Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » The Case for Bombing Iran (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: The Case for Bombing Iran
Omega M.
Member
Member # 1392

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is the title of the free article in this month's Commentary magazine. I've only skimmed it so far, but I thought I'd link to it for the interested:

The Case for Bombing Iran

Here are some interesting parts:
quote:
At certain points in that earlier war [the Cold War], some of us feared that the Soviets might seize control of the oil fields of the Middle East, and that the West, faced with a choice between surrendering to their dominance or trying to stop them at the risk of a nuclear exchange, would choose surrender. In that case, we thought, the result would be what in those days went by the name of Finlandization.

In Europe, where there were large Communist parties, Finlandization would take the form of bringing these parties to power so that they could establish “Red Vichy” regimes like the one already in place in Finland—regimes whose subservience to the Soviet will in all things, domestic and foreign alike, would make military occupation unnecessary and would therefore preserve a minimal degree of national independence.

...

Of course, by the grace of God, the dissidents behind the Iron Curtain, and Ronald Reagan, we won World War III [the Cold War] and were therefore spared the depredations that Finlandization would have brought. Alas, we are far from knowing what the outcome of World War IV will be. But in the meantime, looking at Europe today, we already see the unfolding of a process analogous to Finlandization: it has been called, rightly, Islamization. Consider, for example, what happened when, only a few weeks ago, the Iranians captured fifteen British sailors and marines and held them hostage. Did the Royal Navy, which once boasted that it ruled the waves, immediately retaliate against this blatant act of aggression, or even threaten to do so unless the captives were immediately released? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, using force was the last thing in the world the British contemplated doing, as they made sure to announce. Instead they relied on the “soft power” so beloved of “sophisticated” Europeans and their American fellow travelers.

...

If, then, under present circumstances Ahmadinejad could bring about the extraordinary degree of kowtowing that resulted from the kidnapping of the British sailors, what might he not accomplish with a nuclear arsenal behind him—nuclear bombs that could be fitted on missiles capable of reaching Europe?

...

But listen to what Bernard Lewis, the greatest authority of our time on the Islamic world, has to say in this context on the subject of deterrence:
quote:
MAD, mutual assured destruction, [was effective] right through the cold war. Both sides had nuclear weapons. Neither side used them, because both sides knew the other would retaliate in kind. This will not work with a religious fanatic [like Ahmadinejad]. For him, mutual assured destruction is not a deterrent, it is an inducement. We know already that [Iran’s leaders] do not give a damn about killing their own people in great numbers. We have seen it again and again. In the final scenario, and this applies all the more strongly if they kill large numbers of their own people, they are doing them a favor. They are giving them a quick free pass to heaven and all its delights.
Nor are they inhibited by a love of country:
quote:
We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.
These were the words of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who ruled Iran from 1979 to 1989, and there is no reason to suppose that his disciple Ahmadinejad feels any differently.

Still less would deterrence work where Israel was concerned. For as the Ayatollah Rafsanjani (who is supposedly a “pragmatic conservative”) has declared:
quote:
If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession ... application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel, but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.
In other words, Israel would be destroyed in a nuclear exchange, but Iran would survive.

In spite of all this, we keep hearing that all would be well if only we agreed—in the currently fashionable lingo—to “engage” with Iran, and that even if the worst came to the worst we could—to revert to the same lingo—“live” with a nuclear Iran. It is when such things are being said that, alongside the resemblance between now and World War III, a parallel also becomes evident between now and the eve of World War II.


Posts: 1966 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
J_Allen
Member
Member # 3209

 - posted      Profile for J_Allen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have a strong dislike for the opinion that we can “live” with a nuclear Iran. A country that has come right out and said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth - and we are OK with them having nukes? Does anyone else see the problem with that?

How long will we continue to insist that diplomacy is the only way to appease Iran? Probably about long as Europe gave Hitler.

