Iran warns europe over backing Israel

[Leafless]

Iranian President Mahmaud Ahmadinejad says the UN security council only serves U.S. and British political purposes and says sanctions against Iran are illegitimate.

I ask if the UN was non-existent would this man be saying what he's saying?

Does the UN security council only further aggravate intense political situations?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Iran-warn...0851124279.html

[Higgly]

He also re-issued his 'Israel has no right to exist' line lately. Here is the time line....

In the last 48-24 hours, Israel announced that it was considering bombing the Iranian nuclear installations - reported on the back pages. About a day later, Ahmadinejad announced that Israel has no right to exist - reported on the front pages.

Happened the same way last time around. Gwynn Dyer described in one of his books (sorry can't remember the title) the 'politique du pire'. This is a situation where one side of a dispute constantly goads the other into finally responding in a way that can be made to look bad in the press.

Dyer said that the Arabs do it to the Israelis. In fact the Israelis do it constantly. They have broken just about every cease fire with the Palestinians with just this in mind.

And now they are doing this to the Iranians (who, by the way, are Persians and not Arabs).

[sharkman]

He also re-issued his 'Israel has no right to exist' line lately. Here is the time line....

In the last 48-24 hours, Israel announced that it was considering bombing the Iranian nuclear installations - reported on the back pages. About a day later, Ahmadinejad announced that Israel has no right to exist - reported on the front pages.

Happened the same way last time around. Gwynn Dyer described in one of his books (sorry can't remember the title) the 'politique du pire'. This is a situation where one side of a dispute constantly goads the other into finally responding in a way that can be made to look bad in the press.

Dyer said that the Arabs do it to the Israelis. In fact the Israelis do it constantly. They have broken just about every cease fire with the Palestinians with just this in mind.

And now they are doing this to the Iranians (who, by the way, are Persians and not Arabs).

Could you provide any links to your claim of Israel's comments on bombing? It would be good news for me.

If I understand this strategy you are describing, Israel leaks into the media thoughts of bombing Iran's facilities to manipulate Ahmadinejad, who responds with his Israel should die type comments. It seems sort of sketchy, why wouldn't Ahmadinejad respond directly to Israel's bombing threats? To announce if Israel trys it, he will respond accordingly. To simply announce he thinks Israel should be wiped off the map only makes himself look stupid and deranged, if you get my meaning.

I think there is more to it. Ahmadinejad seems to be trying to provoke Israel, but I could be missing something.

[jbg]

Israel should, for the good of the world, just get the job done. Pound away at the installations, and as large a supply of virgins as Ahmadinejad wants.

[Figleaf]

Attack Iran!? On what possible justification??? Or is it now okay to throw destruction around on a mere whim?

[sharkman]

Attack Iran!? On what possible justification??? Or is it now okay to throw destruction around on a mere whim?

How about the same justification they used for taking out Saddam's nuclear facilities back in the eighties. Blow up the nutbar's weapons before he has a chance to use them on you.

[jbg]

Attack Iran!? On what possible justification??? Or is it now okay to throw destruction around on a mere whim?

How about the same justification they used for taking out Saddam's nuclear facilities back in the eighties. Blow up the nutbar's weapons before he has a chance to use them on you.

Some people would rather be morally right. It's called the peace of the grave.

[Figleaf]

Attack Iran!? On what possible justification??? Or is it now okay to throw destruction around on a mere whim?

How about the same justification they used for taking out Saddam's nuclear facilities back in the eighties. Blow up the nutbar's weapons before he has a chance to use them on you.

Okay. I should have said: "On what possible VALID justification?"

[Rue]

"In the last 48-24 hours, Israel announced that it was considering bombing the Iranian nuclear installations - reported on the back pages. About a day later, Ahmadinejad announced that Israel has no right to exist - reported on the front pages."

As usual Higgly you completely distort what was actually said.

What Prime Minister Ehud Olmert actually said was and here is the actual quote; " Iran would have 'a price to pay' if it doesn't back down from its nuclear ambitions".

It was the wire services who then added their editorial comments on their wire services the wording " hinting broadly that Israel might be forced to take action _ his strongest words yet ... "

At no time did Olmert state Israel would bomb Iran. What Higgly has done is to quote an Associated Press wire story out of context which also took a comment Mr. Olmert stated, and added their spin to it not Mr. Olmert's.

