Iran

[jdobbin]

A few have suggested that a pre-emptive nuclear strike is the solution.

http://torsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Cor...02/1795183.html

[Figleaf]

A few have suggested that a pre-emptive nuclear strike is the solution.

Outrageous. The very idea that some people think a nuclear attack is a remotely conceivable notion is shocking.

[jdobbin]

Outrageous. The very idea that some people think a nuclear attack is a remotely conceivable notion is shocking.

Seymour Hersh, the New Yorker writer had an article this month saying that the war in Lebanon was going to be used as an excuse to hit Iran. The war ended sooner than the plan could unfold.

[Figleaf]

Outrageous. The very idea that some people think a nuclear attack is a remotely conceivable notion is shocking.

Seymour Hersh, the New Yorker writer had an article this month saying that the war in Lebanon was going to be used as an excuse to hit Iran. The war ended sooner than the plan could unfold.

It's no wonder Iran would want a nuclear deterent themselves, eh?

[ceemes]

Outrageous. The very idea that some people think a nuclear attack is a remotely conceivable notion is shocking.

Seymour Hersh, the New Yorker writer had an article this month saying that the war in Lebanon was going to be used as an excuse to hit Iran. The war ended sooner than the plan could unfold.

It's no wonder Iran would want a nuclear deterent themselves, eh?

Too right, if I was Iran, then I'd want to lay my hands on as many nukes and others nasty pieces WMD as I could.

Someone needs to take Coren out behind some dark alley and bitch slap some sense into the man. What the man is advocating is the whole sale slaughter of a people or in other words genocide.

[KrustyKidd]

Too right, if I was Iran, then I'd want to lay my hands on as many nukes and others nasty pieces WMD as I could.

Yes for sure. That way, instead of drawing out the negotiation process for years getting concessions from the Euros, US and Chinese they can simply be bombed by the Israelis now.

[Argus]

Outrageous. The very idea that some people think a nuclear attack is a remotely conceivable notion is shocking.

Seymour Hersh, the New Yorker writer had an article this month saying that the war in Lebanon was going to be used as an excuse to hit Iran. The war ended sooner than the plan could unfold.

It's no wonder Iran would want a nuclear deterent themselves, eh?

Which comes first: the chicken or the egg?

If Iran weren't trying to get nukes no one would be talking about nuking them.

[Argus]

Outrageous. The very idea that some people think a nuclear attack is a remotely conceivable notion is shocking.

Seymour Hersh, the New Yorker writer had an article this month saying that the war in Lebanon was going to be used as an excuse to hit Iran. The war ended sooner than the plan could unfold.

It's no wonder Iran would want a nuclear deterent themselves, eh?

Too right, if I was Iran, then I'd want to lay my hands on as many nukes and others nasty pieces WMD as I could.

Iran is nuts. We don't let crazy people have nukes. It's that simple. Your opinion is akin to suggesting the Hells Angels have every right to stock up on machine guns and anti-tank weapons because the police keep raiding their headquarters.

Someone needs to take Coren out behind some dark alley and bitch slap some sense into the man. What the man is advocating is the whole sale slaughter of a people or in other words genocide.

Drivel. What he'd doing is advocating a course of action which would kill, at most, a few tens of thousands of people. And he's advocating that as opposed to his fear that millions would die if Iran gets nukes (which is VERY possible, maybe even likely).

[Argus]

Too right, if I was Iran, then I'd want to lay my hands on as many nukes and others nasty pieces WMD as I could.

Yes for sure. That way, instead of drawing out the negotiation process for years getting concessions from the Euros, US and Chinese they can simply be bombed by the Israelis now.

It's very odd, in terms of international history and geopolitics, how the Iranians and Israelis have come to this. I mean, the Iranians have literally nothing at stake here. The Israelis are far away, and have never done anything to them, nor are they ever likely to do anything to them. Yet the Iranians have persistently funded attacks against Israel, demanded it's destruction, promised its destruction, and in one case, even boasted to thunderous applause, that the instant Iran got nuclear weapons it would use them on Israel. This would inevitably lead to the destruction if Iran. The Israelis would take out Tehran, Quom, their other leading cities, and their oil fields. They'd be left as a confused, poverty stricken rabble. and they're willing to risk this for what reason again? Because they don't like Jews!

[Figleaf]

...a course of action which would kill, at most, a few tens of thousands of people.