Posts: 49 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bernie's an interesting guy

"Allegations of denial of the Armenian Genocide

In a November 1993 Le Monde interview, Lewis said that the Ottoman Turks’ killing of up to 1.5 million Armenians in 1915 was not "genocide", but the "brutal byproduct of war".[19] He further suggested in the interview that "the reality of the Armenian genocide results from nothing more than the imagination of the Armenian people."[20] A Parisian court interpreted his remarks as a denial of the Armenian Genocide and on June 21, 1995 fined him one franc. The court ruled that while Lewis has the right to his views, they did damage to a third party and that "it is only by hiding elements which go against his thesis that the defendant was able to state that there was no 'serious proof' of the Armenian Genocide."[21]

When Lewis received the prestigious National Humanities Medal from President Bush in November 2006, the Armenian National Committee of America took strong objection. Executive Director Aram Hamparian released a statement of pointed disapproval:
“ The President's decision to honor the work of a known genocide denier — an academic mercenary whose politically motivated efforts to cover up the truth run counter to the very principles this award was established to honor — represents a true betrayal of the public trust.[22] ”

The ANCA Press Release further attacked Lewis by suggesting that early in his career Lewis admitted that there was an actual Holocaust of Armenians in his 1961 book, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, where he wrote on page 356, "A desperate struggle between [the Turks and Armenians] began, a struggle between two nations for the possession of a single homeland, that ended with the terrible holocaust of 1915, when a million and a half Armenians perished."[23]
[edit] Lewis' response

Lewis argues that:
“ There is no evidence of a decision to massacre. On the contrary, there is considerable evidence of attempt to prevent it, which were not very successful. Yes there were tremendous massacres, the numbers are very uncertain but a million may well be likely,[24] ...[and] the issue is not whether the massacres happened or not, but rather if these massacres were as a result of a deliberate preconceived decision of the Turkish government... there is no evidence for such a decision.[25] ”

Lewis thus believes that "to make [Armenian Genocide], a parallel with the Holocaust in Germany" is "rather absurd."[24] In an interview with Haaretz he stated:
“ The deniers of Holocaust have a purpose: to prolong Nazism and to return to Nazi legislation. Nobody wants the 'Young Turks' back, and nobody wants to have back the Ottoman Law. What do the Armenians want? The Armenians want to benefit from both worlds. On the one hand, they speak with pride of their struggle against the Ottoman despotism, while on the other hand, they compare their tragedy to the Jewish Holocaust. I do not accept this. I do not say that the Armenians did not suffer terribly. But I find enough cause for me to contain their attempts to use the Armenian massacres to diminish the worth of the Jewish Holocaust and to relate to it instead as an ethnic dispute.[26]"

+++

"Stance on the Iraq War

Most recently Lewis has been criticised as "perhaps the most significant intellectual influence behind the invasion of Iraq", who urged regime change in Iraq to provide a jolt that — he argued — would "modernize the Middle East". [27] Critics of Lewis have suggested that Lewis' Orientalist theories about "What Went Wrong" in the Middle East, and other important works, formed the intellectual basis of the push towards war in Iraq."

One of Bernie's staunchest critics, Edward Said, said this on that:

"Said opposed many US foreign policy endeavors in the Middle East. During an April 2003 interview with Al-Ahram Weekly, Said argued that the Iraq war was ill-conceived:
“ My strong opinion, though I don't have any proof in the classical sense of the word, is that they want to change the entire Middle East and the Arab world, perhaps terminate some countries, destroy the so-called terrorist groups they dislike and install regimes friendly to the United States. I think this is a dream that has very little basis in reality. The knowledge they have of the Middle East, to judge from the people who advise them, is to say the least out of date and widely speculative....

I don't think the planning for the post- Saddam, post-war period in Iraq is very sophisticated, and there's very little of it. [US Undersecretary of State Marc] Grossman and [US Undersecretary of Defense Douglas] Feith testified in Congress about a month ago and seemed to have no figures and no ideas what structures they were going to deploy; they had no idea about the use of institutions that exist, although they want to de-Ba'thise the higher echelons and keep the rest.

The same is true about their views of the army. They certainly have no use for the Iraqi opposition that they've been spending many millions of dollars on. And to the best of my ability to judge, they are going to improvise. Of course the model is Afghanistan. I think they hope that the UN will come in and do something, but given the recent French and Russian positions I doubt that that will happen with such simplicity[38]
"

So far, I see Said's propecies hitting the mark. Said's main criticism of Bernie is:

"Debates with Edward Said

Lewis is known for his literary sparrings with Edward Said, the Palestinian-American literary theorist, who criticized Orientalist scholarship, claiming Lewis's work to be a prime example of Orientalism, in his 1978 book Orientalism. Said asserted that the field of Orientalism was political intellectualism bent on self-affirmation rather than objective study,[14] a form of racism, and a tool of imperialist domination.[15] He further questioned the direct knowledge of many leading Orientalist scholars such as Bernard Lewis on the Arab world. In an interview with Al-Ahram Weekly, Said suggested that Lewis' knowledge of the Middle East was so biased it could not be taken seriously, and claimed "Bernard Lewis hasn't set foot in the Middle East, in the Arab world, for at least 40 years. He knows something about Turkey, I'm told, but he knows nothing about the Arab world." [16]
"

Said has also alleged that Lewis treats Islam as a monolithic entity without the nuance of its historical complexities, internal dynamics, and plurality, and accused him of "demagogy and downright ignorance."[17]"

Certainly, I find little merit in the idea that Muslim fanaticism makes a career politician like Ahmadinejad immune to fears of complete annihilation of pert near everyone he loves.

[ June 01, 2007, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NSCutler
Member
Member # 1403

 - posted      Profile for NSCutler   Email NSCutler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If we we're to bomb Iran, their economy would tank.

If the Iranian economy tanks, the hordes of illegal Afghani migrant workers won't be sending money back home to Afghanistan.

If Afghanistan looses this source of income, they will be even more dependent on opium poppies as a national product.

We will then be put in the delightful position of having to choose between letting heroine exports increase or letting the already anemic Afghani economy go completely to hell, making it ripe for a Taliban resurgence.

Or then again, we might be welcomed with candy and flowers, as those wacky middle easterners are so famous for doing. The blue meanies will go away and Pepperland will be free once more!

Posts: 789 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
J_Allen
Member
Member # 3209

 - posted      Profile for J_Allen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I like the If-Thens [Smile]

If we don't do anything, Iran gets nukes.

If Iran gets nukes, then Israel gets nuked.

If Israel gets nuked, then the US has to either retreat into isolation or start World War III.

Posts: 49 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Iran's prez is just full of a lot of hot air. His influence over foreign policy is almost nil.

Iran actually helped us fight AQ in Afghanistan. They have a legal right to develop nuclear power, and there has never been any evidence of a nuclear weapons program. Bombing Iran would be an even more grave mistake than attacking Iraq.

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BS. We cannot allow Iran to get the bomb. Legal smegal, it's a matter of preventing WWIII.


What's with this WWIV crap in the first post?

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some people don't distinguish between hot and cold wars, KE, therefore, they think that the Cold War was WWIII.

Look a little closer at the article, the author does just that.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If Iran gets nukes, then Israel gets nuked.
There's a leap.

If Israel gets nuked, one of the five pillars of Islam is destroyed.

Islam is therefor not triumphant.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KE

WWIII was better known as the Cold War.

WWIV will go by a different name too I bet- War on Terror just doesn't explain it well enough for the average American. But I think history books will recall it as the Persian and Islamic Expansion War.

Let us hope we do not bomb Iran. We have no stomach for war to such an extent that we cannot even agree to fight our current battles. UBL was right- we are unable to stick it out. Let us hope Iran does not create a bomb. Let us hope Iran does not use a bomb. Let us hope that Iran does not become a new Greater Persia with Europe held nuclear hostage.

And let us hope they do not attack israel again in the next year or two with a nuke. The genocide of the Jews will be horrible on both the giving and taking end.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks Ed, Red. I thought he was adding a war somewhere, but I couldn't figure out where.

Red, there is no doubt, is there, that Iran is attempting to build a nuclear bomb?

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not directed too me, KE, but IMHO..

There is no doubt but there is no concrete proof.

Just for the record, I'm about 90% certain they're trying to build one.

Which makes me really confused about Syrias emminently reasonable peace proposal...and leads me to consider that they may want to end hostilities with Israel and their alliance with Iran before the fecal matter hits the rotary device and they get caught in the storm.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
martel
Member
Member # 3448

 - posted      Profile for martel   Email martel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Islam is therefor not triumphant. If Israel gets nuked, one of the five pillars of Islam is destroyed.

Islam is therefor not triumphant. "

Well, yes, but why didn't the 5 pillars of Islam come into play when Ahmadinejad called for Israel's destruction? And the Palestinians sure don't seem to mind attacking Jews.
KidB, I've heard vastly conflicting views on Ahmadinejad's exact level on control over foreign policy: do you have any sources or anything to back that up? Because I think the problem does lie with who really controls the foreign policy, and then we really have to discuss what they might do, because Iran is certainly not monolithic; they may be a dictatorship, but they do have dissent- Ahmadinejad's faction was roundly defeated in local elections a few months ago.