Shimon Peres immediately clarified Mr. Olmert's statement after it was made and it became apparent Associated Press was running with it and cranking up the heat, and made it clear Israel was not planning to bomb or attack Iran.

And once we are on the topic, Iran made comments as to Israel prior to the last comment by Olmert which in turn did trigger off Iran's latest comments. Its an on-going series of tits for tats and the latest came about because Olmert was in Russia.

Russia is acting as a middle man between Israel and Iran these days. The rhetoric that cames from the Iranian leader's mouth and what is actually being talked about between Israel and Iran is not making the press nor will it make the press. It doesn't sell. The name calling though does.

The press likes to report short sound bites to an audience which now no longer listens more then 10 seconds.

The reality is Israel has been talking to Iran through Russia for quite some time.

As well if you knew anything about Israeli foreign policy you would know two things. First off, they do not make bellicose statements that they will attack or bomb a country. They have never given their enemies a heads up like that. It would be tactically stupid and only invite retaliation before anything was actually done. Israel is not a country that engages in threats of attack. If they attack they just do it. Please don't mix up some macho posturing with your need to turn it into a bomb threat. It was far from it.

Secondly, it is not in Israel's interests to bomb Iran at this point. All that would do is mobilize fundamentalist Muslims. Israel right now is completely preoccupied with a civil war about to explode between the PLO and Hamas the last thing it wants is another front with Iran. It also in case you are interested has been involved in secret talks with Syria because the major preoccupation in the Middle East now is a Shiite Sunni civil war in many nations spilling out from Iraq and a major war between the PLO and Hamas which is technically a Sunni war but could be blown wide open by Shiite fundamentalist militants coming to Hamas' side which Syria, the PLO, Egypt and Jordan do not want.

With due respect Higgly your analysis as to Israel's motives again reflects your own preconceived biases.

[Leafless]

Attack Iran!? On what possible justification??? Or is it now okay to throw destruction around on a mere whim?

Because of the el-whacko (dangerous) alliance between President Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/benamon101906.htm

[jbg]

Attack Iran!? On what possible justification??? Or is it now okay to throw destruction around on a mere whim?

How about the same justification they used for taking out Saddam's nuclear facilities back in the eighties. Blow up the nutbar's weapons before he has a chance to use them on you.

Okay. I should have said: "On what possible VALID justification?"

Survival counts over morality. These are crazed, dangerous leaders.

[Figleaf]

Attack Iran!? On what possible justification??? Or is it now okay to throw destruction around on a mere whim?

How about the same justification they used for taking out Saddam's nuclear facilities back in the eighties. Blow up the nutbar's weapons before he has a chance to use them on you.

Okay. I should have said: "On what possible VALID justification?"

Survival counts over morality. These are crazed, dangerous leaders.

Israel's alleged fears of the naiscent self-defense initiatives of its neighbors are specious at best.

[cybercoma]

He also re-issued his 'Israel has no right to exist' line lately. Here is the time line....

In the last 48-24 hours, Israel announced that it was considering bombing the Iranian nuclear installations - reported on the back pages. About a day later, Ahmadinejad announced that Israel has no right to exist - reported on the front pages.

Happened the same way last time around. Gwynn Dyer described in one of his books (sorry can't remember the title) the 'politique du pire'. This is a situation where one side of a dispute constantly goads the other into finally responding in a way that can be made to look bad in the press.

Dyer said that the Arabs do it to the Israelis. In fact the Israelis do it constantly. They have broken just about every cease fire with the Palestinians with just this in mind.

And now they are doing this to the Iranians (who, by the way, are Persians and not Arabs).

I don't understand. You're blaming Israel for wanting to defend itself by destroying Iranian nuclear facilities when the Iranian President makes no qualms about talking about wiping Israel off the map.

[Figleaf]

He also re-issued his 'Israel has no right to exist' line lately. Here is the time line....

In the last 48-24 hours, Israel announced that it was considering bombing the Iranian nuclear installations - reported on the back pages. About a day later, Ahmadinejad announced that Israel has no right to exist - reported on the front pages.

Happened the same way last time around. Gwynn Dyer described in one of his books (sorry can't remember the title) the 'politique du pire'. This is a situation where one side of a dispute constantly goads the other into finally responding in a way that can be made to look bad in the press.