OH WELL, alright then! As long as it's only a FEW tens of thousands. That sounds almost relaxing ... killing a mere few tens of thousands -- like doing nine holes rather than a full eighteen. Delightful. I say, could you sponsor my application into your club?

[M.Dancer]

Outrageous. The very idea that some people think a nuclear attack is a remotely conceivable notion is shocking.

Seymour Hersh, the New Yorker writer had an article this month saying that the war in Lebanon was going to be used as an excuse to hit Iran. The war ended sooner than the plan could unfold.

Hersch is way way out there in deep deep far left field......eventually he will catch one but most fall short of him.

[Black Dog]

Iran is nuts. We don't let crazy people have nukes. It's that simple. Your opinion is akin to suggesting the Hells Angels have every right to stock up on machine guns and anti-tank weapons because the police keep raiding their headquarters.

Rubbish. The Hell's Angels and Iranian regime one thing in common: they both want to stay in business. That means they will arm themselves against any external threats, but it also means they don't go looking to start trouble that will disrupt their operations.

Oh and another thing: if we don't let crazy people have nukes, why have we allowed the regime in Pyongyang to get their mitts on one when they arguably pose a far greater threat to their neighbours than Iran?

Drivel. What he'd doing is advocating a course of action which would kill, at most, a few tens of thousands of people. And he's advocating that as opposed to his fear that millions would die if Iran gets nukes (which is VERY possible, maybe even likely).

Coren, as his article makes quite clear, is a moron, as is anyone else who belives a regime hat has spent the past 30 years enriching itself and working endlessly to maintain a tight grip on the society it controls would throw it all away for nothing but their own destruction. Iran has ambitions to be a regional hegemon and acquring a nuclear weapon would give them a high level of prestige and a slight deterrent capability. But they have no desire to start something.

and in one case, even boasted to thunderous applause, that the instant Iran got nuclear weapons it would use them on Israel.

Ever heard of the term "empty threat"?

[Argus]

...a course of action which would kill, at most, a few tens of thousands of people.

OH WELL, alright then! As long as it's only a FEW tens of thousands. That sounds almost relaxing ... killing a mere few tens of thousands -- like doing nine holes rather than a full eighteen. Delightful. I say, could you sponsor my application into your club?

<shrug> A million people were killed in the last Iran-Iraq war. Many millions would die if Iran nuked Tel Aviv. By that standard a few tens of thousands looks pretty darned good.

[Argus]

Iran is nuts. We don't let crazy people have nukes. It's that simple. Your opinion is akin to suggesting the Hells Angels have every right to stock up on machine guns and anti-tank weapons because the police keep raiding their headquarters.

Rubbish. The Hell's Angels and Iranian regime one thing in common: they both want to stay in business. That means they will arm themselves against any external threats, but it also means they don't go looking to start trouble that will disrupt their operations.

I think the Hells Angels are a lot more sensible than the Iranians. The Hells Angels would not be openly funding attacks on a ruthless and powerful rival which did not presently threaten any of their operations. They're not that dumb.

Oh and another thing: if we don't let crazy people have nukes, why have we allowed the regime in Pyongyang to get their mitts on one when they arguably pose a far greater threat to their neighbours than Iran?

Errors of judgement? One of the problems with the North Koreans is that even without nukes they've got a humongous army right across the border from South Korea's capital, and millions might die in even a conventional attack. So we've been walking softly around them.

Drivel. What he'd doing is advocating a course of action which would kill, at most, a few tens of thousands of people. And he's advocating that as opposed to his fear that millions would die if Iran gets nukes (which is VERY possible, maybe even likely).

Coren, as his article makes quite clear, is a moron, as is anyone else who belives a regime hat has spent the past 30 years enriching itself and working endlessly to maintain a tight grip on the society it controls would throw it all away for nothing but their own destruction. Iran has ambitions to be a regional hegemon and acquring a nuclear weapon would give them a high level of prestige and a slight deterrent capability. But they have no desire to start something.

Which makes sense. Unfortunately, when dealing with Muslim nutjobs, you can't always use logic and self interest as a yardstick.

and in one case, even boasted to thunderous applause, that the instant Iran got nuclear weapons it would use them on Israel.

Ever heard of the term "empty threat"?

It's only empty until they get nukes.

[Black Dog]

I think the Hells Angels are a lot more sensible than the Iranians. The Hells Angels would not be openly funding attacks on a ruthless and powerful rival which did not presently threaten any of their operations. They're not that dumb.