Posts: 308 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Israel isn't going to nuke Mecca just because Ahmadinejad makes the same mouth noises Muslim rulers have been making for 60 years.

They aren't even going to nuke Iran if Iran tests a bomb.

Israel cannot afford, under any circumstances, to be the first to use nuclear weapons.

Israel also cannot afford, under any circumstances, to be the last to use nuclear weapons.

There is more than one reason Carter gave Egypt a couple billion a year for eternity.

It's worked so far, by the way.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
martel
Member
Member # 3448

 - posted      Profile for martel   Email martel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ummm...yes, but I think it's still an open question as to whether Iran will nuke Israel (so far, I am of the opinion that it's unlikely, but I really don't know.)

Wait, sorry, why can't Israel afford to be the last to use nukes?

Posts: 308 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jesse

Assuming Islamic Brotherhood doesn't topple Egypts government- which becomes more and more of a possibility each year. No one thought that the Shah would fall either. And Ike sure did set up one humdinger of an aid package for the Shah in payment for what he did during WWII.

Iran tests a nuke- its already too late for Israel to attack.

Israel may be forced into a first strike quandry. Imagine Hezballah attacking from the north and Hamas from the occupied territories, as Iran acts at protectors against them.

It would be ugly.

For all our sakes, if Iran does hit Israel- which would essentially erradicate (0% of Israel in seconds- we better hope that not only do the Israelis have the bomb, but that they have at least 100 so that they can play the hand of cards that eliminates Islam from the middle east permanently protected by a sea of glass.

If they don't- Europe would be next Iranian target.

And as weak kneed as we are- I don't think even the French wouldn't attack Iran first. And that would be the start of a nuclear winter.

KE.

Little doubt they are building a bomb. And by my estimates they should have a minnimum of enough uranium ready to go in at least one bomb. Its been a year with 1500 centrifuges running 24/7 and at least 2 months with at least 3000 running.

I suspect we will only find out about their nukes for sure once they have at least a dozen ready to go. A dozen makes it an almost certain successful number needed to wipe out israel and turn the rest of the Middle East into client states. The Saudis will be screwed almost as bad as Israel.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
martel,

What's wrong with good ol' wiki?

quote:
The political system of the Islamic Republic is based on the 1979 Constitution called the "Qanun-e Asasi" ("Fundamental Law"). The system comprises several intricately connected governing bodies. The Supreme Leader of Iran is responsible for delineation and supervision of "the general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran". The Supreme Leader is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, controls the military intelligence and security operations; and has sole power to declare war. The heads of the judiciary, state radio and television networks, the commanders of the police and military forces and six of the twelve members of the Council of Guardians are appointed by the Supreme Leader. The Assembly of Experts elects and dismisses the Supreme Leader on the basis of qualifications and popular esteem.[62] The Assembly of Experts is responsible for supervising the Supreme Leader in the performance of legal duties.


Ahmadinejad is the prez, for whom the following applies.

quote:
The President is responsible for the implementation of the Constitution and for the exercise of executive powers, except for matters directly related to the Supreme Leader, who has the final say in all matters.
His role relegated to domestic concerns and diplomacy.

I'll get back to this threat later on...going out to dinner now.

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Redskull

All estimates I have read have Israel with at least 300 nukes. Given how long they've had a breeder reactor up and running, I'd almost call that conservative.


Martel

Because there would be no Israel.

Iran, if it were to launch, would not do so with less than half a dozen missles. We wouldn't be just talking Tel Aviv, and they certainly wouldn't leave Israeli settlers and Military in Occupied territories off the list.

There would be no Palestinians cheering because there wouldn't be any Palestinians.

The Palestinians are just a bunch of Sunnis and a few Christians anyway.

The scenerios in which Iran produces one warhead, slaps it on an unreliable missle, and lobs it at an Israel equipped with an ABM system and some 300+ war-heads are, to me, laughable.


Egypt is another clear example of why the NPT treaty was a bad idea.

