# What to do about Iran.....



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gentlemen,

The situation with Iran seems headed towards a less than desirable outcome. The EU Three (UK, Germany, France)has made little progess in getting Iran to stop its nuclear program. A Russian compromise has been rejected and the matter will likely be referred to the Security Council.

It seems as if we are entering damned if you do, damned if you don't territory. 

If the international community does nothing Iran will likely develop nuclear weapons. The Iranian theocracy has repeatedly said that it will use such weapons to destroy Israel. Some may say this is just rhetoric and bluster but I think its best to take madmen at their word (Hitler pretty much did what he said he would do in Mein Kampf.)

Even if Iran would not use nuclear weapons against Israel, possesion of such weapons would give them great leverage in the region. Iraq and Saudi Arabia would be particularly vunerable to nuclear blackmail and shipping in Straits of Hormuz would be endangered (not to mention US Carrier Groups that would enter the fray.)

If the US or Israel (I doubt NATO or the EU would aid such an endeavor) launches a pre-emptive strike the risks are multiple. First there is no guarantee that such a strike would be successful, especially with the new Russian surface to air missile the Iranians have purchased - to paraphrase Abba Eban, the Russians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity to be responsible members of the international community, particularly when Iran funds Chechen terrorists. Secondly such a strike would further poison relations with the Islamic world. And finally such a strike would probably spark other rogue states to develop nuclear weapons covertly as insurance against international action.

I think both options are less than palatable but I think pre-emptive action is better than sitting back and waiting for Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Deterence works with North Korea because ultimately the leadership in Pyongyang does not have a deathwish but I am not so sure the same can be said of Iranian leadership. If the world waits too long Iran will either use nuclear weapons or be able to dictate events in the Middle East and perhaps in the oil market.

Any thoughts? Suggestions? Alternative courses of action besides praying to St. Jude? I am asking for a constructive dialogue, not a bash Bush, Clinton, France, the US, pick your bete noire, etc. fest!

Karl


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

Anyone who wants to build a primative nuke can get a design for one, the hardest part is getting the materials for it.

I side with deterence, but maybe its the Cold Warrior in me. 

So Iran gets a nuke, what does it do? If they nuke Isreal, Isreal nukes them back. It's thier own Middle Eastern version of mutually assured destruction. 

Isreal, Iran, Pakistan, India, China, Russia, and North Korea all sitting there next to each other with missiles pointing in every direction. They are all best friends or swore enemies of each other, signing agreements and selling weapons. All manuevering for a little edge on the next guy. It's like World War I all over again.

Anyway, the Iranian nuke site is supposedly deep and well covered, meaning that it would be hard to preemptively strike without nukes (no way that happens) or an actual ground force. In that case, you're either talking a full scale invasion and war, or a spec ops situation which borders on a suicide mission. 

If Iran wanted to shut off the world's oil, Iraq or Turkey could shut off much of Iran's water. And while oil is important, fresh water means more. But no one plays hardball these days...

---------------------


Beware of showroom sales-fever reasoning: i.e., "for $20 . . ." Once you're home, how little you paid is forgotten; how good you look in it is all that matters.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

A few observations looking back over the shoulder of history may help. Persia/Iran is one of the world's oldest nations, and as such has a certain mindset, character or whatever phrase works. There were some earlier persian rulers who tried to conquer a bunch of city states. You may have heard of them,I think they were the Greeks, and if the current ayatollahs choose not to remember that series of humiliations an even more humble kid from Macedonia comes to mind. We unfortunately decided to overthrow the iranian government and install a general named Pahlevi who fashioned himself Shah. Aside from inspiring a series of disastrous like adventures, we set up the inevitable retaliation of islamic extremism in that nation.The horrific war between our buddy Saddam (remember) and Iran saw human wave attacks by iranian teenagers.Their airforce was effectively neutralised when american engineers removed key systems from the Shah's fleet of Tomcats. They are developing their own nuclear football because it's the only way to be a player. We need to deflate the football, now.We also have the largest expatriate iranian community here in the U.S. A consensus that a new Iran will truly be a free Iran- including freedom from our past blunders needs to be put on the table to gain any moral support.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

The only significant outcome of a successful Iranian nuclear program would be to potentially deter the U.S. and Israel from their endless aggression against the Muslim nations of the Middle East. This won't do, of course, so a pretext will be found to launch air strikes against Iran; and if those don't achieve the desired result, the U.S may very well launch a preemptive nuclear attack. The U.S. _might_ try the old-fashioned approach of diplomacy, but that would entail at least a notional willingness to negotiate and bargain, an approach which the post-Cold War American ruling class rejects out of hand. So something altogether awful will likely occur. Get used to it.

"If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal." Emma Goldman


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Yckmwia, You post saddens me. I am generally considered a liberal,though probably the only NRA member to join the GREEEN Party and debate that issue! I am personally disgusted with this cry baby malais of the Left/Democratic party. I am beginning to think as a whole we WANT a cataclysmic world war, unchecked Global Warming to wipe out our home, NEO CON Intelligent Design taught in public schools ( but our kids will be safely ensconced in Montessori branches much like those bad old conservatives attending private or military acadamies)and a Dark ages to fall over the globe. Then we can petulantly say " We told you so!" Well, sorry. I don't want that phyrric victory. I want to communicate with my conservative, liberal, libertarian fellow citizens that, as Hemingway said "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." To quote another liberal, " If you don't like the news, go out and make some!"


----------



## Srynerson (Aug 26, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> Yckmwia, You post saddens me. I am generally considered a liberal,though probably the only NRA member to join the GREEEN Party and debate that issue! I am personally disgusted with this cry baby malais of the Left/Democratic party. I am beginning to think as a whole we WANT a cataclysmic world war, unchecked Global Warming to wipe out our home, NEO CON Intelligent Design taught in public schools ( but our kids will be safely ensconced in Montessori branches much like those bad old conservatives attending private or military acadamies)and a Dark ages to fall over the globe. Then we can petulantly say " We told you so!" Well, sorry. I don't want that phyrric victory. I want to communicate with my conservative, liberal, libertarian fellow citizens that, as Hemingway said "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." To quote another liberal, " If you don't like the news, go out and make some!"


I'm hardpressed to see why you automatically think yckmwia is a liberal based on his post above. I'm a life-long registered Republican who occasionally tilts Libertarian and I agree with almost everything he said. The Bush administration has put me in the odd position of hoping as many nations as possible "nuke up" to deter American military adventurism.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I may indeed be wrong about his political bent, but not the sentiments.Bush will be out of office in 2006. I see utterly nothing being offered by anyone; democrats, third parties or the true republicans. If you believe 'Bushism' is bad, wishing it's equivelent in other nations is 'Destroying the Village to Save it.'


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by Srynerson_
> ...I'm hardpressed to see why you automatically think yckmwia is a liberal based on his post above. I'm a life-long registered Republican who occasionally tilts Libertarian and I agree with almost everything he said. The Bush administration has put me in the odd position of hoping as many nations as possible "nuke up" to deter American military adventurism.


LOL

It would perhaps help to know some of the history of yckmwia's philosophy on the topic, according to his other postings here. He's the same guy who once stated herein (another thread) that the best possible outcome of the Iraq conflict would be for the US soldiers to rise up and shoot their commanding officers. A massive mutiny.

Quite a patriot, that yckmwia.

Perhaps this will give you an idea of his perspective on the US's military actions, and why some of us measure his every statement through the goggles of this knowledge.


----------



## ashie259 (Aug 25, 2005)

"From 1945 to 2005, the United States attempted to overthrow 50 governments, many of them democracies, and to crush 30 popular movements fighting tyrannical regimes. In the process, 25 countries were bombed, causing the loss of several million lives and the despair of millions more." (William Blum's Rogue State, Common Courage Press, 2005, quoted in "The Quiet Death of Freedom" by John Pilger.)*

You can see why some people are getting a little twitchy again.

(*Edited to show credit for quote - apologies for omitting it first time)


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ashie259_
> 
> From 1945 to 2005, the United States attempted to overthrow 50 governments, many of them democracies, and to crush 30 popular movements fighting tyrannical regimes. In the process, 25 countries were bombed, causing the loss of several million lives and the despair of millions more.
> 
> You can see why some people are getting a little twitchy again.


Strange I don't remember reading that, maybe you have different history books over there, or a real free press. Sigh 
I'd say LOL but it's just too sad.


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by mpcsb_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why mpcsb, didn't you know that all of our history is a "social construct" written by biased, authoritarian U.S. scholars for the purposes of quelling rebellion? If only we knew the "real" truth about our country, as everyone else does, why then, we'd feel just HORRIBLE about the United States []


----------



## Srynerson (Aug 26, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> Bush will be out of office in 2006.


Do you know something the American electoral system doesn't? [)]


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

To return to the original topic, I think that the safest first choice would be hard nosed diplomacy and a little good old fashioned 'arming the rebels' that we're so good at. 

1) Drop leaflets explaining to everyone in the country that we're about to do #2 if the nuke programs stay running. May or may not make a difference, but if can't hurt.
2) Isolate Iran from the rest of the world. No trade, no water, no oil, no weapons, no nothing. Eject their diplomats from every capital in the world. Of course, that only works if everybody is on board. 
3) Give an M-16 and few thousand rounds to anybody who wants to topple the government. If nothing else, the chaos will help slow down nuke development. And you never know, we might get lucky and a better government will pop up.
4) Make it very clear that the use of a nuke will result in bad things happening. (I personlly wouldn't want to nuke them back, but I think that the semi-covert series of deaths of most of the major players in Iran would make the point. Nothing wrong with assassination if you're at war.)

