Bomb Iran?
- Thread starter Heavymental
- Start date
The plans are laid but what are the triggers?
According to GlobalSecurity.org and and ZMag.org plans are well advanced for a move on parts of Iran. From the looks of things at GS the plans for an attack on many facilities spread across Iran are up to date and just awaiting a trigger perhaps non-compliance with a UN directive? The bods over at ZM are looking at the idea of a quick dash across the border into Khuzestan with the objective of capturing a goodly part of the Iranian oil production facilities but what will trigger this movement?
According to GlobalSecurity.org and and ZMag.org plans are well advanced for a move on parts of Iran. From the looks of things at GS the plans for an attack on many facilities spread across Iran are up to date and just awaiting a trigger perhaps non-compliance with a UN directive? The bods over at ZM are looking at the idea of a quick dash across the border into Khuzestan with the objective of capturing a goodly part of the Iranian oil production facilities but what will trigger this movement?
greg
Its a G thing
Attacking Iran will be far more like Desert Storm. There's little doubt they'll put up significant traditional resistance. However these days Guerilla (AKA insurgance 
) warfare tactics are very effective. It will not be a clean affair and will probably lead to the widest level of Islamic resistance against the West ever seen.
Conversely the way Iran is conducting itself now if there is no military intervention we could see a very nasty turn for the worst in the Middle East (from the perspective of the typical Western world view of course).
) warfare tactics are very effective. It will not be a clean affair and will probably lead to the widest level of Islamic resistance against the West ever seen.Conversely the way Iran is conducting itself now if there is no military intervention we could see a very nasty turn for the worst in the Middle East (from the perspective of the typical Western world view of course).
tones
compulsive cantater
And Iran is three times the size of Iraq and has very difficult terrain. Moreover, it's certain that the population would stand united, the way they did against Saddam Hussein in Gulf War I - Saddam sought to take advantage of the fall of the Shah and the resulting confusion by exerting his claim to the whole of the Shatt al-Arab waterway. Had Saddam not used poison gas against the Iranians, he would have lost Basra and would probably have been toppled. The population was certainly united - even the exiled Crown Prince, a trained fighter pilot, was prepared to fight for the mullahs. Indeed the USA gave Saddam considerable help (they like to forget this now) because they wanted Iraq as a counterweight against Iran. At this time he was "our sonuvabitch", and therefore OK and his misdeeds ignored.greg said:Attacking Iran will be far more like Desert Storm. There's little doubt they'll put up significant traditional resistance. However these days Guerilla (AKA insurgance
Only a crazy person would attack Iran. The problem is, in George Bush, we have such a crazy person, or at least the potential for one. The really worrying thing is George the US-style born-again Christian and the Messianic tendencies of the US religious right (whose uncritical backing of Israel is, as they see it, to promote the Second Coming). George, who, we must remember, listens to "A Higher Father", might just be daft enough to do it.
Perhaps, but perhaps not. Part of the driving force is the sheer hypocrisy of the west. Iran is not allowed a bomb - but Israel is. Another clear case of "our sonuvabitch". Moreover, all the neighbours in a dangerous neighbourhood - Pakistan, India, China - have nuclear weapons. In Iran's place, I'd want one (at least) too. I suspect that the Iranian behaviour is simply bombast, as was Saddam's.
tones
compulsive cantater
I think it goes back to his conversion from the demon drink, Steve, which is 'way back before he became a national figure in the USA (before even becoming Governor of Texas, I think).7_V said:
Evidence? Well, the "Higher Father" business (when, on the point of launching the Iraqi war, he was asked if he had asked his father). Bush Sr. had wisely steered away from the quagmire of invading Iraq after freeing Kuwait (he couldn't see any viable exit strategy, he said).
In addition, I guess we need to understand what is meant by "fundamentalist". Technically, it is someone who believes that the Bible is an inerrant guide to, well, everything. Now I believe that this in itself is harmless and even beneficial to the world - Jimmy Carter is such a believer and he remains a great humanitarian and a great human being.
The problem with American fundamentalism is that the American fundamentalists have a second Deity - America, a belief in the hand of Divine Providence in the affairs of the USA, allied to a naïve belief that US-style democracy is the default condition of humankind - take away a dictator and hey presto! instant democracy.