Egypts fairly recent announcment

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Does anyone have a link to the current status of Iranian delivery vehicles? Last time I looked they were testing medium-distance ballistic missiles, but their tests were failures.
Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
andrewski
Member
Member # 758

 - posted      Profile for andrewski     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To nuke, or not to nuke, that is the question? Not really, there are conventional alternatives. The question is are we willing to pay the piper the cost of that conventional alternative? Via our own air, TLAM blockIV and as needed busters? Do we have enough Hum/Elec/Int to successfully target reactors, research and production centers? Via proxy, ala Osiraq 1981, we let the little guy take the heat? Boots on the ground, the only way we would ever be sure short of glassing over the country?
Posts: 90 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We can bomb from the air. We can probably set their program back a few years.

They can launch on us in Iraq and Afghanistan, at large fixed targets. They could dramatically increase their involvement in Iraq, were, despite the yelping, finger-pointing, and blame refusal from our current administration, they are not currently as invested as they could be.

They may be able to get their boys in Lebanon to cut loose again. They can definately pull off several substantial terror strikes.

They would leave us with no choice but invasion, and we haven't the might to pull it off.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jesse -

Without acting in an overt fashion against us, what more can they do in Iraq?

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Once we bomb them, overt isn't an issue.

Currently? They could start supporting anyone willing to fight us, rather than what they have been shown to do so far, which is to support those they believe will be "friendly to their interests" after we leave.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In-depth details on Ahmadinejad's Israel comments
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From Trouts link, this is what the guy who matters (Kahmeni)said -


quote:
We hold a fair and logical stance on the issue of Palestine. Several decades ago, Egyptian statesman Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was the most popular Arab personality, stated in his slogans that the Egyptians would throw the Jewish usurpers of Palestine into the sea. Some years later, Saddam Hussein, the most hated Arab figure, said that he would put half of the Palestinian land on fire. But we would not approve of either of these two remarks. We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable. Our position is that the Palestinian people should regain their rights. Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people. The issue of Palestine is a criterion for judging how truthful those claiming to support democracy and human rights are in their claims. The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate government
Far from a threat to nuke anyone.

[ June 02, 2007, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's really simple: Do you have the intel necessary to make sure you've actually taken their program out? Cause if not, the hell of terror that would follow simply wouldn't be worth it.

FdR - if you really think Iran is pulling out all, most, half or even a quarter of the destructive stops it can in Iraq, I envy your bliss.

[ June 02, 2007, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: RickyB ]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jesse - I've had a debate about this with Prof. Juan Cole. I think people on the left are too quick to pooh-pooh the danger from Iran. There's a story about an Arab leader coming to Visit Iran, has a meeting with Khamenei and finds the guy deep in thought. "What's wrong?" asks the visitor. Khamenei replies: "I'm thinking how we can destroy Israel". These people are rather obsessed, sadly. Now, I don't think that just because they'll have a nuke they'll use it on us next day, but they will geometrically increase their influence and ability to hinder peace.

[ June 02, 2007, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: RickyB ]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
His statement isn't reasonable anyway, Ricky.

His idea of the "electorate" of Filistin is "native" Jews and Palestinian Refugees and their descendants from all over the world.

There is a very real danger from Iran, but the danger isn't that Iran is going to nuke Tel Aviv.

All the more reason the Syrian peace proposal should have been accepted. It probably would have been if Israeli nukes didn't convey a sense of invincibility that hinders the peace process.

You know I'm never going to shut up about that proposal, right? [Wink] Seriously, though, it would greatly reduce Irans regional influence.

[ June 02, 2007, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's little more than an anecdote, Ricky, and wide-open to interpretation.

It's not about "pooh-poohing" the alleged danger posed by Iran - it's about putting things in perspective, which is sorely needed. Most poeple in the U.S. seem to be convinced that Iran is expressely pursuing a plan to mass-murder Israelis. This is a complete distortion of the regime's stated goals, and of the statements of the Iranian president, which are never given fair representation in the media here.

If Iran is truly an enemy and a danger, at the very least we should be having this debate with full knowledge of their stated intentions.

If you take issue with the left on this matter, here is Scott Ritter , former weapons inspector and US Marine:

quote:
These sites were inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Some of the sites like Natanz have emerges as having been involved in a uranium enrichment program. None of the sites have been found to have been involved in a nuclear weapons program. In fact there has been no evidence found of a nuclear weapons program existing in Iran, just a nuclear enrichment program for the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Some of the information the MEK later put out turned out to be false. Basically the release of this information - which was debunked - was an effort to take control the headlines and interpretation of what’s going on to take out voices other than those who detest Iran by providing information that is not accurate.

and

quote:
Why did they keep it a secret? Because the United States would not accept it. If Iran went out and said, “Hey we want to acquire this,” the United States would shut it down. Case in point is the Bushehr reactor where the Iranian government tried to get the German company Siemens to abide by its pre-revolution contract and Siemens was persuaded by the United States to withdraw. When Iran would look to the Russians and the Chinese, the United States would follow up and put pressure so that these contracts would be withdrawn.