CT


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gentlemen,

Good reading here:


Karl


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> 2) Isolate Iran from the rest of the world. No trade, no water, no oil, no weapons, no nothing. Eject their diplomats from every capital in the world. Of course, that only works if everybody is on board.


Won't work. Iran has too much oil and money. Capitalism will prevail and countires will put on the public face of embargo while trading with Iran under the table. Just look at Oil for Food.



> quote:
> 3) Give an M-16 and few thousand rounds to anybody who wants to topple the government. If nothing else, the chaos will help slow down nuke development. And you never know, we might get lucky and a better government will pop up.
> 4) Make it very clear that the use of a nuke will result in bad things happening. (I personlly wouldn't want to nuke them back, but I think that the semi-covert series of deaths of most of the major players in Iran would make the point. Nothing wrong with assassination if you're at war.)


The CIA claims to no longer do "wet work" and the international community kind of looks down on it, as well as fomenting revolt, at least when we do it. But what do we care?


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by crazyquik_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good point. So much for that idea.



> quote:
> 
> 
> > quote:
> ...


I'm sure someone there remembers how it's done.  As for the international community, I only suggest mass assassinations that as a viable strategy as a punishment for use of nuclear weapons. If the international community doesn't like it at that point, it's too damn bad. The alternative is nuclear retaliation, which is too horrible to contemplate.

CT


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gentlemen,

Even Europe is giving up on diplomacy:



The question is that if diplomacy fails will the international community have the courage to take action. I hope the Iranian leadership (who are quite distinct from Iran's long suffering population) comes to its senses. I wouldn't count on it though.

My bet is Israel strikes first and the world will through a hissy fit while being secretly relieved.

Karl


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> I may indeed be wrong about his political bent, but not the sentiments.Bush will be out of office in 2006. I see utterly nothing being offered by anyone; democrats, third parties or the true republicans. If you believe 'Bushism' is bad, wishing it's equivelent in other nations is 'Destroying the Village to Save it.'


You are certainly not wrong about his political bent. From his posts in other threads I can tell you that Yckmwia is slightly left of Chairman Mao. His posts usually show an unfettered hatred for all things democratic or libertarian.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Preston_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I suppose I'll have to respond to this, as ignoring it would amount to a tacit admission of its truth.

As it happens, your "knowledge" is incorrect. I've never stated, here or anywhere else, "that the best possible outcome of the Iraq conflict would be for the US soldiers to rise up and shoot their commanding officers." In an exchange with Chuck Franke regarding the Iraq war he observed that, among other things, one should wish for our troops' success. I replied:



> quoteefine success. Would a widespread mutiny among the forces in Iraq, which led to the conclusion of the war - as happened in Viet Nam - be considered â€œsuccessâ€? If not, how would success be measured in Iraq? â€œThe Missionâ€ was accomplished back in 2003, wasnâ€™t it? I mean, George W. Bush said it was, and he wouldnâ€™t lie about an important subject like that, would he? If that mission was accomplished, what is this next mission, and how would it be accomplished, â€œsuccessfullyâ€?


The point to this remark being that if ending the the war by any possible means is not "success," then how would success be defined in this matter? Mr. Franke had no answer to this question; few people do. (Of course, "success" in Iraq is exactly what has been happening for the past two and half years: in that respect, the "mission" has been accomplished.) At no point in this exchange did I advocate a mutiny of U.S. troops, and I certainly never stated that such a development would be "the best possible outcome." In fact, earlier in that same thread, in response to a direct question from Mr. Franke, I stated what I thought would be the "best possible outcome":



> quote:The only decent and humane policy is immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops, the closure of all U.S. bases, the payment to Iraq of around half a trillion dollars in reparations, the arrest of all persons within the U.S. Government responsible for the invasion and sanction regime, and the delivery of such persons for trial before an international war crimes tribunal.


My thoughts on this matter haven't changed. So polish your goggles. However, you are correct about two minor matters: I am not a patriot, and I have the lowest possible opinion of "the US's military actions"

Getting back to the point of _this_ thread: Karl89 has framed the issues clearly. Nuclear proliferation is a serious problem: Although it has the admirable effect of deterring aggression, the growth of nuclear-armed states increases the likelihood that, either by chance or design, one of them will soon join the U.S. in the very exclusive club of nations that have actually used nuclear weapons. This should be avoided. How? There are two possible approaches: diplomatic and military. The U.S., in its self-appointed role of world hegemon, utterly dismisses the diplomatic approach, as that might place some constraints on future profit-making. This leaves only the military solution, which, as Karl notes, poses its own perils. However, it is quite clear that to U.S. policy makers those perils fade into insignificance when compared with the horrors that might result from accepting minor, voluntary limits on U.S. action. So the die, as it were, is cast. As long ago as 1989, and no doubt long before that, it has been the express U.S. policy to tolerate no "regional power with interests inimical to our own" in the oil-producing regions of the Middle East. A nuclear-armed Iran would be such a regional power: so, by the logic of U.S. imperialism, it must go. It won't be pretty.

"If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal." Emma Goldman


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Yckmwia,

The real problem is that Iran has threatened to use nuclear weapons against Israel. And given how attractive suicide is to many radical Islamists, traditional deterrence probably won't work. So the question is do we wait until Iran gets nuclear weapons and hope for the best or take the risk of action now. There is a price to pay with either course of action - which one is higher?

And yes the US is the only superpower, and yes "Pax Americana" is deeply flawed, but who would you rather be the world's only superpower? I realize that just because we are better than a bad bunch doesn't make us immune to criticism but reality dictates that the world will never be perfect and certainly, neither will the US.

The problem as I see it is there are no good choices with Iran. Which is the lesser of two evils?

Karl


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Look at this:



When is Washington going to comprehend that we need energy independence? On 9/12/01 a Manhattan Project type endeavor should have been undertaken to develop a renewable alternative to oil. This is our Apollo program and it is desparately needed. I am supporting McCain in 2008 but am willing cross party lines to vote for any Democrat who is willing to lead on this issue - even, God forgive me, Hillary!

Forget about the horrors of an Iranian nuclear weapon for a moment - Iran's nuclear ambitions are driving up the cost of oil. How much longer will American leadership, both Republican and Democrat, remain silent and negligent?

Karl


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> Yckmwia,
> 
> ...


I have only a moment to respond, but really, I believe you are positing an extremely unlikely scenario. I don't see the Iranians as "madmen" nor do I believe they possess a "death wish." You are suggesting that once Iran has obtained some minimal nuclear capability it would then attack Israel with nuclear arms, although this would result in the annihilation of Iran, and the death of millions. I see very little persuasive evidence to support this apocalyptic vision. I also don't accept that suicide is attractive to many radical Islamists: I don't see too many imans blowing themselves up, which they would effectively be doing if they authorized a nuclear attack on Israel. What many have found striking is how irreligious so many suicide bombers are, e.g., the 9/11 hijackers. The problems in the Middle East are primarily political, and suicide bombing is a political weapon, not a cultural or religious weapon. Remove the political motivations for self-immolation, and it will diminish significantly. Or so I believe. I'll try to get to your other points later.

"If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal." Emma Goldman


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

It doesn't take long for world politics to become a real cat's cradle with more threads than our little posts.The USA hardly imposed itself as numero uno, but is merely carrying forward the european colonial tradition of which we are regretably, and ironically part of. I recently finished reading the few classic works on the Boer War. Somewhere between Michael Caine in ZULU! and Desmond Tutu an awfull lot of hubric stupidity and ego brought untold suffering still visited on the descendants. There was even a british expedition to Lhasa to check Russian expansionism.Will Prince Harry graduate Sandhurst and be posted to meet his holyness in Dharmasala to discuss a second punitive column? I doubt it, don't you? Ironic, how all these colourfull backdrops for Sir Richard Burton adventures are now coming back like so many Quabbalic Golems to haunt us like half forgotten dates 9 months past or long lost relatives. Maybe we all need to hit the library instead of the red button.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> I may indeed be wrong about his political bent, but not the sentiments.Bush will be out of office in 2006. I see utterly nothing being offered by anyone; democrats, third parties or the true republicans. If you believe 'Bushism' is bad, wishing it's equivelent in other nations is 'Destroying the Village to Save it.'


"Bush will be out of office in 2006." Hunh? If my math and civics are correct, I thought he would be out of office in Jan. 2009. Are you predicting impeachment? Wow! President Cheney!


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> Gents,
> 
> ...


I agree. Energy is going to be a massive problem in the future. We need to confront it and really decide what we as a country are going to do about it. I don't have any great ideas, but we could start with using more coal and natural gas and nuclear for power generation and less oil. The use of gasoline is far to huge an issue to begin there. After automobiles are the only use for imported oil, it would be easier to begin converting those, too. (Though neither diesel nor hybrid nor hydrogen technologies are looking too great right now.) More to the point, if we didn't depend on countries in the Middle East for oil, we could treat them based on reality, as opposed to politcal reality. Saudi Arabia is hardly a country we would consider a friend under any other circumstances.

CT

I had McCain in the '00 primaries, though I would love for Condi to run. We need an intellectual president - it's been too long. (And I have a secret crush on her.)


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The environmental lobby would never go for us using more coal or even natural gas. They would prefer we turn Texas into one gigantic solar panel and use Nevada as a bird eradicating wind field.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> It doesn't take long for world politics to become a real cat's cradle with more threads than our little posts.The USA hardly imposed itself as numero uno, . . .


"If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall, and we see further into the future." Madeline Albright, (_Today_, February 19, 1998.)