Iran funds and arms Hizbullah. Beyond that, the degree to which Tehran controls Hizbulla's operations is unclear. So to lay responsibility for Hizbullah's actions on Iran is pushing it.

Errors of judgement? One of the problems with the North Koreans is that even without nukes they've got a humongous army right across the border from South Korea's capital, and millions might die in even a conventional attack. So we've been walking softly around them.

So Iran presumably doesn't have that capability. Which makes them even less of a threat.

Which makes sense. Unfortunately, when dealing with Muslim nutjobs, you can't always use logic and self interest as a yardstick.

Which was exactly the same thing folks were saying 20 years ago about those crazed Russkies. For a bunch of hysterical nutjobs, Iran has been mighty restrained for the past 30 years.

It's only empty until they get nukes.

Nope. So they have a nuke or two. So what? Doesn't tip the balance in their favour, nor does it invalidate all the other considerations. Basically, folks like you and Coren are advocating a course of action that will kill tens of thousands, have grave repercussions upon the world economy, not to mention further excrabate the divide between the west and the Muslim world, all on the basis of your fantasy scenarios. Makes me wonder who the real nutjobs are.

[KrustyKidd]

Believe it or not, Black Dog is bang on in his accessment of the Iranian situation. Iran has a modern population to play to and they need points on the world stage. The government has been in place for twenty five years now and has failed to deliver substance and every play is directed towards that. With Iraq out of the way they are in competition with Saudi Arabia to become the region's hegemon. That requires money, military, oil, Islamic leadership, public (if none priovately at all) hatred of Israel and international clout. Positining for nuclear plants and taking on the world in negotiations is playing big at home and keeping the masses in faith of the revolution which to this point has not delivered.

[lost&outofcontrol]

I think the Hells Angels are a lot more sensible than the Iranians. The Hells Angels would not be openly funding attacks on a ruthless and powerful rival which did not presently threaten any of their operations. They're not that dumb.

Kinda like how we funded the Taliban for years so they could fight against the soviets (who aren’t much better themselves of course) and still indirectly fund them through Pakistan or how we funded paramilitary death squads against the Sandinistas or better yet how we funded dozens of coups against democratically elected socialist government across the globe.

I fear the Iranians still have much to learn from us.

[Figleaf]

...a course of action which would kill, at most, a few tens of thousands of people.

OH WELL, alright then! As long as it's only a FEW tens of thousands. That sounds almost relaxing ... killing a mere few tens of thousands -- like doing nine holes rather than a full eighteen. Delightful. I say, could you sponsor my application into your club?

<shrug> A million people were killed in the last Iran-Iraq war. Many millions would die if Iran nuked Tel Aviv. By that standard a few tens of thousands looks pretty darned good.

Billions will die, maybe trillions. But only three will be injured. See, I can spin meaningless numbers just as easily as you can.

[M.Dancer]

Kinda like how we funded the Taliban for years so they could fight against the soviets (who aren’t much better themselves of course) and still indirectly fund them through Pakistan or how we funded paramilitary death squads against the Sandinistas or better yet how we funded dozens of coups against democratically elected socialist government across the globe.

I fear the Iranians still have much to learn from us.

Kinda except we never funded the Taliban and the Taliban never fought the Soviets. Oh..and the US never funded the Taliban either.

[gc1765]

Kinda like how we funded the Taliban for years so they could fight against the soviets (who aren’t much better themselves of course) and still indirectly fund them through Pakistan or how we funded paramilitary death squads against the Sandinistas or better yet how we funded dozens of coups against democratically elected socialist government across the globe.

I fear the Iranians still have much to learn from us.

Kinda except we never funded the Taliban and the Taliban never fought the Soviets. Oh..and the US never funded the Taliban either.

No, that was al qaeda that the U.S. funded to fight the soviets. Although correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that Pakistan funded/aided the taliban, and they were funded by the U.S., so the U.S. was indirectly funding the taliban.

[M.Dancer]

Kinda like how we funded the Taliban for years so they could fight against the soviets (who aren’t much better themselves of course) and still indirectly fund them through Pakistan or how we funded paramilitary death squads against the Sandinistas or better yet how we funded dozens of coups against democratically elected socialist government across the globe.

I fear the Iranians still have much to learn from us.

