Iranian President gone mad

[theloniusfleabag]

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.

from...

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E...3CE0E9957EA.htm

Wacky. And trouble.

[Black Dog]

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.

from...

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E...3CE0E9957EA.htm

Wacky. And trouble.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wouldn't put too much stock in the veracity of such statements. The repressive Iranian government is simply doing what repressive goovernments do: scapegoating others for their own problems and distract people from the real problems at home. Think of it as Iran's take on the interminable "war on terror" speeches down south.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Black Dog,

The repressive Iranian government is simply doing what repressive goovernments do: scapegoating others for their own problems and distract people from the real problems at home.

Indeed, quite a few statements like this are made, and nothing usually happens (out of the ordinary, that is). However,

Think of it as Iran's take on the interminable "war on terror" speeches down south.

comparable, even Bush hasn't called for 'wiping a country off the map', just 'Terrah'.

I am not so concerned that he said it, as much as I am concerned that he is in a position to do it. Israel would 'go nuke' the minute they are threatened (legitimately). However, Iran is in no strategic position for a ground assault, and haven't yet the nuclear capability for a decisive strike. Which makes me wonder how this 'sabre-rattling' will be received by AIPAC et al. I have often wondered if the 'enduring bases' in Iraq would be used as staging areas for Iran and elsewhere, and we may soon see.

[Black Dog]

I am not so concerned that he said it, as much as I am concerned that he is in a position to do it. Israel would 'go nuke' the minute they are threatened (legitimately). However, Iran is in no strategic position for a ground assault, and haven't yet the nuclear capability for a decisive strike. Which makes me wonder how this 'sabre-rattling' will be received by AIPAC et al. I have often wondered if the 'enduring bases' in Iraq would be used as staging areas for Iran and elsewhere, and we may soon see.

I don't think we'll be seeing a U.S. invasion of Iran. Maybe a air campaign, but I don't see them venturing out on another ground war when their forces are already tied down by the Sunni insurgency. What's more, Iraq's large Shiite population probably wouldn't take kindly to the Americans bombing their spiritual brethren, so keeping them sweet is essential. But then, given the degree to which Israel's concerns influence U.S. foreign policy, one never knows.

[Argus]

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.

from...

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E...3CE0E9957EA.htm

Wacky. And trouble.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It would certainly not be difficult to make the case that Israel has the right to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities if it appears they are coming close to the ability to build nuclear weapons.

[Black Dog]

It would certainly not be difficult to make the case that Israel has the right to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities if it appears they are coming close to the ability to build nuclear weapons.

Israel has nuclear weapons and has openly spoken of the need to rid the Iranians of its oppressive regime. Yet Iran is the threat to peace that must be dealt with via military action?

The mutual sabre rattling is counter-productive.

[Argus]

It would certainly not be difficult to make the case that Israel has the right to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities if it appears they are coming close to the ability to build nuclear weapons.

Israel has nuclear weapons and has openly spoken of the need to rid the Iranians of its oppressive regime. Yet Iran is the threat to peace that must be dealt with via military action?

The mutual sabre rattling is counter-productive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Many nations and people have spoken to the need to rid some nations of oppressive, murderous regimes.

You get back to me when Israel talks about destroying Iran itself, as opposed to its murderous government.

[August1991]

It would certainly not be difficult to make the case that Israel has the right to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities if it appears they are coming close to the ability to build nuclear weapons.

Israel has nuclear weapons and has openly spoken of the need to rid the Iranians of its oppressive regime. Yet Iran is the threat to peace that must be dealt with via military action?

The mutual sabre rattling is counter-productive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mutual sabre rattling?

In Israel, a woman can wear a bikini on a beach. Teenagers can neck in public. Gays can shack up. People can complain about the stupidity of their government ministers in a bus for all to hear. The Knesset is a raucous place. Talk shows and newspapers are filled with provocative nonsense.

None of these are possible in Tehran.

The moral relativity of the Left irks me. "Israel is the same as Iran. Bush is the same as Saddam. The Soviet Union and America? Same difference." Well, there is a big difference...

Israelis would like nothing better than to live in peace with their neighbours.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Israelis would like nothing better than to live in peace with their neighbours.

All is not quite so rosy. There are hard-line extremists in Israel too, though probably not as many as elsewhere. Uzi Landau comes to mind, and Binyamin Netanyahu enjoys wide support.

The Knesset is a raucous place. Talk shows and newspapers are filled with provocative nonsense.

You are right here, though. What sometimes passes for parlimentary debate in the Knesset would be open and high treason in some countries.

However, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has just presented himself as a far greater 'threat to stability in the region' (the only wording in any UN resolutions regarding Iraq that could have been twisted into 'legitimacy' for the invasion of Iraq) than Saddam had, or was capable of,. in the ten or so years before the invasion of Iraq.

As to the US being 'stuck in iraq', I am not so sure. A Indian (east) friend of mine told me long ago what the US ploy in Iraq was, based on an old Indian proverb. (I have posted it before, but cannot remember what thread it was on).