This is perhaps La Albright's second most notable utterance, right behind her concession on _Sixty Minutes_ two years earlier that the Clinton Administration considered the death of 500,000 Iraqi children an acceptable "price" to pay for furthering U.S. objectives in the Middle East. Of course definitions may vary, but any nation that considers itself indispensable, and whose ruling elite is indifferent to the death of half a million non-combatants, sounds like a self-appointed hegemon to me.

I find it interesting that some of the free marketeers on the list are calling for a new Manhattan Project to deal with the looming energy emergency. Hmmmm. Might we be faced in this instance with yet another example of "market failure"? So it seems. But, fellas, really, its far too late for such concerns: that's so 1977. Recall much-despised Jimmy's "moral equivalent of war" speech: such sentiments were not welcome after Morning in America dawned, pale and limpid, in 1981. The opportunity came and went. There's little to do now but enjoy the camel ride to the tomb. Or invade Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia . . .

"If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal." Emma Goldman


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Yckmwia,

I am not sure if your post is more bitter or incoherent. Yes, I believe in the market, but that doesn't mean I think the market can solve every problem or that there is no role for government. Energy is no longer a matter solely of economics but now it is one of national security and all but the most fringe "free marketeers" (as you call us) believe that national security is the job of government and NOT the market. I am not sure what you would do and what policies you would implement but some of us, even the cynics among us, are a bit more optimistic than your resignation to a camel ride to the tomb (of course isn't this what tourists do in Egypt?)

And while I am no Clinton apologist - the US did not starve Iraqi children, Sadaam did, along with all those who engaged in corrupt practices during the UN Oil for Food program.

I also will assume that you are willing to let Iraq acquire nuclear weapons (and let me preface this assumption with my view that I think we need to keep our diplomatic options open a bit longer.) My only question to you is what will you say if Iran uses their new weapons in a first strike - will you blame them or the US, Israel and the West?

Karl


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Mea Culpa, Insomnia does strange things. I could be arrogant and tell everyone to flip their monitors upside down[B)]


----------



## Sir Henry Billingsgate (Dec 14, 2005)

Read Attar, Hafiz, Saadi, and Rumi.

Buy Persian rugs.

In short, recognize that Iran (Persia) is a great and ancient civilization, from which we could benefit much - to the extent that we are not blinded by arrogance, ignorance, and bigotry.


----------



## Sir Henry Billingsgate (Dec 14, 2005)

BTW: Here is an Amazon.com list of Persian Mystic Poets:

.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

SHB,

We may have much to learn from classical Persia but modern Iran is another story. I have to say I am a bit surprised that some in this thread fail to appreciate the gravity of the situation. 

One hates to risk being labelled a Chicken Little but if Iran develops nuclear weapons our world will dramtically change and not for the better. If Iran uses nuclear weapons then all bets are off. Reading about Persia and its rich cultural history will be of little value if Iran and Israel are both in ruins.

I don't think its ignorant or racist or xenophobic to take Iranian leadership at face value - lets assume they will do what they say they will. We can eithe take Iran seriously now or later - and the meter is running.

Karl


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Sir Henry Billingsgate_
> 
> Read Attar, Hafiz, Saadi, and Rumi.
> 
> ...


Oh thats rich, yes the West needs to be mindful of the benefits of openmindness but lets make no mention of Ahmadinejad and his Holocaust denying, "wipe Israel of the face of the Earth with a Nuke" rhetoric.

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I've read the listed persian poets, and I would add Omar Khayyam translated properly by my onetime jewish girlfriend Roya. I financed a goodly portion of my graduate studies with a Isfahan rug. Karl sums it up well. It is the radical, fundamentalist Ayatollahs and their anti shah, anti american, anti israel supporters who seek conflict, not the majority of iranians.Indeed, a naturalised american citizen famed for traditional persian dancing and singing returned to give a series of concerts and was ( and is) imprisoned. The Ayatollahs have persecuted Bah'ais, persian Jews, Sunnis, Coptic Christians and proscribed countless social activities and arts both modern western influenced and traditional. I would no sooner tolerate such idiot's possession of a nuclear devise than give one to some american ayatollahs violating my sensibilities of dress and thought on teh TEEVEE. This is a war of the most dangerous, and historically bloodiest of intent, ideollogy. The historical Saladin comes down in history as honourable and fair compared to the murderous crusaders. We need to think, and act like Saladin.The pan- islamic world holds a common resentment. What was once the greatest cultural empire, and by all odds destined to world domination was first blunted, and then colonised by europe. The resentment against israel is just as much cultural ( read european) hostility as religous. The ultimate resolution would be a level playing field for all. We may need each other soon enough. Remember those hordes that poured out of China once before?


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> SHB,
> 
> ...


If you do not wish to be labeled an alarmist, you'll have to stop acting like one. It would help if you could provide a link to a source which cites the Iranian ruling elite, particularly the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, advocating a nuclear first-strike against Israel. I know Ahmadinejad has been shooting his mouth off about the Holocaust, and urging that Israel be wiped off the map and reconstituted outside the Middle East, but so what? Do you have any evidence that Ahmadinejad harbors a "death wish," and is intent on killing himself and millions of Iranians? Making reckless statements and rattling the saber are a long way, a _long_ way, from starting a nuclear war. My, admittedly limited, understanding of Iranian politics is that Ayatollah Khamenei has total authority in international affairs, and that there is no indication he is "mad" or wishes to start a nuclear war. He did, in fact, issue a _fatwa_ against the production and stockpiling of nuclear weapons - for what's that worth. However, you urged us to take the Iranian leadership at face value, so why should we disregard the Ayatollah's _fatwa_? On the other hand, between them the U.S. and Israel have threatened or attacked every Muslim state that has taken any action to upset the current balance of power in the Middle East; a balance of power which, of course, entirely favors the U.S. and Israel. They have continued this behavior in the current crisis by repeatedly threatening Iran, to which Iran has responded with threats of its own. Why should the world be more concerned about Iran than the U.S. and Israel? Since 1979 how many nations has Iran attacked? How many nations have the U.S. and Israel attacked? The answer to these questions might go a long way towards revealing which nations the world should really fear.

And I'm surprised at you Karl, swallowing all that rubbish about the Food For Oil Program. The uproar over the "corrupt" FFOP is a red herring, akin to Saddam's use of poison gas "against his own people" - a set-up, useful for propaganda purposes. During the murderous sanction regime by far the most lucrative source of "illegal" revenue for Saddam's regime was "oil smuggling", i.e., unauthorized sales of Iraqi oil. And who was responsible for policing "illegal" oil "smuggling"? The Multinational Interception Force, spearheaded by the United States Navy.

"If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal." Emma Goldman


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Using nerve agents is a red-herring? A setup? He gassed the Kurds. He gassed the Iranians. He gassed the Marsh Arabs (killed most of them and drained their land). And then you claim that the US Navy was responsible for Saddam selling oil against UN resolutions. My goodness. I think you should reattach your tin foil hat or the black helicopters might come for you.

CT


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

ChubbyTiger,

Tin foil hats are useless againt black helicopters. You have to get off the grid, get off the grid man!

Karl


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gentlmen,

My thoughts exactly:



But I would be happy to hear contrary views that are thoughtful. Even if you are a leftist read the piece before you dismiss its source.

Lets discuss this further its the most pressing issue of the day.

Karl


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A post of mine from last August, very slightly edited:



> quote:Iraq began using chemical, and other non-conventional weapons, in its war against Iran as early as August 1981. In the Spring of 1982, it appeared that Iran would soon exploit serious weaknesses in Iraq's border defenses to launch a decisive invasion. In response to this development, the Reagan administration issued a national security directive which stated that it was now U.S. policy to provide Iraq with whatever assistance was necessary to ensure that it did not lose the war. By November 1983, Secretary of State Schultz was informed that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily in its war against Iran, weapons primarily supplied by Western, including U.S., corporations.
> 
> In December 1983, Rumsfeld made his first visit to Iraq, and "briefly" mentioned that Iraqi use of was making it "difficult" for the U.S. to publicly assist Iraq in its war with Iran. Iraqi use of chemical weapons thereafter _increased_, and on March 5, 1984 the State Department issued a public condemnation of Iraq's use of CW. However, on March 15, 1984, Defense Secretary Eagleburger assured Iraqi diplomat Ismat Kattani that the condemnation was for public relations (i.e., propaganda) purposes, and that the U.S. wanted to continue to improve its relations with Iraq. (Schultz later complained to Rumsfeld that the March 5 condemnation had jeopardized U.S./Iraqi relations, including plans to build the Iraq-Jordan Aqaba pipeline, a Bechtel [who else?] project.)
> 
> ...


If you don't see the set up in this sequence of events, then I really hope that you're never deposed by someone who knows what he or she is doing. One may observe the same kind of set up regarding the FFOP, and the sanction regime in general. Well, those who are attuned to the way the world really works may observe it; disciples of the Parsom Weems School of Strategy will likely miss it. Have you've never seen the Latin tag, _cui bono_? Apparently not. As for tin hats and black helicopters, is it your position that the vast majority of "illegal" revenue flowing into Iraq did not come from the "illegal" sale of oil? Is it also your position that responsibility for policing such "illegal" oil sales did not fall to the MIF, which consisted primarily of the U.S. Fifth Fleet? How remarkable. In any event, given that both these items happen to be true, whose "failure," intentional or otherwise, is primarily responsible for assisting the B'aath regime in evading the full effect of sanctions? You guessed it:

https://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1485546,00.html

I know you won't find such unhappy reading in the august pages of _National Review_ or _The Weekly Standard_, but there it is. And if it isn't too much bother, can you take a few minutes away from daydreaming about "wet work" (nice phrase, that) and "mass assassinations," and "provide a link to a source which cites the Iranian ruling elite, particularly the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, advocating a nuclear first-strike against Israel." Karl contends that there have been numerous such threats, but I have not seen one. I have seen warnings from Iranian spokesmen stating that Iran will respond in kind if attacked by Israel or the U.S., but I have seen no public statement from any member of the Iranian government stating that Iran is intent on developing a first-strike nuclear capability which it plans to employ against Israel. I would be pleased to read such a statement, as it might influence my thinking on the matter. Thanks.

