I believe be sufficient to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions. A combination of such approaches disarmed Libya’s WMD programme and may yet see a final end to North Korea’s nuclear programme without a shot being fired. Make no mistake, if the Israelis believe Iran possesses nuclear capability they will bomb the Iranian facilities and do all that is necessary to set back their programme. Interestingly even all the Democrat candidates for President agree that Iran cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons as do the Democrat leaders in Congress so there is now a consensus in the Americal political establishment to do all that is necessary to prevent a nuclear Iran.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
KIA, Israel does not have the capacity to take out any Iranian nuclear program without resorting to the use of multiple nuclear warheads.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
KIA, whoever authored those questions, they are not easy ones for the president of columbia university or conservative America to answer, you’re avoiding the issues they raise.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Untrue Andrew – the Americans have given them the latest bunkerbusting bombs and the especially configured F16i can fly to Iran and back without refuelling. The consensus is that they cannot completely destroy the programme but do enough damage to it set it back at least 5 years – that will be enough for the Israelis. If the programme starts up again they will just wait and repeat the same. I do not believe either Israel of the US would ever use nukes much as you appear to think that it is the plan
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
“Now which countries started that particular war then, hmmm let me think…….”
If you mean 1968, that would have been Israel.
Seriously? Thats your answer sonic? What a nimrod – did you know that the Arab powers started a war against Israel the day after the state was created in 1948, then another in 1953? Those were the wars that started the Palestinians exodus form Palestine. Quite a while before the first Israeli initiated war of 1967! But damn I dont know sonic what would you have done if you were an Israeli leader at the time, having two wars started by your neighbours for no reason other than to wipe your state and your people off the map, and the chief protagonist massing his armies at your southern border, what would you do?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Andrew
Vote:Its not just conservative America who believes the threat Iran poses – you need to listen to the public comments and the debate responses of Clinton and Obama. The questions they pose have no relevance to Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional expansionist threats and are a convenient distraction. Hitler could’ve posed a similar list of questions about the military and diplomatic inconsistencies of the Allies – would that mitigate or nullify his what transpired to be genocidal intent?
September 27th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Here’s some interesting excerpts from a letter written by several Iranian intellectuals for the president of columbia university.
So roger, do you think all countries should get a free pass on violating human rights, just because the big bad ol USA dont have perfectly clean hands either?
Oh and how does it feel that the country you are championing hangs homosexuals? Do you agree then the all countries should be allowed to do that? What about stoning or lashing women who have the audacity to get raped?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
KIA – true the war was in 1967 – I had written that earlier in the thread.
“Israel struck Egypt, Syria and Iraqi airfields proactively in self defence”
Declasified US intelligence documents show that there was no conclusive intelligence showing that the Arab nations were going to attack. The strike was premature, and US diplomats on the ground were still wanting to resolve the dispute via peaceful measures. They never got the chance. You should read James Bamford’s body of secrets – it’s now used by the US’s National Security Agency as a training textbook.
Also – why was it ok for Israel to, unprovoked, invade Egypt in 1956, and occupy it for the next 10 years?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Declasified US intelligence documents show that there was no conclusive intelligence showing that the Arab nations were going to attack.
I call bullshit. Wheres you reference to that then?
Closing the the Straights of Tiran to Israeli shipping was in violation of the Armistace of 1948 that ended the first war started by the Arab powers, it was considered an act of war. Quite valid reason if you ask me – hell most western countries agreed apart from – and this will kick you, the big bad US of A who preassured the Israelis to a cease fire through the UN.
Roger, it pays to think of the Israeli Arab conflict as a real long war – it just depends where you consider it to have begun, I say it all started in 1948, what about you?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Woops that last Italic is meant ot be like…
Also – why was it ok for Israel to, unprovoked, invade Egypt in 1956, and occupy it for the next 10 years?
Closing the the Straights of Tiran to Israeli shipping was in violation of the Armistace of 1948 that ended the first war started by the Arab powers, it was considered an act of war. Quite valid reason if you ask me – hell most western countries agreed apart from – and this will kick you, the big bad US of A who preassured the Israelis to a cease fire through the UN.
Roger, it pays to think of the Israeli Arab conflict as a real long war – it just depends where you consider it to have begun, I say it all started in 1948, what about you?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
“the Americans have given them the latest bunkerbusting bombs”
There was a discussion on this site, Fred (the one in aus) and I looked at what was known of the deep bunkers that had been build eight hundred feet down, too deep for the BLU-113 1814kg penetrator, credited with being able to penetrate 100ft of earth or 20ft of concrete.
“the especially configured F16i can fly to Iran and back without refuelling.”
Simply not true, the F16I (I for Israeli) is actually a two seater with less fuel and less range than the more common single seat F16′s, Israel generally doesn’t need long range fighters.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
“Simply not true, the F16I (I for Israeli) is actually a two seater with less fuel and less range than the more common single seat F16’s, Israel generally doesn’t need long range fighters.”
The F16I can be fitted with conformal fuel tanks, include two auxilery fuel tanks its range increases dramatically, although I think he may have been meaning the F15I, which is also fitted with conformal fuel tanks and can fly considerably longer distances.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
KIA: “Its not just conservative America who believes the threat Iran poses”
I don’t doubt that the US should be concerned about Iran, potentially she is a threat to US interests and Israel, however, it wasn’t just conservative America that was talked into believing that Saddam had WMD’s either.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Beavan ….