As a result, in order for the Iranians to make any progress they had to continue their program in secret and they did so. At the time the information became public, I point out, that it’s always been a nuclear energy program; it has never been a nuclear weapons program. And this is why when the inspectors went in, even though the program had been secret for 18 years, they could find no evidence of a weapons program. There is none.

Full article here.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eric
Member
Member # 2699

 - posted      Profile for Eric   Email Eric       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Iran as a nuclear power scares the crap out of me, and I have little doubt they're working feverishly on a nuclear weapon, not just "peaceful" nuclear power.

On the other hand, there's a large chunk of the Iranian population which despises the mullahs, is pro-western, and would love to see a change in government.

I suspect that bombing Iran might just drive them, even if temporarily, back into the arms of the mullahs.

Posts: 448 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 1392

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That Ritter article makes a lot of sense to me. With the information in there, the possible mistranslation of Ahmadinejad's "wiped off the map" comments, the more peacful words of the ayatollahs, and the fact that Iran hasn't started a war the way Iraq did, I'm leaning toward declaring Iran innocent until proven guilty.
Posts: 1966 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As much as I hate Iran and fear the very idea of Iran having a nuclear weapon, the consequences of a pre-emptive strike against Iran scare me even more.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jesse

going too many posts back, i might add , Israel can launch second strikes with submarines

hopefully the arrow missile will stop missiles coming from Iran anyway.

FDR, Iran has Shihab-3 missiles that can target all of israel in mass production and according to Israel these missiles are very reliable and also somewhat sophisticated, as our arrow missiles were originally inadequate to stop them and are undergoing improvments in order to stop their unique warheads.
Iran is currently working on Shihab-4 missiles that can reach France.
the Iranis rely much on North Korean help to make all those missiles.

Israel has Jericho 3 missiles that can strike all over Iran (and moscow) and submarine/fighterplane launched cruise missiles that can carry nukes.

Jesse about the Syrian "peace offer"

what will Israel do once we sign a peace treaty with Syria, give them back the golan hights (which is populated by 200k people, and is 40 years under israeli control, and was only 19 years under syrian conrtol) what will israel do, if after we sign a peace treaty with them, Hizbullah keeps attacking us in the northen border?

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Northern Border with Lebannon won't be in the same place along all of it's length, Hannibal.

Syria will have to put up or shut up on Shebba.

Lebannon gets Shebba back, Hezbollah loses support of most of the population for agression. Lebannon doesn't get Shebba back, anti-Syrian sentiment skyrockets.

The thing is, most of the help Hezbollah gets from "Syria" is passed-along Iranian help. If Syria signs a Peace Treaty - not a cease-fire, but a Peace Treaty - with Israel, what happens to Syrian relations with Iran?

Regardless of any of that, peace with Syria doesn't limit Israels right of self-defense and proportionate response in regard to Hezbollah anymore than the current state of "cease-fire" with Syria does.

The Arrow system was a great investment, Hannibal, but don't put excessive faith in it. If I was an Iranian Commander, I'd be launching 200 missles and maybe ten of them would actually have expensive nukes on them.

Where do you get 200,000 in the Golan? There are only 34,000 people there, 17,000 are Druze (most of whom want Syria back, god knows why), a little over 2,000 are muslim and I have no idea what their opinions are, and 14,000 are Jews. A small scattering are "other" including a handfull of Christians.

[ June 04, 2007, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I Wish...

In the real world though, Syria will continue supllying Hizbullah, just like they are doing now even though there are two UN resolutions against it

Hizbullah will find another lame excuse to why they should keep fight untill israel is destroyed
everything stays the same, except now syria got the golan hights for free

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 1392

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is another reason for us not to attack Iran ...
quote:
Al-Qaida has already obtained nuclear suitcase weapons from the Russian black market, weapons tested in Afghanistan in 2000, and they may have already been forward-deployed inside the U.S., according to the only journalist to interview Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri in the wake of Sept. 11.