And Karl, is there any chance you might edit the link to _The Telegraph_ so that we can read this thread more easily? Thanks.

"If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal." Emma Goldman


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Yckmwia,

Not sure what you mean? Is this link not working?

Here is the article for those interested, from www.telegraph.co.uk

_We should be very worried about Iran
By John Keegan
(Filed: 12/01/2006)

I supported the Iraq war as, with reservations, I still do. Its opponents have a great deal of self-justification to do, all the more as the details of Saddam Hussein's iniquities unfold in the Baghdad courtroom where he is being tried.

A true Machiavellian would use the trial to argue, however, that the West's mistake was to make an enemy of Saddam when he could have been a useful ally. Indeed, during the 1980s, when he was fighting a war almost to the death against Iran, he was a useful ally. How useful, at this time when Iran has blatantly announced its resumption of its nuclear weapons programme, is becoming apparent.

Saddam merely pretended to have weapons of mass destruction, largely to feed his own fantasies of power. Iran is actually turning itself into a nuclear weapons state, a fact disputed by none of the players on the international scene. Iran, moreover, does not seek such weapons for psychological reasons. It wants them for practical purposes, including, according to a statement by its new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a former revolutionary guard, to "wipe Israel from the map". Islamic extremists are, of course, given to blood-curdling rhetoric. Nevertheless, Iran's record must cause not only the West but all Iran's neighbours to take the threat seriously.

Fortunately, Iran's opponents still have a little time in hand. It has not yet developed a nuclear weapon. At present, it is proceeding with the necessary preliminaries, particularly the enrichment of nuclear fuels to weapons grade. Nevertheless, informed opinion is that, within three years, Iran will have acquired a nuclear capability, a prospect undesirable and terrifying in the extreme. How can Teheran be stopped?

The current policy of the United States, and the EU3 group, Britain, France and Germany, is to report Iran to the Security Council, through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN agency responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Yet neither the IAEA nor the Security Council has the power to enforce the NPT. That depends on the will and capability of UN member states. It demonstrates the weakness of the Security Council that the failure so far to report Iran is due to an international reluctance to offend Russia, which is Iran's most important international supporter. It is necessary to abandon such hesitation very promptly. Diplomatic sensitivity is a minor consideration when the aggressive tendencies of Iran's ayatollahs are driving its nuclear policies.

The pressing question is, indeed, what is to be done when a report to the Security Council fails to bring Iran to desist from nuclear enrichment? Economic and other sanctions are widely cited as a means to restrain Iran; and it is certainly true that the interruption of trade and the supply of technical equipment would cause its government serious inconvenience.

It is much more doubtful whether sanctions would make Iran change its policy. The ayatollahs do not suppose they are popular abroad, nor do they much care. Sanctions would interfere with the Western lifestyle of Iran's educated young people. The ayatollahs, however, have little interest in supporting that lifestyle, indeed, rather the opposite, while Iran's educated youth have given heavy proofs that their national pride weighs heavier than their access to Western luxuries.

America and the EU3 must therefore consider other, harsher methods to restrain Iran. The fact that the United States at present deploys a large army in Iraq is a factor that must give the ayatollahs pause. To stage a second war in the Middle East would not be a desirable initiative at present for America and would certainly be highly unpopular at home and among its allies. Moreover, Iran, as the possessor of the second largest oil reserves in the world and occupier of a strategic position athwart the sea routes delivering oil to most of the consuming world, has its own means of retaliation ready to hand.

Which brings us, as always in the geopolitics of the Middle East, to Israel. Israel makes no attempt to conceal that it has considered and undoubtedly is now considering its ability to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities by military action. However, what it did easily against Iraq in 1981 is much more difficult against Iran. For one thing, its current domestic politics may rob it of the necessary power of decision. For another, Iran's nuclear installations are much farther away than Iraq's were when Israel destroyed the Osirak reactor.

Nevertheless, the West cannot simply let things drift. Military action by whatever agency cannot be written out, but will be a last resort. In the meantime, all means short of military action, including economic and political ostracism and economic sanctions, must be tried, together with the building of alternative oil pipelines to bypass the current routes of oil supply down the Gulf. And, of course, the intensification of anti-terrorist measures.

For if the West is considering military action, so are the ayatollahs. They are the sponsors of much of the insurgency in Iraq and suppliers of the insurgents' weapons. They also have intimate links with most of the world's worst terrorist organisations, including al-Qa'eda and Hezbollah. Iranians may well be the missing link for which MI5 is searching behind the July 7 bombings in London.

Moreover, while Iran has its own armoury of medium-range missiles suitable for nuclear delivery, the ayatollahs are also known to favour the placing of nuclear warheads in target cities by terrorists travelling by car or public transport. This is a bad and worrying time in world affairs._


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Karl, I may wear the clumsy title of 'leftist' but I read many sources. Good article! Now I'm off to buy milk and some carcinogenic, chemical laced Bacon. I'll report back on what the Inquirer's bent ismaybe Emma Goldman was discovered alive, posing as Barbra Streisand[:X]


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Kav,

If there were more loden cloth wearing "leftists" like you the world would be a better place. I didn't mean to use the term leftist as an insult! Leftists are sometimes right (pun intended.)

Karl


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Once all the wars go away, Keegan won't have anything to write about. He should know, of all people, that pushing and shoving never quite works out the way the pushers and shovers intended. He gives lots of talk to a military solution, and although stating (necessarily) that the military solution must be the last resort, he not surprisingly fails to talk about about other solutions. For him, and for people who think like him, war really _is_ the solution.

In my view, the best way to deal with Iran would be to sell them many, many cheap televisions, and then make sure that the most brainless US television shows are broadcast in the region. Given how many Iranians are fed up with their leadership, and given that something like half of their population is under 25 years of age, it might be best to just let upwardly-directed angst and frustration do its thing.

Maybe the Iranian people will fall into line behind their leaders, if push comes to shove, whatever their personal views of their leadership. But remember, most people everywhere start beating patriotic drums when the nation-state is threatened, no matter how much they might despise the state. So what if no-one was pushing? Would they still stick with their leaders?

DD

By the way, only obliquely related, here's a nice overview of 2005:


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

Deposed? Eh? I'm not sure why your copied old post changes anything. I think that you are confusing condemnation of Iran and similar countries with unthinking support for the US. Did Saddam or did Saddam not gas many people using nerve agents? Did he or did he not pursue biological and nuclear weapons? 

Similarly, does Iran call for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews in general? Do they support terrorists (see Hezzbollah et al.)? I don't think that we need Ahmadinejad et al. to call for a nuclear first-strike. If they call for (and work towards) the destruction of Israel and the US (and the West in general) and then proceed to research nuclear weapons we'd have to be living in never-never land to miss the connection. Sure, maybe they'll build a nuke and just sit on it. Or maybe they'll give it to their equally nutty friends in Gaza. Or maybe it'll end up in Madrid or London or New York. Or they'll just launch it at Tel Aviv. 

And if you didn't notice (and it's obvious that you didn't), the mass assassinations were suggested as a response to a nuclear strike by Iran instead of a retaliatory nuclear strike. Personally, I think my suggestion was much more moderate and humane and just. It's OK though, context doesn't really matter that much.

CT


----------



## Sir Henry Billingsgate (Dec 14, 2005)

> quote:The resentment against israel is just as much cultural ( read european) hostility as religous. The ultimate resolution would be a level playing field for all.


This was the point I was making.

All this talk about "democratizing" the MidEast is just a rerun of "Pick Up the White Man's Burden."

And I'm real sorry about Israel's standing with its neighbors, but if people here are suggesting that Israel is the 51st state in the union - then I just fundamentally disagree. Yes, Israel is an ally; but only in the same sense that - say - Portugal is. And if Spain were hellbent on overruning Portugal - there would be a certain point where I would be willing to walk away from the matter.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Doctor Damage_
> 
> Once all the wars go away,


Never happen.

You're idea about waging war with Jerry Springer and Iranian Idol might work though! [|)]

If Hitler said he was going to wipe the Jews off the face of the Earth, would we have sat on the sidelines while he built the machinery to do it? There are those that say we did...


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

Let's take a moment to summarize, shall we?