“did you know that the Arab powers started a war against Israel the day after the state was created in 1948, then another in 1953?”
But it goes back a little further than that doesn’t it?
During the 1920s and 1930s Zionists from Europe, with the support of the colonial British army, bought and confiscated massive swathes of Arab land, causing much discomfort for the levant’s long-term residents. And so there was resistence to this ….
“The death of the preacher Shaykh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam at the hands of the British police near Jenin in November 1935 generated widespread outrage and huge crowds accompanied Qassam’s body to his grave in Haifa. A few months later a spontaneous Arab national general strike broke out. This lasted until October 1936.
During the 1936–1939, known as the Great Arab Revolt or the “Great Uprising”, British forces, supported by 6,000 armed Jewish auxiliary police killed 5,000 Palestinians and the wounding of 10,000. In total 10 percent of the adult male population was killed, wounded, imprisoned, or exiled (see Khalidi, 2001). In another significant development during this time the British officer Charles Orde Wingate (who supported a Zionist revival for religious reasons[11]) organized Special Night Squads composed of British soldiers and Haganah volunteers, which “scored significant successes against the Arab rebels in the lower Galilee and in the Jezreel valley”[12] by conducting raids on Arab villages. The squads were rumored to have used excessive and indiscriminate force, which has been cited by Israeli academic Anita Shapira.[13]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
BTW roger, Israel did not occupy the Sinai Peninsula after the 1956 war, the Un created a demiliteried zone which was patroled by UN peace keepers – the kicking out of which by Egypt and sending 100,000 troope to the peninsula kind of makes a hash of the arguement that classified documents state that Egypt were not looking for a fight. Hell the words coming out of Nassers mouth at the time were hardly invitations to tea and bickies.
Oh and closing the Straights of Tiran again. Maybe the Arabs were wanting to play soccer in the Sinai – Yeah Right.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Ferry range of the F16, thats maximum fuel including external and no weapons is 2000miles, for the F15 around 3200 miles, the bunkers we are talking about are ~1200 miles from Israel, the best the Israelis could do is wave from the F15′s
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Bevan – “I call bullshit. Wheres you reference to that then?”
I can’t find the exact words on the Internet – but I read it recently in “Body of Secrets – It’s basically the official history a history of the US’s National Security Agency (The NSA cooperated with Bamford during his research of the book, providing him with thousands of declassified documents and interviews with officials). The NSA is the organisation that has been responsible for collecting signals intelligence for the US govt for the last 60 years or so.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
But it goes back a little further than that doesn’t it?
During the 1920s and 1930s Zionists from Europe, with the support of the colonial British army, bought and confiscated massive swathes of Arab land, causing much discomfort for the levant’s long-term residents. And so there was resistence to this ….
But then Israel wasnt a state then was it? How can a state be liable for the actions of a group of people 25 years before the state existed?
But then if you want to find I starting point to the conflict, why did you stop at the 1920′s, why not go back to the time of the pharoahs, of before that, or before that?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Stick heavy bunker busters on and, with these aircraft range is cut at least in half, F16 4 AAMs (lighter than one BLU-113) one ET, operational radius 490 miles.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
I can’t find the exact words on the Internet – but I read it recently in “Body of Secrets – It’s basically the official history a history of the US’s National Security Agency (The NSA cooperated with Bamford during his research of the book, providing him with thousands of declassified documents and interviews with officials). The NSA is the organisation that has been responsible for collecting signals intelligence for the US govt for the last 60 years or so.
Well your word, based on a book you read.
vs
1. On May 19, 1967, Egypt expelled UNEF observers, and deployed 100,000 soldiers in the Sinai Peninsula. It again closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping.
2. On May 30, 1967, Jordan entered into the mutual defense pact between Egypt and Syria. President Nasser declared: “Our basic objective is the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight.”
Then the Israelis sent their plans, catching the Egyptian airforce with its pants down.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/unef1backgr2.html
Vote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/30/newsid_2493000/2493177.stm
September 27th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Stick heavy bunker busters on and, with these aircraft range is cut at least in half, F16 4 AAMs (lighter than one BLU-113) one ET, operational radius 490 miles.
F16′s dont carry bunker busters – only variants of the Strike Eagle (F15E, F15K, F15I) as well as heavy bombers can carry them. These bombs have to be mounted to the fuselage as they are too heavy for the wings.
F16′s would never be used do deliver that kind of bomb.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
“BTW roger, Israel did not occupy the Sinai Peninsula after the 1956 war, the Un created a demiliteried zone which was patroled by UN peace keepers”
They may as well have – After all, Egypt had been disallowed access to that land after an unprovoked invasion by Israel in 1956. So basically Egypt was punished for 10 years with the confiscation of that land, all for being invaded by invaded by Israel.
And you still haven’t answered my question – why was it alright for Israel to invade Egypt in 1956 when there was no provocation?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
They may as well have – After all, Egypt had been disallowed access to that land after an unprovoked invasion by Israel in 1956. So basically Egypt was punished for 10 years with the confiscation of that land, all for being invaded by invaded by Israel.
And you still haven’t answered my question – why was it alright for Israel to invade Egypt in 1956 when there was no provocation?