Dyer said that the Arabs do it to the Israelis. In fact the Israelis do it constantly. They have broken just about every cease fire with the Palestinians with just this in mind.

And now they are doing this to the Iranians (who, by the way, are Persians and not Arabs).

I don't understand. You're blaming Israel for wanting to defend itself by destroying Iranian nuclear facilities when the Iranian President makes no qualms about talking about wiping Israel off the map.

It's well known that Israel and Iran don't like eachother. Provocative rhetoric is thus not surprising. However, rhetoric does not create grounds for states to attack eachother.

[jbg]

Survival counts over morality. These are crazed, dangerous leaders.

Israel's alleged fears of the naiscent nascient self-defense initiatives of its neighbors are specious at best.

Were 1948 and 1973 "nascient" self-defense moves? (I'm ignoring 1956 and 1967 for the moment because, even though heavily provoked, were technically pre-emptive wars).

[Figleaf]

Survival counts over morality. These are crazed, dangerous leaders.

Israel's alleged fears of the naiscent nascient self-defense initiatives of its neighbors are specious at best.

Were 1948 and 1973 "nascient" self-defense moves? (I'm ignoring 1956 and 1967 for the moment because, even though heavily provoked, were technically pre-emptive wars).

I've heard of 'naiscent', and 'nascent', but never "nascient".

And to answer your query, I am refering to modern times.

[Argus]

Israel's alleged fears of the naiscent self-defense initiatives of its neighbors are specious at best.

I suspect you'd be a little less blase about it if Iran was close to us and likely to aim its new missiles at you.

[Black Dog]

Israel should, for the good of the world, just get the job done. Pound away at the installations, and as large a supply of virgins as Ahmadinejad wants.

So you like the idea of $100 per barrel oil? Of course, unlkie Osirik, Iran didn't put all their nuclear eggs in one basket, nor does Israel have the element of surprise.

Anyway: this pretty much nails it.

Size Matters

Iran is now at the top of the enemies list, but of course it poses no strategic threat to the United States. Iran’s GNP is 20 to 40 times smaller than that of the U.S., and the Iranians are hardly sophisticated technologists. If they tried hard, if they spent a huge fraction of their GNP on weapons, they might be able to spend 1/30th as much on arms as we do. But they’re not trying hard.

In truth, Iran hasn’t embarked upon any military adventures in years: there is no pattern of aggression and conquest, no frantic military buildup. The war with Iraq a generation ago seems to have used up most of the Iranians’ revolutionary zeal. We do not hear of their “last territorial demands.” In fact, we’re still waiting for the first.

Even when provoked, they’ve been cautious. The Taliban, back in 1998, killed a number of Iranian diplomats along with thousands of fellow Shi’ites. The Iranian government was angry, as any government would have been. The Iranians threatened, they mobilized troops on the Afghan border—but never invaded. I can’t read their minds, but I’d guess that some in their government argued that they couldn’t afford it, others that they might lose, while still others had read their Kipling and couldn’t imagine what they would do with Afghanistan if they owned it. (Interestingly, Condoleezza Rice, back in 2000, seemed to have been unaware that this crisis ever occurred. When she was interviewed by the New York Times, she thought that Iran supported the Taliban. I guess future secretaries of state have better things to do than read.)

The Iranians may be working on nuclear weapons—there is no clear evidence, but it is at least physically possible for them to be doing so, unlike Iraq under sanctions. If they eventually succeed, they’ll have a few bombs without any long-range delivery systems. Not a threat to the United States. And of course, they’re deterred: like any enemy with a return address, any nuclear attack on the U.S. would be answered a hundredfold, leading to the extinction of their nation.

The simplest explanation for the current Iranian nuclear program is that it is an attempt at deterring the U.S. from invading. It is not part of an offensive strategy. Any kind of force projection strategy would require a general conventional military buildup, and no such buildup is underway.

Of course the same arguments apply to Israel, which has a bigger military and many more nukes than Iran.

[B. Max]

In truth, Iran hasn’t embarked upon any military adventures in years: there is no pattern of aggression and conquest, no frantic military buildup. The war with Iraq a generation ago seems to have used up most of the Iranians’ revolutionary zeal. We do not hear of their “last territorial demands.” In fact, we’re still waiting for the first.