Kinda except we never funded the Taliban and the Taliban never fought the Soviets. Oh..and the US never funded the Taliban either.

No, that was al qaeda that the U.S. funded to fight the soviets. Although correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that Pakistan funded/aided the taliban, and they were funded by the U.S., so the U.S. was indirectly funding the taliban.

Wrong again. Alqaeda didn't exist in 1989.

The Taliban did recieve funds from Saudia Arabia and Pakistan (and yes they got US$$$ for their heroin eradication programmes....) At the time it was in the interest of Pakistan to prop up the Taliban because the Taliban was seen as the best group to end the anarchy and chaos in the country. After the soviets left the counrty was plunged into civil war and lawlessness......

[M.Dancer]

Kinda like how we funded the Taliban for years so they could fight against the soviets (who aren’t much better themselves of course) and still indirectly fund them through Pakistan or how we funded paramilitary death squads against the Sandinistas or better yet how we funded dozens of coups against democratically elected socialist government across the globe.

I fear the Iranians still have much to learn from us.

Kinda except we never funded the Taliban and the Taliban never fought the Soviets. Oh..and the US never funded the Taliban either.

No, that was al qaeda that the U.S. funded to fight the soviets. Although correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that Pakistan funded/aided the taliban, and they were funded by the U.S., so the U.S. was indirectly funding the taliban.

Wrong again. Alqaeda didn't exist in 1989.

The Taliban did recieve funds from Saudia Arabia and Pakistan (and yes they got US$$$ for their heroin eradication programmes....) At the time it was in the interest of Pakistan to prop up the Taliban because the Taliban was seen as the best group to end the anarchy and chaos in the country. After the soviets left the counrty was plunged into civil war and lawlessness......

I correct myself, Al Qaeda was founded in 1988...the Soviets finally pushed off in 89, but the war had all but ended....the US funded "the muhjeehadeen"...which was basically anyone with 10 friends and a musket.....

[lost&outofcontrol]

Kinda except we never funded the Taliban and the Taliban never fought the Soviets. Oh..and the US never funded the Taliban either.

We funded the Mujahideen which fractionned after the soviet retreat and the main group became know as the Taliban.

link

Former CIA director Robert Gates later admitted in his memoirs that aid to the rebels (Mujahideen) began in June 1979. In a candid 1998 interview, Zbigniew Brezinski, Carter's national security adviser, confirmed that U.S. aid to the rebels began before the invasion:

In 1994, a new group, the Taliban (Pashtun for "students"), emerged on the scene. Its members came from madrassas set up by the Pakistani government along the border and funded by the U.S., Britain, and the Saudis, where they had received theological indoctrination and military training.

This information is of public record.

[lost&outofcontrol]

The Taliban did recieve funds from Saudia Arabia and Pakistan (and yes they got US$$$ for their heroin eradication programmes....) At the time it was in the interest of Pakistan to prop up the Taliban because the Taliban was seen as the best group to end the anarchy and chaos in the country. After the soviets left the counrty was plunged into civil war and lawlessness......

So then we agree and my earlier comment still stands. It ok for us to fund the enemy of our enemies but once we are done with them we wash our hands of it. And of course nobody else can do! I hope you see the hypocrisy.

[M.Dancer]

Kinda except we never funded the Taliban and the Taliban never fought the Soviets. Oh..and the US never funded the Taliban either.

We funded the Mujahideen which fractionned after the soviet retreat and the main group became know as the Taliban.

link

Former CIA director Robert Gates later admitted in his memoirs that aid to the rebels (Mujahideen) began in June 1979. In a candid 1998 interview, Zbigniew Brezinski, Carter's national security adviser, confirmed that U.S. aid to the rebels began before the invasion:

In 1994, a new group, the Taliban (Pashtun for "students"), emerged on the scene. Its members came from madrassas set up by the Pakistani government along the border and funded by the U.S., Britain, and the Saudis, where they had received theological indoctrination and military training.

This information is of public record.

So why are you choosing the least credible source?

True, 5 years after the soviet departure the Taliban emerged, and 2 years later gaiuned power, but to say that they were once the Mujeehadden is a stretch....considering that the Northern Alliance has a much better claim on that lineage.

Am I agreeing with you? No. Because the US did business with Pakistan and pakistan saw the Taliban as useful does not mean the US funded them. That is tin foil hat thinking. The funding that the US gave was one time and was mission specific.