Ive answered this already roger. Here I’ll bold it for you:
Closing the the Straights of Tiran to Israeli shipping was in violation of the Armistace of 1948 (actually 1949, my mistake) that ended the first war started by the Arab powers, it was considered an act of war. Quite valid reason if you ask me – hell most western countries agreed apart from – and this will kick you, the big bad US of A who preassured the Israelis to a cease fire through the UN.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
“They may as well have – After all, Egypt had been disallowed access to that land after an unprovoked invasion by Israel in 1956. So basically Egypt was punished for 10 years with the confiscation of that land, all for being invaded by invaded by Israel.”
Do you actually know what demilitirised mean roger? It doesnt mean you cant use the land at all, it just means you cant use it for military purposes. Or are you saying the only business Egypt had during that decade was war with Israel. Doesnt help your position that Israel are the agressors then does it.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Either way Bevan, Israel doesn’t have the aircraft to destroy deep bunkers in central and eastern Iran.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Bevan:
“Do you actually know what demilitirised mean roger?”
Probably not. Sometimes Phillip John/Roger Nome gets terribly confused. I recall DPF having to explain to him that “Neocon” and “Neoliberal” have entirely different meanings. We all got a bloody good laugh out of it. But I suppose it’s understandable when Phillip John/Roger Nome mindlessly quote from Wikipedia (and other scholarly websites) without actually analysing the substantive content.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
“Ive answered this already roger. Here I’ll bold it for you:
Closing the the Straights of Tiran to Israeli shipping was in violation of the Armistace of 1948 (actually 1949, my mistake) that ended the first war started by the Arab powers, it was considered an act of war.”
Got a quote for that Beavan?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Sorry – I meant SOURCE……
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
“Do you actually know what demilitirised mean roger? It doesnt mean you cant use the land at all, it just means you cant use it for military purposes.”
Ok Bevan – should I amend that comment for you to say …
They may as well have – After all, Egypt had to accept the UN occupation of Siani after an unprovoked invasion by Israel in 1956. So basically Egypt was punished for 10 years with theoccupation of that land, all for being invaded by invaded by Israel.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Ok – got it – in your reference it says ..
“The decision taken by Egypt in the early 1950s to restrict Israeli shipping through the Suez Canal and the Strait of Tiran at the entrance to the Gulf of Aqaba, in contravention of a decision of the Security Council, remained a controversial and destabilizing issue.”
So the Egyptians “restricted” Israeli shiping – hardly a legitimate reason for a bloody invasion I would have thought. Certainly not wise, or nice on the Egyptians part either.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Phillip John:
Your critical reasoning skills have, once again, let you down.
You claim to quote from Bevan’s reference:
“The decision taken by Egypt in the early 1950s to restrict Israeli shipping through the Suez Canal and the Strait of Tiran at the entrance to the Gulf of Aqaba, in contravention of a decision of the Security Council, remained a controversial and destabilizing issue.”
And then you say:
“So the Egyptians “restricted” Israeli shiping – hardly a legitimate reason for a bloody invasion I would have thought. Certainly not wise, or nice on the Egyptians part either.”
What Bevan actually said was:
“Closing the the Straights of Tiran to Israeli shipping was in violation of the Armistace of 1949 that ended the first war started by the Arab powers, it was considered an act of war.”
There is a big difference between “closing” and “restricting”.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Bevan:
“But then Israel wasnt a state then was it? How can a state be liable for the actions of a group of people 25 years before the state existed?’
But then if you want to find I starting point to the conflict, why did you stop at the 1920’s, why not go back to the time of the pharoahs, of before that, or before that?”
The Zionist philosophy, developed by some wealthy Europeans, was based on the creation of a Jewish state. That was the whole point of the forced Zionist settlement of the Levant – they were going to have their state whatever the consequences, and they got the backing of the colonial British military to do it. A small population of Semitic Jews had been living relatively peacefully with the Arab population for over 1,000 years prior to the militant Zionist invasion of the Levant during the 1920s and 1930s. You will note that the Zionist Jews (they’re by and large of European ancestry) don’t necessarily have any connection to the Levant save for their ideology, which was created in the late 1800s. Since then they’ve been continually confiscating land and killing Arab people by the thousands. Understandably, many Arabs living near by aren’t too happy about it.
Obviously, Isreal is there to stay now – it’s not just going to vanish. I just think that it needs to be acknowledged that the Zionists are the newly arrived guests in Israel, and because of this they should be looking fit in to the community, rather than taking it over.
They should acknowledge hamas as the democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people, and do what ever it takes to make good for their invasion of the Levant. This is the only way that there can be a shred of hope for lasting peace in the Levant area.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
And your point is POC?
Bevan’s reference said ..
““The decision taken by Egypt in the early 1950s to RESTRICT Israeli shipping through the Suez Canal and the Strait of Tiran at the entrance to the Gulf of Aqaba, in contravention of a decision of the Security Council, remained a controversial and destabilizing issue.”
You can find it here
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/unef1backgr2.html
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
You said:
“So the Egyptians “restricted” Israeli shiping – hardly a legitimate reason for a bloody invasion I would have thought. Certainly not wise, or nice on the Egyptians part either.”
The full paragraph:
“Since the summer of 1955, relations between Egypt and Israel had been steadily deteriorating, despite the efforts of the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) and the Secretary-General himself. Palestinian fedayeen, with the support of the Egyptian Government, had been launching frequent raids against Israel from their bases in Gaza, and these had been followed by increasingly strong reprisal attacks by Israeli armed forces. The decision taken by Egypt in the early 1950s to restrict Israeli shipping through the Suez Canal and the Strait of Tiran at the entrance to the Gulf of Aqaba, in contravention of a decision of the Security Council, remained a controversial and destabilizing issue. In the heightening tension, the control of armaments – which the Tripartite Declaration of France, the United Kingdom and the United States, of May 1950, had sought to achieve in the Middle East – had broken down, and Egypt and Israel were engaging in an intense arms race, with the East and the West supplying sophisticated weapons and equipment to the opposing sides.”