Last week, Hamid Mir's credibility skyrocketed when he accurately predicted in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin and later in WND the imminent release of a new recorded communiqué from bin Laden through al-Jazeera, the Arabic TV network. Two days later, bin Laden's tape was the focus of international news coverage.

"If you think that my information and analysis about bin Laden's location is correct," said Hamid Mir, "then please don't underestimate my analysis about his nuclear threat also."

Mir said that he met with an Egyptian engineer last week who lost an eye after one of bin Laden's nuclear tests in the Kunar province of Pakistan. The Pakistani journalist said the encounter with the engineer greatly disturbed and depressed him since it provided further assurance that a nuclear nightmare for America is about to dawn.

Mir believes that an "American Hiroshima" will occur as soon as the U.S. launches an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

"Al-Qaida and Iran," he says, "have a long, secret relationship." "American Hiroshima" is the name al-Qaida leaders chose for their long-planned nuclear attack on the U.S.

Article (April 28, 2006).

I'm not usually one to suggest we let terrorists intimidate us, but if they'll hit us with an attack of this magnitude if we attack Iran, we'd had better be certain our attack will avert an even greater disaster. I'm very disappointed that the Commentary article I linked to didn't mention this threat by name.

(Search for "American Hiroshima" to find out more.)

Posts: 1966 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
martel
Member
Member # 3448

 - posted      Profile for martel   Email martel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But...they're Al Qaeda. For some reason, I doubt that if we don't attack Iran, bin Laden will decide: "oh. Well, we had that nuke in place, but since they didn't attack Iran I think we'll just take that nuke back and leave them alone, as a reward for being so understanding."

IF this report is correct, it's probably only a matter of time until the nuclear device is detonated.

Posts: 308 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Whether the report is true or not, bin laden would certainly have strategic considerations as to when he might deliver an American Hiroshima.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hannibal, Hezbollah has broad support in Lebanon and is seen as a National Militia because they are seen as fighting to throw out the Israeli Invader.

Not because the Lebanese have such a massive ingrained desire to fight Israel. The Nation of Lebanon hasn't actually attacked you guys in 59 years.

Showing a willingness to actually demarcate the border with Syria opens up the possibility of demarcating the border with Lebanon, and removing the fear of many Lebanese of all faiths that Israel wants the Litani.

You might have well said forty years ago that there was no point to persuing peace with Jordan - they would just keep ignoring the PLO, or that there was no reason to make peace with Egypt, since they would just keep funding the PLO.

Syria, right now, is in a very weak position and they know it. It's truer to say that they are surrounded by enemies than to say that Israel is.

Turkey and Israel have a virtual mutual defense pact, the US is in Iraq to their East, their realtions with Jordan are always tense, and then they've got Israel to the South West.

There is never going to be a better time to make peace with them, and they are never going to make peace without the return of the Golan.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
well so we are at an impace

The lebanese (those not brainwashed by hizbulla) know that we have nothing to do with their country, it is actually our only neighbour with who we never had territorial disputes

and those which are "influenced" by hizbullah will stay that way.

unfortionatly, due to the ineptitude of the lebanese government, hizbullah is not only "kill israelis" but "educate lebanese to kill israelis"

the case with jordan is different, we thought less wars with them, and there were allways "behind the stage" dealings with them the only reason why we didnt have a peace treaty with them alot lot lot earlier was because they were afraid to be the first country to sign peace treaty. this is hardly the case with syria.

there is also a major differnce in the level of leadership, king hussein of jordan was one of the more noble people in the middle east. when there was an attack by a jordanian soldier on israeli school girls (7 dead) he came to israel to the houses of the families and begged for forgivness to his people

i dont see any syrian leader coming to the heals of that.

you foget the syria isnt all that goodie two shoes, they do supply hizbullah syrian made missiles landed by the tousands on israel last summer and they supply hizbulla even now even though they are not supposed to by UNres 1701
they will continue to suplly hizbulla because hizbullah also protects their interests in lebanon

thats right, syria is in a very weak position, and its not going to get better, they are "surrounded by enemies" only because they made every one their enemy, and because they are coming from such a weak position unlike, say the egyptian who wanted to make peace after they saw themselves as winners in 1973, you should question their (the syrians) motives.

I for one, simply dont believe a word bashar assad says, dont forget that all of the Hamas's leadership sits comfortably in demascus and more then that.

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1