Karl89 launches this thread with a concerned post claiming that the world is about to end because Iran has decided to resume its nuclear program. In his post Karl contends that Iran's ruling theocracy has "repeatedly said that it will use such weapons to destroy Israel," and this makes the current situation so grave, so Hitlerian, that the Western World must join as one and launch a preemptive attack on Iran - despite the very obvious dangers that course of action entails. The usual suspects chime in to agree, and some even offer specific tactical recommendations. More cynical, if not older, members opine that even if Iran did develop nuclear weapons, it would do little to change the current state of affairs in the Middle East, as any use of such weapons by Iran would result in the prompt annihilation of the entire country. I contribute my - by now predictable - tirade against the U.S. and all its works, and then take a brief detour to deal with a scurvy bit of abuse from one Preston. Coolidge24 surfaces to share his most valuable observation to date, and Karl resumes his alarum by fairly pleading that "Iran has threatened to use nuclear weapons against Israel." A very dubious article by a decrepit British military historian is presented as an argument in support of war, but the skeptical remain unconvinced. I continue my anti-American raving, and, _inter alia_, ask for any evidence to support the war party's claim that Iraq has threatened to use nuclear arms against Israel; sadly, this request remains unanswered. Yet another dubious opinion piece, this one by The Bard of The San Joaquin, Prof. Victor Davis Hanson, is linked from _National Review_ (mon Dieu!) and again offered as an argument in support of war. Kav, perhaps still suffering the effects of insomnia, declares that, although he is a leftist, he finds Prof. Hanson's piece excellent and convincing, and this meets with Karl's approval. (Iâ€™m sorry Kav, but that's beyond the pale: you're out of the club. Please turn in your badge and whistle at the end of the thread.) Doc Damage and Sir Henry offer wise counsel, and Chubby Tiger concocts an Iranian nuclear scenario that reveals too close an acquaintance with the febrile novels of Tom Clancy. CrazyQuik adds a nice symmetrical touch by raising once again the specter of _Der Furhrer_ - and here we are.

Not bad. We're moving along nicely. At this stage, I'd like to make the following observation: is it not odd that, no matter how much the people of the United States spend on "defense," we are never safe? We assemble, at colossal cost, the most fearsome war machine in human history, yet it brings us no comfort, no tranquility, no peace. We are forever beset by enemies so implacable and so diabolic that rationality and good judgment are simply useless when dealing with them. Entire nations, we are told, are so consumed with unreason and hatred that they will gladly destroy themselves in exchange for the mere opportunity to inflict the slightest harm on the Good Olâ€™ USA. Here we sit, up to our collective eyes in conventional weaponry and nuclear arms, yet the very possibility that Iran might acquire a single atomic weapon fills us with fear and trembling, if not a sickness unto death. It is all very odd. We live in a very strange world.

"Don't tell me not to live, just sit and putter/Life's candy and the sun's a ball of butter" Barbara Streisand


----------



## Sir Henry Billingsgate (Dec 14, 2005)

> quote:is it not odd that, no matter how much the people of the United States spend on "defense," we are never safe?


Had we spent on renewable energy R&D the $300 billion instead spent on Iraq, we would be plenty safe.

For a long time, my MidEast policy was "Develop solar power and get the hell out of there." Regrettably - post Iraq - that is no longer even a whimsy.

One point: my information is dated - pre-Infatada and pre-9/11 - but traditionally there was one aspect of Israeli and Palestinian society that got along just fine - organized crime. Israel has quite a mafia - basically a subsidiary of the Russian mafyia. ( Some of the Russian Jews who emigrated to Israel previously had links to the mafyia. ) The Palestinians also have their organized crime gangs. The two had working business relationships.

This is more than just a sarcastic jab at the MidEast situation ( although it also is that. ) Rather, we have a tendency to think in terms of the nation-state as a framework for political solutions. In the MidEast, if we were to start thinking in terms of non-state organizations and structures, we might be able to build a framework for a reasonably just civil society of some sort.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

> quote:
> CrazyQuik adds a nice symmetrical touch by raising once again the specter of Der Furhrer - and here we are.


I admit it, I fulfilled Godwin's Law [:I]



> quote:_Originally posted by Sir Henry Billingsgate_
> Rather, we have a tendency to think in terms of the nation-state as a framework for political solutions.


I think most would agree that the nation-state hurts more than helps in the ME. Perhaps we should have divided Iraq into 3 seperate nations at the end of the war.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I said, and I quote myself," good article." I never said, and I quote you, "he finds prof Hanson's piece excellent and convincing." I may suffer insomnia, but I know enough to turn my Utah Jack Phillips CDs down and pay attention. I found the article 'good' in that it raised some valid points of debate and stated the conservative view.It was also good in it's grammatical clarity, something I lack in computer skills and enthusiasm far to often. I might add, I read the article on Karl's invitation. I may submit a reference someday and receive the same courtesy. It's called intellectual exchange. As to turning in my badge and whistle? I've got an old monkeywrench patch with 'Hayduke Lives' this patchouli drenched earth mother gifted me at an EARTH FIRST! rally during Redwood Summer.My Merchant Mmarine Union card is proudly flashed at all picket lines and I curate my NADER bumpersticker with the same forlorn defiance as Gore/Kerry suporters. "Badges? We don need no stinkin badges" And if you can name the author of this quote we may have a vague clue to your card carrying credentials.Otherwise companero, get out of my way. I have a revolution to start and have niether time nor tolerance for poseurs. VENCEREMOS!


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Yckmwia,

To clarify what I have written - I think that a pre-emptive strike may be the lesser of two evils. I have not come to the conclusion that such a strike is necessary now but time is of the essence. If someone has a better idea of how to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons I would love to hear it and discuss it. One thing is certain - I am of the opinion that Iran under no circumstances c be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. Obviously we disagree because you seem very unconcerned with a nuclear Iran.

If Iran develops nuclear weapons and behaves like a responsible member of the international community (something they are not doing by sponsoring terrorism) then I will admit my concerns were ill founded. But I pose the question to you again - if Iran develops nuclear weapons and uses them in a first strike capacity will you blame Iran or the US, Israel and the West in general?

I am eager to hear your answer on this question.

Karl

P.S. Why you automatically dismiss the National Review? I read a host of left magazines and though I rarely agree with their positions (though on some issues I am left of center) I certainly get a different point of view and a deeper understanding of contentious issues.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> I said, and I quote myself," good article." I never said, and I quote you, "he finds prof Hanson's piece excellent and convincing." I may suffer insomnia, but I know enough to turn my Utah Jack Phillips CDs down and pay attention. I found the article 'good' in that it raised some valid points of debate and stated the conservative view.It was also good in it's grammatical clarity, something I lack in computer skills and enthusiasm far to often. I might add, I read the article on Karl's invitation. I may submit a reference someday and receive the same courtesy. It's called intellectual exchange. As to turning in my badge and whistle? I've got an old monkeywrench patch with 'Hayduke Lives' this patchouli drenched earth mother gifted me at an EARTH FIRST! rally during Redwood Summer.My Merchant Mmarine Union card is proudly flashed at all picket lines and I curate my NADER bumpersticker with the same forlorn defiance as Gore/Kerry suporters. "Badges? We don need no stinkin badges" And if you can name the author of this quote we may have a vague clue to your card carrying credentials.Otherwise companero, get out of my way. I have a revolution to start and have niether time nor tolerance for poseurs. VENCEREMOS!


B. Traven, of course. Anarchist, novelist, and all around man of mystery. John Huston, I believe, adapted _The Treasure of the Sierra Madre_ for the Bogey vehicle. Traven was also a merchant seaman for a time, wasn't he? I mean, as far as anyone knows.

"Don't tell me not to live, just sit and putter/Life's candy and the sun's a ball of butter" Barbara Streisand


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> Yckmwia,
> 
> ...


To answer the nuclear question first: I have no idea how I would respond to an Iranian first-strike at Israel. It would depend on the circumstances, wouldn't it? Unless, of course, we are assuming the situation that I have gently mocked in this thread - that Iran will, at the earliest possible opportunity, launch a nuclear attack on Israel, and damn the consequences. As I've said, I find such an idea to be quite fantastic; thus, if it were to occur I would be immensely surprised. There's no more to say really; it's like asking me how I would respond if Bill Gates knocked on my door tomorrow and handed me a check representing the full value of his vast estate. I mean, such a thing _could_ happen, but I don't think I need to prepare for it.

But wait: didn't President Ahmadinejad say that Israel should be wiped off the map? He did. Wild words, reckless, inflammatory, and unwise. Foolish and frightening words; but words that have been widely spoken throughout the Middle East, and the wider Muslim world, since May 15, 1948, both privately and publicly. This is hardly a new sentiment, and by this time it is mere rhetoric, akin to The Gipper's cheerful sound check announcing that he had ordered a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. Note what President Ahmadinejad did _not_ say: when calling for the obliteration of Israel as it currently exists, he did not include the addendum "and while we're at it, let's wipe Iran off the map as well." Since an Iranian attack on Israel would much more assuredly result in the extinction of Iran and the Iranian people than it would result in wiping Israel "off the map," I think we can, with some confidence, dismiss an Iranian first-strike. And, please, let's not talk about the "death wish" of Muslims in general, and Shiâ€™a Muslims in particular. That's rubbish, pure and simple. Every culture celebrates acts of desperate self-sacrifice by its members when circumstances require such sacrifice, from Thermopylae to Masada to the Alamo and beyond. Islam is no different. The current tactic of suicide bombing in Israel and Iraq is the desperate act of weak and desperate people confronted by enemies immensely more powerful than they. Iranians are not so desperate - yet. If they are invaded and occupied, and their condition is reduced to one resembling the rank misery of those now living in Baghdad and Gaza - well, then we'll start seeing Iranians with a "death wish," not before.

Does a nuclear Iran change the strategic balance in the Middle East? Yes, it does. It does so not because it raises the specter of Israel being removed from the map, but because it places some constraints on the freedom of action now enjoyed by the U.S. and Israel, as I've noted earlier. I don't find this to be particularly frightening, but others apparently do. A nuclear Iran also increases the likelihood of an accidental nuclear exchange in the Middle East, an event that should be avoided at all costs. And how might this best be avoided? Eliminate all nuclear weapons in the Middle East (and eventually everywhere, but one step at a time.) Of course, this would mean eliminating Israel's nuclear weapons, a proposal Iran put on the table in 2003. It was flatly rejected by the U.S. and Israel, as one might expect. The U.S. and Israel wish to maintain the status quo, which gives them overwhelming conventional strength, and absolute strategic strength, in the region; the Muslim states of the Middle East, Iran in particular, wish to alter the status quo. We shall see who prevails.