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
So a few skirmishes/incidents involving some Palastinians (indirectly supported by the Egyptian govt) and the RESTRICTION of Israeli shipping through the starit of Tiran. Doesn’t sound like justification for all out war to me – hardly smart stuff by the Egyptians though.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Andrew W
Your dismissing Israeli capacity to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities is well rebutted in a well researched article “Osirak Redux” written by two MIT military analysts Whitney Raas and Austin Long (http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1162/isec.2007.31.4.70).the takeaway from their analysis is “It does seem to indicate, however, that the IAF, after years of modernization, now possesses the capability to destroy even well-hardened targets in Iran with some degree of
confidence….The operation would appear to be no more risky than Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak reactor, and it would provide at least as much benefit in terms of delaying Iranian development of nuclear weapons.”
As it is getting late here in the US and my lengthy post on the 1967 and 1956 wars never got posted due to my wireless router throwing a wobbly and me not copying my post which means I will have to recreate the entire thing tomorrow if I’ve got time. Some excellent quotes though.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Phillip John:
I wouldn’t read too much into one word – which is capable of different meanings. It’s possible to impose “restrictions” that practically amount to a full suspension. Otherwise why did the Security Council have to issue a decision on the matter?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
POC – If the UN source had meant “SUSPENTION” rather than “RESTRICTION”, they probably would have used the word “SUSPENTION” don’t you think?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Phillip John:
Not necessarily. What the text doesn’t say is why a Security Council decision was required in the first place. I don’t pretend to know why – and I don’t know what the terms of the decision were.
My point (in case you missed it): there’s a difference between a “restriction” and a “ban” but in some cases a “restriction” can practically amount to a ban (though falling short of it). I’m not familiar with the specifics – but what if Egypt had limited Israel to, say, one shipment per fortnight?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
“POC – If the UN source had meant “SUSPENTION” rather than “RESTRICTION”, they probably would have used the word “SUSPENTION” don’t you think?”
Or maybe even the word “Suspension”.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Red’s been at the talking points again. “Treason”?
Red’s kind of right about Bush killing anyone…if he means actually doing tthe deed with his own hands. Of course, his aggressive policies in the Middle East have killed hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. But did he personally pull the trigger? No.
Of course, he had the opportunity to fight for his country but famously ducked duty in a combat unit and didn’t even have the decency to turn up to parade on time. So, I guess, he’s better described as a backsliding, gutless bastard who prefers to send other’s sons to do his killing for him.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
NIH:
Go easy on Phillip John. He’s having a hard enough time referencing his work correctly – without having to switch over from “phonics” (spelling words as they sound).
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Sounds pretty threatening to me…
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Interesting article KIA, given the assumption made, a successful strike appears possible though not easy.
Fred’s comment about the bunkers I refered to earlier was
(the depth of the nuclear bunkers in) “Iran is 100′+, ask the Germans who built the bunkers….yo’all need to understand this is a tac nuc bunker buster deal only.
No conventional weapon will do the job.”
I don’t know where Fred got this figure from.(I earlier misremembered a figure of 800ft down)
I would point out that Whitney Raas and Austin Long seem to assume unlikely cooperation from the Iranians in terms of locating the facilities not so deep underground, using facilities that Israel has identified, and not moving the whole operation a few hundred km west which would take it out of range of the F15′s and F16′s even with the inflight refueling required to hit the recognised facilities.
The Iranians are I’m sure well aware of Israels capabilities and taking account of them, if Iran expects an attack, seems logical.
A famous military maxim is that no war plan survives first encounter with the enemy.
Looking over the thread I refered to I see there was a debate about just how effective sanctions could be against a nation that exports so much needed oil, and that I think is likely to be able to close the straits of Hormuz if really pushed.
Vote:http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/01/nuking_iran_2.html
September 27th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
“Of course, his aggressive policies in the Middle East have killed hundreds of thousands of men, women and children.”
So if Bush did not kill anyone, but is being held personally responsible by you Duck for killing “hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in the Middle East” then this gives rise to the question-
Why are you singling out Bush for sole responsibility?
Deaths in the ME are down to a lot of reasons and a lot of people yet you’re focused on Bush only. Why is that? I’ll tell you. Because you’re another irrational hate driven treasonist academic poisoning our education system from within with your deranged animus toward anyone who threatens the social ascendancy of leftism.
You can’t read, you can’t comprehend, you can’t rationalize, and you can’t teach anyone how to do these things. All you are good for is poisoning young minds with aberrational hate. The hate that underscores the moral bankruptcy of leftism and the rising degree of treachery toward the west that socialism’s increasingly desperate proponents display.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
I wonder how many of the Bush Administration’s proponents of war with Iran have children serving? (BTW, Bush doesn’t seem to want it, it’s Cheney who’s been pushing it.)
I also wonder how many people who think Iran really is aggressive have looked beyond the western MSM to acqaint themselves with the realities of Iranian internal politics and get another side to the slanted views proferred by said media.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Here’s an example of what I mean from the great Pepe Escobar:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II26Ak01.html
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:02 am
Andrew W
One thing I’ve learned in observing the Israelis in action militarily is to never underestimate them. Arab nations have done this time and time again and have been on the losing side of wars with Israel every time. When it comes to protecting what they perceive to be their national interest vis a vis Iran, Israel I believe will again suprise. The MIT boys seem quite optimistic and there’s no denying the odds are tricky as you point out. Lets hope it never comes to it.