"Dropping a bucket of popcorn amidst the monkeys", was how he put it. Then, you are free to move on.

[BHS]

In Israel, a woman can wear a bikini on a beach.  Teenagers can neck in public.  Gays can shack up.  People can complain about the stupidity of their government ministers in a bus for all to hear.  The Knesset is a raucous place.  Talk shows and newspapers are filled with provocative nonsense.

None of these are possible in Tehran.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

An interesting aside: Iran is the world capital of sex change operations. I'm not kidding.

Guardian article

[PocketRocket]

When you consider that a short while back BUSH was making "Iran next" noises, this can only be seen as a bad thing.

All we need is Bush getting the idea to carry his ongoing campaign into yet another country.

[BHS]

When you consider that a short while back BUSH was making "Iran next" noises, this can only be seen as a bad thing.

All we need is Bush getting the idea to carry his ongoing campaign into yet another country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not going to happen. And what do you mean, "Iran next noises"? I think you're remembering things that were never said.

[Argus]

When you consider that a short while back BUSH was making "Iran next" noises, this can only be seen as a bad thing.

All we need is Bush getting the idea to carry his ongoing campaign into yet another country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And what if the alternative is Iran gaining nuclear weapons?

[tml12]

When you consider that a short while back BUSH was making "Iran next" noises, this can only be seen as a bad thing.

All we need is Bush getting the idea to carry his ongoing campaign into yet another country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And what if the alternative is Iran gaining nuclear weapons?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Iran's comments are simply a lot of BS. Iran knows if they touched Israel they'd be glowing green for the next thousand years.

[Toro]

There will not be an invasion of Iran. There may be a military strike however. These comments increase the odds of that happening.

[PocketRocket]

When you consider that a short while back BUSH was making "Iran next" noises, this can only be seen as a bad thing.

All we need is Bush getting the idea to carry his ongoing campaign into yet another country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not going to happen. And what do you mean, "Iran next noises"? I think you're remembering things that were never said.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hope you're right, about it not going to happen.

As for the "noises", do a Google search using "Bush preparing for Iran".

Here's the first pair of entries I got, hence the reference to the "noise".

And my apologies, it seems it was only members of Bush's admin malking the noise, not Bush himself.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/printer_112004Y.shtml

In an eerie repetition of the prelude to the Iraq war, hawks in the administration and Congress are trumpeting ominous disclosures about Iran's nuclear capacities to make the case that Iran is a threat that must be confronted, either by economic sanctions, military action, or "regime change."

http://salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/18/iran/print.html

Only the credible threat, and if necessary the use, of air and special operations attacks against Iran's suspected nuclear facilities will stop the ruling clerics in Tehran from acquiring warheads, many in the administration argue.

And what if the alternative is Iran gaining nuclear weapons?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, it seems like everyone else has 'em.

Seriously, hard to say. It seems like the handful of countries that presently have nukes want to remain as part of some exclusive club, and don't want any new members.

Hell, if Canada decided to start up a nuclear missile program, would the USA, France, Britain, et al decide to come down on us too???

[Black Dog]

The moral relativity of the Left irks me. "Israel is the same as Iran. Bush is the same as Saddam. The Soviet Union and America? Same difference." Well, there is a big difference...

Um...that's not moral relativity, but moral equivilance. And no one expressed those sentiments here.

Israelis would like nothing better than to live in peace with their neighbours.

Ha!

[Argus]

When you consider that a short while back BUSH was making "Iran next" noises, this can only be seen as a bad thing.

All we need is Bush getting the idea to carry his ongoing campaign into yet another country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And what if the alternative is Iran gaining nuclear weapons?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Iran's comments are simply a lot of BS. Iran knows if they touched Israel they'd be glowing green for the next thousand years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The former Iranian president had an answer to that. He said that as soon as Iran gets nuclear weapons they must use them on Israel. You see, there aren't that many Jews, and they're all in one place. So even though millions of Muslims would be killed in the retailation, the Muslim world would survive, but Israel would not. God would smile on his Muslim children and welcome them into paradise as reward for sacrificing themselves for the good of Islam.

You might consider that hyperbole, except that we know many Muslims actually believe suicide bombing is welcomed by God, no matter how many of their own people die in the attack. From all accounts, the president Iranian president is not an educated man, but a firebreathing Muslim extremist from the hinterland. Suppose he believes that too?

[Argus]

And what if the alternative is Iran gaining nuclear weapons?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, it seems like everyone else has 'em.

Seriously, hard to say. It seems like the handful of countries that presently have nukes want to remain as part of some exclusive club, and don't want any new members.

Hell, if Canada decided to start up a nuclear missile program, would the USA, France, Britain, et al decide to come down on us too???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, because despite how craven and dishonest some of our leaders are we are a responsible, intelligent, socially advanced people who they know aren't about to give nukes to terrorists or lob them at our enemies out of religious mania. No one can say the same about Iran.

[Yodeler]

we are a responsible, intelligent, socially advanced people who they know aren't about to give nukes to terrorists or lob them at our enemies out of religious mania. No one can say the same about Iran.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The way our immigration is going, soon we could have a Prime Minister by the name of Mohammad.