I subscribed to _National Review_ for years; however, around 1994 it went into a steep decline, at least in my view. Itâ€™s little more than a birdcage liner now. It was a much better magazine when Buckley had a more active role in its publication, and when it was edited by . . . I have forgotten his name, but Iâ€™m sure you know to whom I am referring. Most political publications are at their best when theyâ€™re in opposition to the prevailing regime; when aligned with power, such journals generally slip. The Cato Institute still publishes some items I find worth reading, and I look in on Lew Rockwellâ€™s site from time to time. But, really, if one wants to read a â€œconservativeâ€ publication one need only pick up virtually any major newspaper, anywhere in the country. There is scarcely a â€œliberalâ€ newspaper published anywhere in the land, much less a â€œleftistâ€ paper. Whenever I hear someone describe the NYT or the Post as an organ of the Left, I feel as though Iâ€™ve entered an alternate universe. Perhaps I have. Cheers.

"Don't tell me not to live, just sit and putter/Life's candy and the sun's a ball of butter" Barbara Streisand


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Casinos. Wadi-to-wadi casinos. Everybody will be getting so rich fleecing the suckers they'll have neither the time nor the inclination to rock the boat. Goodbye to sectarian violence. Peace in our time. Casinos.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gentlemen,

Another good read:


----------



## FlatSix (Feb 23, 2005)

There seems be a real and virulent strain of anti-Semitism in modern liberal thought. While it's perfectly okay to be a tame secular Jew in New York, the thought of a few million gun-toting Yids in the Middle East with the means and will to prevent the next Holocaust seems to utterly unsettle the average left-leaner. 



----------------------


"When you wear something like spats, I think you might as well wear your favorite players jersey bc what youre saying is I want to be powerful like the bear and Im wearing its hide to tap into its power." - Film Noir Buff

"First sense of what "normal" good clothes looked like came from my dad, of course, and from Babar books." - Concordia

" I have a related problem in that I often have to chase people. Leather soles are no good for this kind of work." - Patrick06790


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Perhaps you should read up on the history of 'leftism' whatever that is. Socialism, anarchism, communism, the union movement were all well represented by leadingship and rank and file jews. Zionism itself is based on socialist economic theory. Emma Goldman, as quoted by Ykmwia was hardly a secular humanist gentile. The hostility is something more ancient, based rather on religous and political hostilities going back to roman palestina and the imperial russian propaganda 'protocols of zion.' Much of our difficulties are simple amnesia and ignorance. Israel is not a construct of 1948 any less than memories of islamic past glories by a kid in a crowded refugee camp in Gaza. We need to listen to our histories, not play a popular song during the hostage crisis during the Carter administration. Catchy tune thatone, sung to the 50s single barbara Anne it went " bomb, bomb, bomb- bobm bomb iran" that from stations that fed us Barry MmcQuire singing Eve of Destruction just a decade previous.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

there are several excellent reasons to keep israel from being attacked. aside from the fact that it really is the right thing to do, israel is an ally of the united states in a way that not many other countries are - when the US needed to develop tank doctrine, they worked with israel. when the US needed to develop urban combat doctrine, they worked with israel.

but what my be the most important is that if ISrael is attacked, then in all probrability israel will destroy a large part of the middle east. this won't be very good for anybody


----------



## Sir Henry Billingsgate (Dec 14, 2005)

> quote:but what my be the most important is that if ISrael is attacked, then in all probrability israel will destroy a large part of the middle east. this won't be very good for anybody


First, Pakistan already has the bomb. 
Second, Russian loose nukes are a threat.
Third, Israel poses as much of a threat as Iran and also should be disarmed.
Fourth, calling people "Anti-Semites" because they disagree with Israel and are willing to oppose it has gotten very old and has been milked long enough. There also is quite a lot of anti-Arab and Anti-Muslim bigotry - in case you haven't noticed.
Fifth, Israel is not a special ally but rather a dependency that receives extraordinary amounts of aid and therefore owes us quite a lot in return.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> There seems be a real and virulent strain of anti-Semitism in modern liberal thought. While it's perfectly okay to be a tame secular Jew in New York, the thought of a few million gun-toting Yids in the Middle East with the means and will to prevent the next Holocaust seems to utterly unsettle the average left-leaner.
> 
> ----------------------


I was wondering when this wretched right-wing carnard would slither into the conversation. Congratulations Flatsix, you take the prize. You can pick up your blivit in about a week.

"Cross-legged under an umbrel umbershoot, he thrones an Aztec logos"


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Sir Henry Billingsgate_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Succinctly put. And let's take a look at your first item, Sir Henry. If Washington were really concerned about a radical Islamic state possessing offensive nuclear capability would it engage in such murderous stunts as the past weekend's "airstrike" in Pakistan? Of course it wouldn't. Pakistan is one successful revolt away from becoming an Islamic republic with a larger nuclear arsenal than Iran could build in the next decade. Yet the U.S. unilaterally engages in idiotic aggression that weakens Musharraf's regime vis a vis the madrassas, even if it had been successful, which it apparently wasn't (what a shock). This recent attack was so stupid that one can only conclude that: (1) the people responsible for the attack simply don't know what they're doing; or (2) they want to destabilize Musharraf's corrupt, but secular, regime. I know which way I'd bet.

"Cross-legged under an umbrel umbershoot, he thrones an Aztec logos"


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Yckmwia,

While I appreciate your participation in this thread, I don't appreciate your cheap shots at anyone who disagrees with you. And I am still anxiously awaiting your proposal on how to deal with Iran or should we just assume you are fine and dandy with a nuclear armed Iran?

And FlatSix you are absolutely right. Global Anti-Semitism is a major, major problem. Funny thing when an Arab is safer on the streets of Tel Aviv than a Jew is in Paris. There are Arab members of the Knesset and Muslim Israeli citizens while Jews have been forced to flee from Arab lands. I am not a Jew (I am a Roman Catholic) and I do have some issues with Israel but when push comes to shove we have no greater ally than Israel and I for one feel we have a moral obligation to aid Israel's security.

Finally, for all of you who think the Israel-Palestine issue is the crux of the problem in the Middle East, I think you are sadly mistaken. Even if Israel were to disappear tomorrow do you think it would satisfy the Islamists? Absolutely not! Bin laden's announcement after 9-11 called for the Muslim reconquest of Andalusia and the Balkans - and having lived in Bulgaria for two years, I can tell you that the wounds of eight centuries of Turkish occupation are still fresh. The Islamist dream is not for a free Palestine but to once again be at the gates of Vienna. Sadly, Europe has no Jan Sobieski today. All of those who cherish liberal democracy should be thankful that Israel is on the frontline of the battle to save Western values. Is Israel perfect? No, hardly, but even at its worst it is light years ahead of even "moderate" Arab regimes.

Karl


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> Yckmwia,
> 
> ...


I am fine and dandy with a nuclear-armed Iran.

Wait, given the extreme idiocy of your last post, let me spell it out for you in 
big red letters: I am fine and dandy with a nuclear-armed Iran.

The floor is yours to continue your hysterical warmongering. Have a nice afternoon.

"Cross-legged under an umbrel umbershoot, he thrones an Aztec logos"


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The attack in Pakistan was perfectly justified. This isn't the cambodian border, but a shared ethnic area of Pashtu tribesmen. Most of this 'bandit country' is de facto ruled by warlords who don't even ackowledge Mushareff's national authority unless Allah drops their adobe villages with an earthquake. The Pashtun of Pakistan and Afghanistan are the tribe that gave us the Taliban, who gave, and probably still give osama bin laden refuge. If your going to invite el Quida's #2 to your village don't show torn pages of the Qu'oran and cry foul. They set the 'rules' for this war on 9/11. If they don't want to participate anymore their 'guests' should be asked to leave, or, having dealt with pashtus personally they will probably find a profitable excuse to hand Osama's head over to us for public display at ground zero. The geshe pashtus can take their outrage and shove it where the sun don't shine- with the right hand.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Yckmwia,

So you are of the opinion that a nuclear Iran would mean peace in our time? 

It is true - there is a sucker born every minute and his name is Yckmwia!

Karl


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Anyone recall the doomsday clock that shows the theoretical seconds we are from a nuclear exchange? I remember how it was cautiously set back during detent with every treaty and partial REDUCTION in stockpiles and delivery systems. The clock is being pushed forward again,North Korea fires a missile into the Sea of Japan, India and Pakistan have joined the 'club' with France, USA, U.K., Russia, PRC and Israel. And now people have the hubris to argue Iran has a 'right' to join the madness.We can, and must 'put the genie back in the bottle.'It is a apologist's lie we cannot. Greek Fire was outlawed by papal decree, and later conventions controlled, if not entirely eliminated so called 'dum dum' or expanding bullets. A english Princess singlehandedly gave voice to almost eliminiating landmines. As a patriot, as an american, as a member of the world community I work to see ALL WMD eliminated from the planet. To accept one more chess piece on the board is irrational.If I can morally support PLOWSHARES symbollic hammering on missile silos and accepting prison terms: I must morally reject proliferation by anyone.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Kav,

I agree that we should work to eliminate all nuclear weapons but for now that is probably unrealistic and that there are responsible members of the nuclear club and irresponsible members or aspiring members of the nuclear club. Don't you agree?