I agree that a blockade of the Straits of Hormuz would do the trick. The Americans and Iranians both know this. The price of strangling Iran by the oil noose would be $100 barrel of oil at least for the short term and would that trigger a global recession as per the 73/74 oil shocks remains the debatable point.
Roger Nome, Sonic et al
Israel is deemed the aggressor in the 1967 war. Any military expert will tell you that the military blockade of a key port is considered an act of war. Had the blockade been allowed to stay in place, it would’ve slowly strangled Israel economically. However if we look at what the Arab leaders themselves had to say about their tactics concerning Israel, we see that the Israeli claim of a pre-emptive strike is valid. In Michael Oren’s book “The 6 Days of War” he quotes Egyptian president Nasser as boasting “We knew the closing of the Gulf of Aqaba meant war with Israel…the objective will be Israel’s descruction”. That one sentence pretty much sums it up. Benny Morris in “Righteous Victims” quotes Syrian President Assad’s instructions to his military “strike the enemy’s civilian settlements, turn them into dust, pave the Arab roads with the skulls of Jews. Strike them without mercy”. The Iraqi Prime Minister predicted “There will be practically no Jewish survivors”. This sort of rhetoric was repeated on the radio waves in Cairo (Voice of the Arabs) “See that Israel is liquidated” and on Damascus Radio “Arab masses, this is your day, rush to the battlefield…Let them know we shall hang the last imperial soldier with the entrails of the last Zionist”. Then you add into the pot the Egyptians amassing a huge army on its Israeli border – the Israelis could see the writing on the wall and they struck first. I would take the word of the actual leaders of the aggressor nations at the time than any declassified American intelligence estimates that were inconclusive.
More on 1956 later
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 9:49 am
I also wonder how many people who think Iran really is aggressive have looked beyond the western MSM to acqaint themselves with the realities of Iranian internal politics and get another side to the slanted views proferred by said media.
Oh yes, because Iran is just a misunderstood country, who really is open and honest and allows their media to report on everything going on in the government, if only us evil capitilists would just hug the happy bouncy bunny everything would be ok in the world.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Fletch:
“Sounds pretty threatening to me…”
Shall I quote Menachem Begin – hard core conservative and cabinet minister at the time of the six day war?
“We …. had a choice” Begin said in 1982, when he was Israel’s Prime minister. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him”.
Bamford, J. (2001) Body of Secrets, pg 186.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
KIA -
Hey got the page numbers for those quotes so I can look them up in the library?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
“My point (in case you missed it): there’s a difference between a “restriction” and a “ban” but in some cases a “restriction” can practically amount to a ban (though falling short of it). I’m not familiar with the specifics – but what if Egypt had limited Israel to, say, one shipment per fortnight?”
In any case Egypt’s temporary restriction of Israel’s access to waters, that are just several kilometres Egypt’s shore line, just doesn’t seem like a good enough reason to justify Israel’s launch of a full-scale war. Totally over the top really – it would be good to have a fuller picture of the pertinent details surrounding the event though.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Fletch
A relation of mine captured one of those czech automatic weapons – a Brno. He said it was a bloody sight better than what he had been given by his armourer, which failed first time.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Also KIA – If Isael strikes Iran – it will result in the closing of the straits of Hormuz. Hugo chavez has also said that Venezuala would respond by cutting back oil production – this will mean Taking about 8% of global oil production out of the market over night – at least $100 a barel oil, quite possibly more. And the effect of this will be much more severe than it was during the 1973 – i.e. there are no swing producers any more, and there is very little capacity in the market. Also, the inflation-adjusted price of oil is already up around peak levels of 1982.
http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp
There’s just no way that Israel will get the go ahead from the US to do this.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Shall I quote Menachem Begin – hard core conservative and cabinet minister at the time of the six day war?
Roger, Begin was an opposition MP before the Six Day War, so taking his comments at that time as representative of the Israeli government is like saying Bill English speaks for the Labour Party. Begin’s party joined the Labour government in a national unity government at the start of the 6 day war – the first time Begin made it to a cabinet level post.
Comparing what a low level opposition MP said vs what was said by the leaders of the Arab nations is like comparing Apples to Oranges.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Roger, if you want to find a source for the quote, might I suggest google – if you copy the quote ie: We knew the closing of the Gulf of Aqaba meant war with Israel…the objective will be Israel’s descruction into google and click search, guess what these funny little things called search results come up!
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
roger
Sorry for the delay – Pages for quotes as follows
Nasser:p 93 of Oren
Assad: p 253 of Oren
Damascus Radio: p 310 of Morris
Voice of Arabs – Cairo: p 310 Morris
Iraqi PM: p 310 Morris
Um Israel are not planning to target the Straits of Hormuz in any proposed attack – they are seeking to set back the Iranian nuclear programme – the MIT analysis focussed on the military viability of such an operation. I have no doubt that if diplomatic efforts or sanctions fail, the US would have few compunctions in letting Israel go at it and do their heavy lifting for them.