I'm going to miss beer.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear PocketRocket,

Well, it seems like everyone else has 'em.

Seriously, hard to say. It seems like the handful of countries that presently have nukes want to remain as part of some exclusive club, and don't want any new members.

Hell, if Canada decided to start up a nuclear missile program, would the USA, France, Britain, et al decide to come down on us too???

Canada evidently did have nuclear weapons at one time. When I was younger, someone told me that we 'always had one up in the air'. Wasn't sure whether to believe him or not, but...

from... http://www.user.dccnet.com/welcomewoods/Nu...clearwater.html

The work begins with an account of the efforts of the Pearson government to sign the Agreement with the US necessary to bring nuclear weapons to Canada in 1963. Subsequent chapters provide a detailed discussion of the four nuclear weapons systems deployed by Canada: the BOMARC surface-to-air guided interceptor missile; the HONEST JOHN short range battlefield rocket; the STARFIGHTER tactical thermonuclear bomber; and the VOODOO-GENIE air defence system. Each chapter also includes a section on accidents and incidents which occurred while the weapons were at Canadian sites. The final chapter covers the ultimately futile efforts of the Maritime Air Command and the Royal Canadian Navy to acquire nuclear anti-submarine weapons.

However, as Argus states, much different reasons for procurement and much different parameters for deployment would be noted between Canada and Iran today.

[August1991]

The moral relativity of the Left irks me. "Israel is the same as Iran. Bush is the same as Saddam. The Soviet Union and America? Same difference." Well, there is a big difference...

Um...that's not moral relativity, but moral equivilance. And no one expressed those sentiments here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BD, you stated:

Israel has nuclear weapons and has openly spoken of the need to rid the Iranians of its oppressive regime. Yet Iran is the threat to peace that must be dealt with via military action?

The mutual sabre rattling is counter-productive.

I took that to imply a "moral equivalence" of the Iranian and Israeli governments.

I agree with you that an American invasion of Iran is simply not going to happen. I do see American cruise missiles or Israeli fighters striking Iranian targets. (Does anyone know if the Israelis have the means to strike at such a distance?)

Israelis would like nothing better than to live in peace with their neighbours.

Ha!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the Yom Kippur war was a turning point for Israelis. They had been persuaded to wait for an attack before responding and this was devastating to them. Since then, they have returned to a more aggressive defence while simultaneously signing agreements where possible. I realize there is a broad spectrum of opinion in Israel about this but the effect has been a tough cop, good cop routine.

Incidentally, I fear that we in the West will soon be confronted with the kinds of problems Israelis have faced over the past 30 years or so. The recent bombings in New Delhi do not augur well.

[Guest eureka]

All that is new about the New Delhi bombings is the location. India suffers more terrorist attacks than the rest of the world in total and for long before the WTC.

However, we have appropriated terorism - as so many better things - for our own purposes and think that terror began on 9/11.

[Montgomery Burns]

When you consider that a short while back BUSH was making "Iran next" noises, this can only be seen as a bad thing.

All we need is Bush getting the idea to carry his ongoing campaign into yet another country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not going to happen. And what do you mean, "Iran next noises"? I think you're remembering things that were never said.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hope you're right, about it not going to happen.

As for the "noises", do a Google search using "Bush preparing for Iran".

Here's the first pair of entries I got, hence the reference to the "noise".

And my apologies, it seems it was only members of Bush's admin malking the noise, not Bush himself.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/printer_112004Y.shtml

In an eerie repetition of the prelude to the Iraq war, hawks in the administration and Congress are trumpeting ominous disclosures about Iran's nuclear capacities to make the case that Iran is a threat that must be confronted, either by economic sanctions, military action, or "regime change."

http://salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/18/iran/print.html

Only the credible threat, and if necessary the use, of air and special operations attacks against Iran's suspected nuclear facilities will stop the ruling clerics in Tehran from acquiring warheads, many in the administration argue.

And what if the alternative is Iran gaining nuclear weapons?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, it seems like everyone else has 'em.

Seriously, hard to say. It seems like the handful of countries that presently have nukes want to remain as part of some exclusive club, and don't want any new members.

Hell, if Canada decided to start up a nuclear missile program, would the USA, France, Britain, et al decide to come down on us too???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

TruthOut.org and Salon?

And you insist that you are not a leftie.

[Montgomery Burns]

Times Online: Blair hints at military action against Iran

Tony Blair gave warning last night that the West might have to take military action against Iran after worldwide condemnation of its President’s call for Israel to be “wiped off the map”. Ending a one-day European Union summit, the Prime Minister called the explosive declaration by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday a disgrace. Promising discussions with Washington and other allies over how to react, Mr Blair said that he had often been urged not to take action against Iran. But he added: “If they carry on like this the question people will be asking us is - when are you going to do something about Iran? Can you imagine a State like that with an attitude like that having nuclear weapons?”

Tony, what kind of a leftist are you? Don't you know that Iran is morally equivalent to every other country in the world?