Sounds like an appeasers last words. Iran was behind the latest war with Israel and in fact created Hezbollah and continues to fund and arm them. Iran and Syria are largely behind the continuing fighting in Iraq. Iran is in bed with North Korea in developing nukes and have been reportedly been seen with North Korea test firing missiles from container ships. Yeah they are all just a bunch of misunderstood thugs.

[Black Dog]

Sounds like an appeasers last words. Iran was behind the latest war with Israel...

proof?

and in fact created Hezbollah and continues to fund and arm them.

Created? No. They do support Hizbullah as a check against Israel, who is the biggest obstacle in Iran's quest for regional hegemony. So what?

Iran and Syria are largely behind the continuing fighting in Iraq.

Proof?

Iran is in bed with North Korea in developing nukes and have been reportedly been seen with North Korea test firing missiles from container ships. Yeah they are all just a bunch of misunderstood thugs.

And...?

How about this: rather than listing random factoids, perhaps you can tell me how they add up to make Iran a threat.

[B. Max]

How about this: rather than listing random factoids, perhaps you can tell me how they add up to make Iran a threat.

To an appeaser with his head stuck in the sand that would be impossible.

Yes Iran created Hezbollah.

http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/2006/J...y19/july19.html

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_14252.shtml

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/print...00405100900.asp

[Black Dog]

To an appeaser with his head stuck in the sand that would be impossible.

IOW "I'm a dipshit who can't back his ideas up with actual logic. The best I can do is despense random clippings from right-wing 'news' sites that don't actually mean anything or relate to the topic at hand."

What's especially funny is that the pending NIE (which the Bush admin is sitting on) on Iran contradicts most of your sources:

“The draft document indicates that there is no solid intelligence confirming that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, contradicting many recent statements made by the Administration. It also states that Iran exercised virtually no control over Hezbollah in the recent fighting in Lebanon and that there is little to no confirmed information supporting the often cited contention that Iran is arming the militias and insurgents in neighboring Iraq. The report ruefully observes that there are plenty of weapons floating around inside Iraq without any assistance from Iran, though it does note, without hard evidence, that Iran could have provided some bomb making expertise and possibly sophisticated timers and detonators to the insurgency’s arsenal. For what it’s worth, most US intelligence officers working on Iran believe that Tehran is concealing a weapons program even if the hard evidence is lacking.”

(That's former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, writing in the October 9th edition of the American Conservative magazine: the article isn't online.)

Anyway, let's assume for a second that Iran is behind the violence in Iraq (even though it would be much more in their interests to ensure a stable, Shiite dominated regime) and that it does control Hizbullah's every move.

It's still a massive leap to go from there to "they are going to nuke us OMG!!!" In other words: whatever Iran's sins, it's still behaving like a rational actor. So why would they abandon that foreign policy rationality the second they got nukes?

[B. Max]

Whatever, you can go on appeasing these thugs all you want but it looks like those who know better are at least getting ready to be in position to kick some Iranian butt.

http://www.lookoutnewspaper.com/archive/20060911/index.shtml

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/ottawa/about/...asp?category=87

[Black Dog]

Whatever, you can go on appeasing these thugs all you want but it looks like those who know better are at least getting ready to be in position to kick some Iranian butt.

More dipshit speak. Nice try, but I've heard more challenging arguments from my two year-old niece. Go back to scrawling "Bush roolz!!" in Sharpie on your Math binder.

And just to show I'm a good sport, I'll reiterate my point, in case you decide to try arguing like a grown up:

Anyway, let's assume for a second that Iran is behind the violence in Iraq...and that it does control Hizbullah's every move.

It's still a massive leap to go from there to "they are going to nuke us OMG!!!" In other words: whatever Iran's sins, it's still behaving like a rational actor. So why would they abandon that foreign policy rationality the second they got nukes?

To that last sentence I'll add "...especially since they know that using nuclear weapons would result in their own destruction."

[Figleaf]

Israel's alleged fears of the naiscent self-defense initiatives of its neighbors are specious at best.

I suspect you'd be a little less blase about it if Iran was close to us and likely to aim its new missiles at you.

I'd probably feel like I felt about Russia in the 1970's.