The issue of a blockade was raised by Andrew W as an unpalatable option and I happened to agree. I do not see the Iranians committing economic suicide by voluntarily shutting down its primary source of Forex earnings as a response to an Israeli attack. No – attempts at long range missile strikes from Iran and shorter range strikes from Syria plus funding Hezbollah mischief in on the Israel/Lebanon border are more likely Iranian responses. The UN will huff and puff as will all the usual anti-Israeli suspects but, like Osarik, most countries will publicly condemn Israel but privately heave a sigh of relief.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
KIA, I don’t think anyone suggests that Israel would close the straits, my point was that I don’t see sanctions as being as effective against Iran as you hope as oil supply is too tight at the moment, if Irans imports are restricted, why would she not restrict her exports?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
I think it’s wrong to imagine Iran would be a limited strike ala Osirak. Do a google on “checkmate us air force” and read more articles than just the first hit.
I also think it’s wrong to imagine Israel would be leading it, when there’s evidence aplenty to suggest the neocons in the Bush Administration are pushing hard. And on whose behalf do they operate?
The consequences are: the West is cutoff from access to Iran’s energy resources in favour of Russia and China. The Iraqi insurgents cut off the US supply lines and endanger the entire force. The ME erupts.
For what?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Perhaps those who say that Iran cannot be stopped from developing nuclear weapons by Israeli (or US) attacks or by sanctions want to belief this.
Perhaps those who say that Iran can be stopped by military strikes or sanctions want to believe this also.
The question is why people choose what they want to believe.
When it’s the critics of or defenders of Israel involved, it’s all too obvious. Especially given the statements made by the Preisdent of Iran (and these have not been disowned by the real institutional and unelected government of Iran) in regard to ending the existence of one of the nation states of the UN.
We live in a world where China (having annexed Tibet) vetoes any condemnation of power abuse by the military government of Burma and any sanctions. Why, because China is the self appointed guardian of all governments oppressing their own people (given it does so itself whenver it’s own undemocratic regime is challenged).
Where the word of China that it is not involved in cyber attacks on other countries is patently a lie and no one calls them on it. Where the Dominion Post (today) asks us to trust the word of the President of Iran, even though he has no real power in Iran (the record of a covert nuclear programme in Iran has involved deliberate deciet of the rest of us for decades) and won’t be in office and in any way personally accountable when the nuclear capability is publicly known.
There is only one way for the word of Iran to be accountable – Iran supports a resolution in the UN involving sanctions against Iran in the event that their becoming nuclear weapons capable in breach of their word
Vote:While there are no consequences for any breah of trust, their word means nothing. While China vetoes any condemnation of Burma and would do so against Iran as well for acquiring nuclear weapons (in return for favourable oil deals), this is all a charade. Anything less than a UN Resolution is not having any word whatsoever.
September 28th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
One comment in this screed that had me vaguely chuckling is this:
“Odd as it may seem but murderous dictators have a habit of announcing their intentions quite publicly before actually carrying them out.”
Given that the various blogs and talking heads have all been running various pretexts that the US may use in order to attack Iran this comment is rather ironical to say the least.
As it happens there are probably very few gays in Iran given that the homosexual orientation in Western societies has only existed since about the late 19th century and is a societal construct.
There are probably a few more who have “a wide stance” when they visit the toilet – but that, as Senator Craig assures us, does not mean they are gay.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Even more amusing is the claims that somehow Egypt started the 6 days war.
Well of course they did…..in the same way nasty old Poland provoke nice Mr Hitler into a surprise attack.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
NPoG, you’re suggesting that Poland was as aggressive towards Germany as Egypt was towards Israel?!? Come come now….
History (and other experts here) may prove that stance foolish, but i’m prepared to hear you regale us of the pacifism of Egypt and the aggression of Poland.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
“NPoG, you’re suggesting that Poland was as aggressive towards Germany as Egypt was towards Israel?!? Come come now….”
Well Egpyt has been invaded and occupied by Israel in 1956 and 1967 while Poland was quite happy to occupy and ethnically cleanse German territory, I guess you could say Egypt was rather more restrained to its aggressive and territorial acquisitive neighbour than Poland.
“History (and other experts here) may prove that stance foolish”
While I dont know the backgrounds of everyone here, I expect I am the most formally qualified historian here.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
SPC, If Iran is absolutely determined to develop nuclear weapons Israel may be able slow that development with surgical strikes, the US can probably destroy much of Irans infrastructure as they did in Iraq, which would also slow such nuclear development. If the US did take that option the stakes would be higher than those involved in Iraq, and the task several times harder, stopping Irans nuclear program through force ain’t gonna happen.
Vote:An actual US invasion of Iran simply is not practical, the occupation would require close to a million troops (in Iraq the US is contending with a hostile population of less than a third of that countrys population (
September 28th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Damn, I lost most of that comment around here someplace.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
10 million vs Irans population of 70 million)
NPG: “given that the homosexual orientation in Western societies has only existed since about the late 19th century and is a societal construct.”
You’re joking right?
Vote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Europe
September 28th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
“Even more amusing is the claims that somehow Egypt started the 6 days war.”
I agree with KIA on this one, Egypt and her allies, Syria and Jorden, were lining their forces up for an attack on Israel.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Whenever I hear folks lay into Israel about their aggression I try to imagine how I would respond to knowing that 200million close neighbours were very publicly committed to driving me and my family into the sea. Yes, we sit here in NZ, nice and safe and sound and judge the self-preservation actions of a people group based on what appears right and just to us.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
“I agree with KIA on this one, Egypt and her allies, Syria and Jorden, were lining their forces up for an attack on Israel.”