Karl


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

I suggest that folks who think international relations are governed by such things as religeon and race and class, for example, are fooling themselves: it's all about money and power. Even the most overtly idealogical elites are still thinking in terms of money and power.

DD


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> 
> I am fine and dandy with a nuclear-armed Iran.
> 
> ...


It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and resolve all doubt. ~Abraham Lincoln


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Sir Henry Billingsgate_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


first - pakistan has the bomb, but it has shown itself to be a responisble country

second - yes, probrably the biggest threat to the world rigth now is the lose russian and ex-soviet nuclear arsenal. and how, pray tell, is this relevant to our discussion?
third - Israel has been in 4 1/2 wars, and has been attacked hundreds of times, since it aquired nuclear weapons, without even making a threat to use them. it has shown itself to be the most stable and rational possible custodian of nuclear weapons. and, frankly, nobody had the capabilty to disarm israel right now. 
forth - hey, dude, if the hat fits, wear it. I didn't call you an anti-semite, but if you feel that that fits you, then by all means. 
fifth - I am not sure how you discribe an ally? israel provided american with intellegence that is obviously better than american intellegence. israel has tested most american weapons systems before america gets a chance to use them, helps tweak them and then helps teach american soldiers how to use them, israel gives american forces access to ports. israel has developed large amounts of the arms, armor and communications equipment used by US forces, aside from a number of combat tactics and doctrines. what more is needed to be an ally?


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Doctor Damage_
> 
> I suggest that folks who think international relations are governed by such things as religeon and race and class, for example, are fooling themselves: it's all about money and power. Even the most overtly idealogical elites are still thinking in terms of money and power.
> 
> DD


this is a lot like a blind man saying that color is a myth.

take a little look around the world, read a few books, travel a little, then lets talk, shall we?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Karl, Agreed total disarmament is unrealistic, but the goal is still worthy. Nor do I join those condemning the US as the only nation to have used nuclear weapons.Anyone who studies the final days of WW2 will appreciate the terrible decision President Truman made. Or, as my grandmother told a junior college history class," the bomb saved more people, japanese and american than it killed. One of them was my son!" What I truly pray for is a real life Duchy of Fenwick to bring common sense to the world.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## FlatSix (Feb 23, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> I was wondering when this wretched right-wing carnard would slither into the conversation. Congratulations Flatsix, you take the prize. You can pick up your blivit in about a week.
> 
> "Cross-legged under an umbrel umbershoot, he thrones an Aztec logos"


Given that you are blabbering about the "okayness" of arming Israel's enemies, while at the same time dismissing multiple statements of intent to kill every Jew in the Middle East as "harmless propaganda", what else can I assume?

News flash for you: Israel needs nuclear weapons because unlike the countries surrounding them, they cannot afford to trade an inch of ground for strategic advantage in the next war. Israel is like the man in a prison cell, surrounded by ten strong enemies, holding a grenade.

Tell you what. Why don't you get on your local news tonight and announce your personal intention to kill every black man in your city and see whether or not your community laughs it off.

----------------------

"When you wear something like spats, I think you might as well wear your favorite players jersey bc what youre saying is I want to be powerful like the bear and Im wearing its hide to tap into its power." - Film Noir Buff

"First sense of what "normal" good clothes looked like came from my dad, of course, and from Babar books." - Concordia

" I have a related problem in that I often have to chase people. Leather soles are no good for this kind of work." - Patrick06790


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The greatest weakness of the West has been the unwonted assumption of superiority that first prevented them from seeing the rising danger or taking it seriously, then misled it into thinking that a few trinkets administered through traditional diplomatic channels would win the day. What did one European diplomat say about Iran? 'What else do they want?' And now it's 'stop or we'll report you to the United Nations.'

Part of the solution should be for the West to acquire a real respect for their adversary. Military forces acquire this quickly. But I think that many Western intellectuals still think that in Islam they are dealing with gomers in picturesque clothes, not serious rivals to their own ideas.

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

[quote

The greatest weakness of the West has been the unwonted assumption of superiority that first prevented them from seeing the rising danger or taking it seriously, then misled it into thinking that a few trinkets administered through traditional diplomatic channels would win the day. What did one European diplomat say about Iran? 'What else do they want?' And now it's 'stop or we'll report you to the United Nations.'

[/quote]

recently I saw a great exhibit on the persian empire (I think at the British Museum). one thing that struck me was how little they really thought of the greeks - as far as the persians were concerned, the greeks with just a bothersome little barbarian in the corner of their empire. to the greeks, the persians were the great evil, the great challenge to be conquered.

to the west, the islamic world is just a bunch of silly guys in funny hats not to be taken seriously, unless you feel like some humos. to the majority of this group of more than 1 billion people, the west is the prime evil, the target of what needs to be destroyed for them to flurish. take a look at what happened when the greeks and the persians clashed before, how things changed.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

The greatest weakness of the West has been the unwonted assumption of superiority that first prevented them from seeing the rising danger or taking it seriously, then misled it into thinking that a few trinkets administered through traditional diplomatic channels would win the day. What did one European diplomat say about Iran? 'What else do they want?' And now it's 'stop or we'll report you to the United Nations.'

Part of the solution should be for the West to acquire a real respect for their adversary. Military forces acquire this quickly. But I think that many Western intellectuals still think that in Islam they are dealing with gomers in picturesque clothes, not serious rivals to their own ideas.

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn
[/quote]

I have only had the opportunity to read the first chapter of the very interesting study that you posted, Whnay. Thanks for the link. It is a long study, and no doubt much additional detail is contained in the remaining chapters, however, a brief read of the introductory first chapter reveals several interesting points:

1. The authors cite "three threats that are likely to increase following Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapons option": even more nuclear proliferation, "dramatically higher oil prices, and "increased terrorism _*designed to diminish U.S. influence*_." As to this third item additional detail is warranted:



> quote:With a nuclear weapons option acting as a deterrent to the United
> States and allied action against it, Iran would likely lend greater
> support to terrorists operating against Israel, Iraq, Libya, Saudi
> Arabia, Europe, and the United States. The aim of such support
> ...


Not a mention of a Iranian first strike against Israel. No, the primary effect of an Iran nuclear option would to diminish the role the U.S. plays in the Middle East. And what did I say earlier? Oh, yeah:



> quoteoes a nuclear Iran change the strategic balance in the Middle East? Yes, it does. It does so not because it raises the specter of Israel being removed from the map, but because it places some constraints on the freedom of action now enjoyed by the U.S. and Israel, as I've noted earlier. I don't find this to be particularly frightening, but others apparently do.


2. The authors also reject the hysteria displayed in this thread by the "attack Iran NOW!" crowd:



> quote:When U.S. and allied officials speak of Iranâ€™s nuclear weapons program, imperatives are used freely: Iran, we are told, must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons; the United States and its allies cannot tolerate Iran going nuclear; a nuclear-armed Tehran is unthinkable.
> 
> Yet, the truth is that Iran soon can and will get a bomb option. . . As for eliminating Iranâ€™s nuclear capabilities militarily, the UnitedStates and Israel lack sufficient targeting intelligence to do this.


The authors also note that a military solution is likely to have very adverse and far-ranging consequences, which, along with its likely ineffectiveness, make it an undesirable option. Thus, a diplomatic and economic solution is needed. Of course, the authors make the obligatory nod towards nation-building and other grandiose schemes, but they settle upon seven specific goals that this program should strive to achieve. For the moment, no.6 is the most interesting:



> quote:6. *Encourage Israel to initiate a Middle East nuclear restraint effort that would help isolate Iran as a regional producer of fissile materials.* Israel should announce that it will unilaterally mothball (but not yet dismantle) Dimona, and place the reactorâ€™s mothballing under IAEA monitoring. At the same time, Israel should announce that it is prepared to dismantle Dimona and place the special nuclear material it has produced in â€œescrowâ€ in Israel with a third trusted declared nuclear state, e.g., the United States. It should make clear, however, that Israel will only take this additional step when at least two of three Middle Eastern nations (i.e., Algeria, Egypt, or Iran)follow Israelâ€™s lead by mothballing their own declared nuclear facilities that are capable of producing at least one bombâ€™s worth of plutonium or highly enriched uranium in 1 to 3 years. Israel should
> further announce that it will take the additional step of handing overcontrol of its weapons usable fissile material to the IAEA when:
> 
> a. All states in the Middle East (i.e., the three mentioned above)
> ...


[/quote]

So, I guess that the learned authors of this report are also anti-Semites, as they recognize that Iran _will_ go nuclear; that the primary effect of this will be to alter the balance of power in the Middle East and diminish the freedom of action now enjoyed by the U.S. and Israel; that a military solution is not feasible and counter-productive; that a diplomatic and economic solution is the only plausible approach to this matter; and that part of this solution includes eliminating all nuclear weapons from the Middle East, starting with Israel's. Strange doctrine for anti-Semites, but, I suppose one shouldn't be surprised at anything these days.

Well, that's about it for the moment. Briefly: FlatSix, you deserve far more than a mere blivit. Only the super deluxe ultra blivit will do for you. That will take another week. Cubby Tiger: If you wish to live by Honest Abe's dictum, you had better unplug your keyboard. Cheers.

P.S. Cutting and pasting from the report seems to have buggered the formatting. My apologies.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

Let me start off with saying that our first course of action should be diplomacy from their use of the UN security council. However, military action within the form of regime change or full out invasion should not be off the table, regardless of the short term difficulties. 