Well clearly Andrew, you are privy to information that was denied the then chief of the IDF
“Yitzhak Rabin, chief of staff of the Israeli army, stated: “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it” ”
Care to reveal where you derived this secret knowledge from?
Egypt was moving divisions in order to discourage Israel from invading Syria as it had been threatening to.
Also, learn about what sexuality as a construct means.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
NPoG would you be able to expand on KIA’s comment:
Was the Gulf of Aqaba closed before Israel struck?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
“learn about what sexuality as a construct means.”
You’re talking nonsense NPG, homosexuality continued despite governments outlawing it, people were homosexual because it gave them pleasure.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
NPoG’s approach is sadly not a joke. The following excerpts are from email issued by the Columbia Queer Alliance the other day. It starts well:
“We condemn the human rights violations perpetrated by the Iranian government under the administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. We admonish the policies that make same-sex practices punishable by torture and death, as well as those that restrict the freedoms and self-determination of women.
Great to see the Queer groups in there pitching against Islamic homphobes just as they have been against those in the West for the last few decades.
But then…..
“We stand in solidarity with our peers in Iran, but we do not presume to speak for them. We cannot possibly claim to understand the multiple and diverse experiences of living with same-sex desires in Iran. Our cultural values and experiences are distinct, but the stakes are one and the same: the essential human right to express our desires freely. Moreover, we would like to strongly caution media and campus organizations against the use of such words as “gay”, “lesbian”, or “homosexual” to describe people in Iran who engage in same-sex practices and feel same-sex desire. The construction of sexual orientation as a social and political identity and all of the vocabulary therein is a Western cultural idiom. As such, scholars of sexuality in the Middle East generally use the terms “same-sex practices” and “same-sex desire” in recognition of the inadequacy of Western terminology. President Ahmadinejad’s presence on campus has provided an impetus for us all to examine a number of issues, but most relevant to our concerns are the complexities of how sexual identity is constructed and understood in different parts of the world.”
Michel Foucault is dead. Long live Michel Foucault!
While I dont know the backgrounds of everyone here, I expect I am the most formally qualified historian here
Well of course we humble scribes should bow down before such an expert – much as we do before Eric Hobsbawm.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Andrew
Several months ago you dismissed the influence of Post-Modernism as merely a type of architecture.
Well, here it is in all it’s philosophical glory – and NPoG will take you down that steep descent from rationality as far you can go.
Best of luck.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
“Well of course we humble scribes should bow down before such an expert – much as we do before Eric Hobsbawm.”
Not at all, all opinions here should be considered on their merits. I simply made that observation in response to a claim that unidentified historical experts agreed with a certain point of view.
KrazyKat, I am unable to make a comment on Oren’s claim as the quote is partial with an ellision, obvious dated post the defeat of Egypt, out of context and with no primary source and therefore with no guarantee of accuracy.
I can confirm that Menachim Begin had the following to say
“In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
Does Michael Oren go on to explain why, if Egypt was planning to destroy Israel, it had left a large portion of its army in Yemen on a peace keeping mission?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
sorry Krazykiwi not kat.
“and NPoG will take you down that steep descent from rationality as far you can go.”
Like it or not, you cant lump Spartan militaristic same sex practices in the same conceptual paradigm as the cheery folks in Kings Cross, Sydney.
Irrational, I know, but there it is.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 12:56 am
Tell that to the guy strutting in his open chest leathers and voting Howard/Liberal deputy and Bush/Republican sheriff in Iraq.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 3:05 am
Natural party of government
You’re straining big time on the 6 day war. Begin was the Israeli opposition leader at the time so his comments regarding a war prosecuted by his poltical rival were always going to be anti the war. That’s pretty much the standard pattern in modern democracies.
Prove that any of Oren’s or Morris’ quotes regarding the publicly stated intentions of the leaders of Egypt, Syria and Iraq re goading Israel into war are wrong. While you’re at it, please furnish proof that closing the Straits of Tiran thus blockading Israel’s primary port was not an act of war. Israel never claimed that Egypt started the war – they rightly deduced that a coalition of Arab states were working in collusion to achieve their oft stated goal – that of the annihilation of the Jewish state. Israel attacked Egypt first because her military might posed the greatest threat and the blockade was a clear provacative act that, left unchallenged, would’ve eventually strangled Israel economically. The day 1 sorties to destroy the airforces of 4 nations was a further pre-emptive move to give Israel needed air supremacy. Israel did NOT initially attack Jordan – the Jordanians launched mortar, shell and rocket attacks on civilian targets in Jerusalem soon after the attack on Egypt despite the Israelis advising the Jordanians to stay out and they would not be attacked. Once the Jordanians attacked, Israel struck back successfully in Jerusalem pushing the Jordanians over the Jordan river.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 3:34 am
“Begin was the Israeli opposition leader at the time so his comments regarding a war prosecuted by his poltical rival were always going to be anti the war.”
Curious, the history books say he was a cabinet minister during the 6 days war. I dare say Rabin, who echoed his comment, was a secret Arab sympathiser.
To what lengths we must go in order to rewrite history to makes Jews appear the eternal victim….
“Prove that any of Oren’s or Morris’ quotes regarding the publicly stated intentions of the leaders of Egypt, Syria and Iraq re goading Israel into war are wrong.”