Personally I found your comment rather flippant with regards to your lack of concern on the part of Iran going nuclear. Surely you must acknowledge that many negative consequences exist outside first strikes and all out war, some of which are cited in this report but others such as making a mockery of the UN high on the list of many, though admittingly not on mine. (Though it is amusing to see UN apologists squirm.)

In addition, the GWOT is a war of ideas rather than that of geography and treasure, a nuclear Iran causes significant setbacks not only to Iraq and possibly Afghanistan in this arena but also the greater Middle East. Saudi Arabia for example is not going to sit and wait, what is the right of Shiites surely is the right of the Wahhabists, and so on. A stalemate of sorts will ensue until, like it or not, Israel will be under significant pressure to do something, with or without our ok. After which time all bets are off...




___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

I should add that the US presence in Iraq makes it possible to create a smoother confrontation curve against Iran than was possible against Saddam. Remember the outcome against Iran doesn't have to be -- hopefully is not -- an invasion. It had to be in Saddam's case because, to paraphrase someone I can't remember, no policy options existed between diplomacy and sending in the Marines. It was a cliff function.

With any luck, the ayatollahs will shake themselves to pieces and Iran will have a relatively soft landing? Impossible? That's what happened in the Soviet Union. But it wouldn't have happened without the pressure, on every front, at every level. 



___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

I hope that the diplomatic solution presents itself sometime soon. Other countries have more political pull with Iran than we do, so I hope that the EU, China, and Russia use some of to make a difference in this case. It would be ironic if the ayatollahs represent a moderating influence on the president. I just wonder how long Israel will hold off doing anything. 

CT


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I remember during the hostage crisis my college held an international food day. My future friends Roya and Faribha were utterly stunning in traditional close fitted silk dresses,but standing forlorn in their booth ignored.I had just cashed my monthly G.I. check and was trying to decide between the german club's saurkraught and sausage, sushi, tacos or this really vile looking corned beef from the celtic pagan association, still moving on the platter[xx(] So I go over and buy some kebob, basmati and baclava. Then I bought some more. I think I spent $80 in food until Roya agreed to have dinner with me, a Kosher meal in the heart of Fairfax los Angeles. Seems Roya was a jew and Faribha Shi'ite. But the distinction held utterly no value. They were iranians and best friends.A week later Faribha shyly entered the student admissions office where I was a student worker. She was with another lovely who seemed to cower at every loud noise. It seems she was a lebanese christian who's family fled a death sentence from both sides.She was exactly 4 days from legal residency, but had to enroll in college to secure her status. Problem was she was waiting funds from an uncle in New York. The clerks looked at my friends in hostility and demanded the outragous fees for a foriegn student. When Faribha explained she would be a resident in 4 days, BEFORE classes started, She was curtly told the girl could sell her " arab gold coins she was flaunting on her necklace." That necklace was I believe proof of dowry. So during lunch I sort of slipped into the records and changed a few numbers. I've met a few iranians I'd personally love to have thumped, and in my mind they represent the ayatollas we are facing now. But I have to remember those two past events, jew, moslem and christian girls taking care of each other. Thats the Iran I want to see again.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> I remember during the hostage crisis my college held an international food day. My future friends Roya and Faribha were utterly stunning in traditional close fitted silk dresses,but standing forlorn in their booth ignored.I had just cashed my monthly G.I. check and was trying to decide between the german club's saurkraught and sausage, sushi, tacos or this really vile looking corned beef from the celtic pagan association, still moving on the platter[xx(] So I go over and buy some kebob, basmati and baclava. Then I bought some more. I think I spent $80 in food until Roya agreed to have dinner with me, a Kosher meal in the heart of Fairfax los Angeles. Seems Roya was a jew and Faribha Shi'ite. But the distinction held utterly no value. They were iranians and best friends.A week later Faribha shyly entered the student admissions office where I was a student worker. She was with another lovely who seemed to cower at every loud noise. It seems she was a lebanese christian who's family fled a death sentence from both sides.She was exactly 4 days from legal residency, but had to enroll in college to secure her status. Problem was she was waiting funds from an uncle in New York. The clerks looked at my friends in hostility and demanded the outragous fees for a foriegn student. When Faribha explained she would be a resident in 4 days, BEFORE classes started, She was curtly told the girl could sell her " arab gold coins she was flaunting on her necklace." That necklace was I believe proof of dowry. So during lunch I sort of slipped into the records and changed a few numbers. I've met a few iranians I'd personally love to have thumped, and in my mind they represent the ayatollas we are facing now. But I have to remember those two past events, jew, moslem and christian girls taking care of each other. Thats the Iran I want to see again.


kav,

I have two very nice iranian friends, who I did some business with. very very nice people, a man a wife in their late twenties, well educated, from the economic elite. really just the sweetest people you could imagine. but far, far away from having any type of influence.

it reminds me of some gulf state jews I have known - from bahrain. scared of their own shadow, rich, keep telling you how great things were, but scared to death of pretty much anybody, because they had no rights what so ever. everybody who isn't really crazy religious in iran seems to be in that situation.


----------



## FlatSix (Feb 23, 2005)

> quote:6. Encourage Israel to initiate a Middle East nuclear restraint effort that would help isolate Iran as a regional producer of fissile materials. Israel should announce that it will unilaterally mothball (but not yet dismantle) Dimona, and place the reactorâ€™s mothballing under IAEA monitoring. At the same time, Israel should announce that it is prepared to dismantle Dimona and place the special nuclear material it has produced in â€œescrowâ€ in Israel with a third trusted declared nuclear state, e.g., the United States. It should make clear, however, that Israel will only take this additional step when at least two of three Middle Eastern nations (i.e., Algeria, Egypt, or Iran)follow Israelâ€™s lead by mothballing their own declared nuclear facilities that are capable of producing at least one bombâ€™s worth of plutonium or highly enriched uranium in 1 to 3 years.


So according to the author of this article, Israel should agree to mothball its facilities when two of three other regional powers do so.

If you were in the Detroit ghetto, huddling against a burned-out car, shooting it out with three opponents, and they yelled, "Hey dude, two of us will throw our guns onto the street when you do," would that be a smart idea?

----------------------

"When you wear something like spats, I think you might as well wear your favorite players jersey bc what youre saying is I want to be powerful like the bear and Im wearing its hide to tap into its power." - Film Noir Buff

"First sense of what "normal" good clothes looked like came from my dad, of course, and from Babar books." - Concordia

" I have a related problem in that I often have to chase people. Leather soles are no good for this kind of work." - Patrick06790


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oddly enough, all of the Iranians I've spent time with insisted that they were Persian, not Iranian. Lebanon was also very proud of the 'we all get along and love each other' thing (Christians, Jews, and Muslims). Then something broke.

Kav - your description of the food reminds me of my time in the Detroit area. Huge Lebanesse population and some of the best food ever. (Very pretty girls, too, but that's neither here nor there.) I really have to learn to make falafel.

CT


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Because of course, the two situations are exactly the same.

Israel wouldn't exactly be left unarmed, and if you read carefully, you'd see that Egypt, Algeria, and Iran wouldn't be giving up a weapon, they'd be giving up the ability to _produce_ a weapon, in one to three years. It's more like, "Hey dude, two of us will throw our unloaded muskets out into the street, when you throw the sawed off shotgun you have in your left hand out into the street. We'll just pretend you don't have that handgun in your right hand."


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


CT - I'll tell you what broke - he lebanese got along fine, until there was an influx of muslim palestinians after they got thrown out of jordan for trying to take over the country. this changed the demographics enough, and the balance of power, to create the kaos that is lebanon today.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


b, you have to keep in mind two things that we often forget when dealing with israel

1. israel is still a little tiny country the size of rhode island with about 5 million jewish citizens, sounrounded by almost a billion people who want to destroy it. the armies that have faced it in the past outnumber israel's army by 2 or 3 to one in conventional forces.

2. for the past 130 years of the modern zionist project, the nieghboring arabs have constantly been attacking it, and refused to discuss peaceful coexistance for most of that time.

for these reasons, it makes sense for israel to keep a non-conventional backup.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

RE: Nuke on Tel Aviv

I think Israel will be the last place a nuke will go off because the very next day, Mecca, Islamabad, Cairo, Damascus, Teheran will take ten each.

The power of the Teheran's bomb is not in it's use but in it's threatened use. Behind this deterrent can shelter a wide array of terrorist organizations. Blackmail, bribery, intimidation -- all of this can be organized beyond the power of conventional military power to interfere with. And, as other Islamic nations acquire their weapons in short order, the process will expand. That's the power of the Bomb.

Of course it's possible that the Iranian President, in a less than lucid moment, may actually attack someone openly with a nuke. In that event he has twenty and we have twenty thousand. He might do it, but the odds are that he will opt for the terror weapon under his nuclear umbrella.

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

'I would sleep happier if there were no Iranian bomb but a swamp of hypocrisy separates me from overly protesting it. Iran is a proud country that sits between nuclear Pakistan and India to its east, a nuclear Russia to its north and a nuclear Israel to its west. Adjacent Afghanistan and Iraq are occupied at will by a nuclear America, which backed Saddam Hussein in his 1980 invasion of Iran. How can we say such a country has "no right" to nuclear defence?'

-Simon Jenkins, _The Guardian_


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

The question is not one of weapons, nuclear missles unto themselves are harmless, but they should not be in the hands of regimes that openly call for the destruction of another. Nor those which actively funnel money to terrorist groups. The issue of WMD's shouldn't be treated out of the hysteria for fairness.

It's a fools idea. 



___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------