I dont think they are wrong, simply not true. I am sure they are adequately referenced but about as reliable as those things you read in the papers about what goes on in the party caucus rooms. However without the primary sources they use (both quotes are clearly at least 2nd hand) they are impossible to judge.
Whereas the quotes from Rabin and Begin saying Egypt had no intention of going to war are direct quotes to journalists in an interview or from public speeches.
“While you’re at it, please furnish proof that closing the Straits of Tiran thus blockading Israel’s primary port was not an act of war.”
Eilat is not Israel’s primary port, last I checked it carried in 1999 about 5% of goods via sea (1.7 million tons vs 34 million tons for the mediterrean ports).
So more lies and distortions from the organised pro-Israeli lobby on the web.
Further, closing a strait is not an act of war but can be a causus belli (sp?).
For example Turkey closed the dardanelles during WW2 but neither Axis or Allies considered this an act of war.
Equally Britain has often blockaded Continental Europe in both the 19th and 20th centuries without the Americas necessarily considering that a hostile act (although they sometimes complained).
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 3:37 am
“Israel did NOT initially attack Jordan – the Jordanians launched mortar, shell and rocket attacks on civilian targets in Jerusalem soon after the attack on Egypt despite the Israelis advising the Jordanians to stay out ”
Unfortunately thats what a mutual defence pact entails.
Hitler advised Britain and France to stay out when he invaded Poland but their treaty committments required them to open hostilities. The same with Britain and Belgium in WW1.
In other words Jordan did not attack Israel so much as come to the aid of allies who had come under an aggressive and territorial acqusitive invasion.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 6:39 am
Andrew W
I’m not an expert on economic sanctions. I do know that there is as near political unanimity in the US as you are ever likely to get in today’s fractured political environment to do everything needed to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes. The UNSC’s effectiveness on this issue will be blunted by the lack of co-operation from the Chinese and Russians. The Iranian economy is very fragile and could be tipped over relatively easily.
Experts here believe the most effective approach is the one that proved most successful against the South African aparthied regime in the 80′s – that of disinvestment. California Governor Swartzenanegger recently signed a law forcing all CA based pension funds to divest from any company investing in Iran. Apparently some $130 billion is about to be moved. New York is about to the same and many other states are scheduled or planning to follow. Divestment is from mainly energy related companies doing business in Iran as 85% of their economy is energy related. This will have a devastating effect.
With the French government now equally alarmed at Iran’s nuclear proliferation, you may see a similar disinvestment regime in France which, combined with most US State and the Federal Government, would have far more teeth than any UNSC resolutions would ever have.
Militarily, we know the US can sufficiently degrade the nuclear programme without too much of a sweat. The same is true for Israel but it is a longer stretch for them. What I think you are saying is that the political and economic consequences of a surgical military strike are too high thus they will not happen. Let’s hope economic sanctions are more widely adopted as they can succeed.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 6:50 am
npog
Just because you believe the statements of the Arab leaders are not true doesn’t make them so. Benny Morris is an Israeli historian who has not always towed the party line on Israel – are you saying he just made these quotes up? If so prove it? You seem to be the one guilty of lies and distortions.
Brittanica defines a blockade as “an act of war by which a belligerent prevents access to or departure from a defined part of the enemy’s coasts” http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9015678/blockade Wikipedia states “A blockade is any effort to prevent supplies, troops, information or aid from reaching an opposing force. Blockades are the cornerstone to nearly all military campaigns and the tool of choice for economic warfare on an opposing nation.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade
Eliat is the only Red Sea port and was, and still is, the port through which Israel receives almost all its oil. No oil = no economy.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 6:52 am
npog
Vote:If there was a defence pact in force in 1967 that obliged Jordan to attack Israel after Israel attacked Egypt I’d be obliged if you would furnish the link
September 29th, 2007 at 6:56 am
npog
Vote:If Nasser actually said (as I believe he did) “We knew the closing of the Gulf of Aqaba meant war with Israel…the objective will be Israel’s destruction” would it still change your views on the cause of the 1967 war?
September 29th, 2007 at 7:18 am
“The Iranian economy is very fragile and could be tipped over relatively easily.”
How often have we heard that? You suggest econmic attacks against Irans ability to export oil could be successful, but ignore the fact that globally oil supplies are so tight that the cost the the rest of the world would be prohibitive.
“Experts here believe the most effective approach is the one that proved most successful against the South African aparthied regime in the 80’s – that of disinvestment.”
The South African economy was never brought down by disinvestment, for the SA aparthied regime it was more a question of giving in to the demands of the West – those in the world who were the closest thing SA had to friends.
Much better comparisons can be drawn with pre WWII Germany, Cuba, Iraq, and North Korea, in all these cases sanctions and/or other restrictions imposed by countries who were considered to be the enemy simply acted to create greater unity within the targeted countries.
I don’t deny that the US militarily can pound Iran till it hurts, I don’t think they can (as with almost all other air wars I can think of) pound Iran into submission.
Iran is big enough that, without an actual occupation, a nuclear program could always continue.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 7:48 am
NPoG, homosexuality is a global phenomenon, there is a worldwide genetic predisposition, histroically many have tried to push the line that it was evil, the Devil’s work, the social construct argument has been scientifically disproved, you’re a denialist of the science, and like all such denialists, of evolution, AGW, the Heliocentric solar system, a round Earth, you base your beliefs on religious or ideological prejudices and teachings rather than modern well documented evidence (how many fights have I bought saying that?
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Andrew W
Vote:Valid points Andrew – time will tell.