Bush has shown very clearly this type of fundamentalism, and it is deeply rooted in the USA. One could say that Bush (or more particularly master strategist Karl Rove) played to this audience in both elections and that Bush is therefore now merely paying the piper. However, my impression is thatit goes deeper than that, that Bush really does believe what the US Fundamentalist Right believes - and that I find worrisome. There is a lot of US Fundamentalist support for movements such as this:
http://www.templemountfaithful.org/
I don't need to tell you what currently occupies the site...
7_V
I want a Linn - in a DB9
Tone, What exactly do you mean by "I don't need to tell you what currently occupies the site..."tones said:
However, if that site is the basis of your fear of a dangerous Bush-linked Christian fundamentalism, I wouldn't worry. The site you linked to has a Google page ranking of 5, which for popularity puts it roughly on a par with the Seventh Veil home page.
Personally, I'd be more concerned by the paranoia that leads you to state that Israel is "the world's second worst terrorist organisation after the USA".
However, I'm particularly impressed by your proposed solution to the issue of Iranian nukes:
So we whack Israel around the head until Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Syria, Iran and all her other enemies agree that 'The Jewish State should have the same right' (to exist within secure borders). Yup, that makes sense.
Excellent stuff, Tones.
Regards
Steve
tones
compulsive cantater
The current occupant of the site is the Dome of the Rock, Islam's third holiest shrine after Mecca and Medina, from where the Prophet was received into heaven. Some years ago, an Australian fanatic actually tried to set fire to the Dome of the Rock in order to make way for the new Temple.7_V said:
No, it's not the basis for my fear, but it's an indication of what I see as the dangerously one-sided (and one-eyed) US relationship with Israel
I regard this as obvious. Israel is a master practitioner at the ignoble art of state terrorism (apartheid era South Africa was the same). Now I do not dispute Israel's right to exist within secure borders and at peace with its neighbours. Whether it actually should exist at all is another question, which is now moot, because it does, end of that story. But for a nation whose people who suffered so much at the hands of the Nazis to turn round and dish out similar treatment to another people on the basis of race is to me completely wrong.
Thank you!
Not quite what I said! The main problem is and has always been Israel. Were Israel not so intransigent, I suspect that neither would these other people. Injustice always begets injustice and it's stored up for the future. What if Syria received back the Golan Heights? Would it still be anti-Israel? I doubt it. And without national support the terrorist organisations such as those you named would dry up more or less completely. You will never satisfy everyone, of course, there will alway be the nutcases who want martyrdom or someone else's property but most of the problem can be solved politically. And Iran's just big-noting itself - and none of the Arab countries really trust non-Arab, predominantly Shi'ite Iran and are unhappy that the Americans removed Saddam Hussein, seen in the Arab world as the counterweight to Iran.
Yes, it was, wasn't it? Now, where's that tux for the Nobel ceremony?
I enjoyed this article by Mark Steyn....
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060416-103032-2261r.htm
I'm sure some will question the analogy's merit (as always, no analogy is perfect
) but I especially like the bit about the way some seem to dismiss Ahmadinejad's rantings as merely a 'rhetorical flourish', and nothing to fear, whilst those some people seem so scared of Bush's own rantings about axis of evil and his other 'irresponsible warmongering'.
How come Bush wasn't given the same leeway to make aggressive rhetorical statements such as his infamous axis of evil speech (to a domestic audience who wanted to hear it, post 9-11), when so many on the left are keen to apologise and make excuses for Iran's own aggressive posturing as merely that? I'm sure someone will say its because Bush's words were accompanied with action, where as Ahmedinejads are not - so must we wait before Iran attacks the US presence in Iraq, Israel, or holds the world to ransom, before we get worried?
Again, I'm not advocating war as the necessary option at this time - but so many people seem to chastising the US and Israel as the aggressors in this case, and bending over backwards to justify or apologise for the behaviour of Iran, when Irans behaviour is still so clearly out of line with the wishes of the vast majority of the international community.
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060416-103032-2261r.htm
I'm sure some will question the analogy's merit (as always, no analogy is perfect
) but I especially like the bit about the way some seem to dismiss Ahmadinejad's rantings as merely a 'rhetorical flourish', and nothing to fear, whilst those some people seem so scared of Bush's own rantings about axis of evil and his other 'irresponsible warmongering'. How come Bush wasn't given the same leeway to make aggressive rhetorical statements such as his infamous axis of evil speech (to a domestic audience who wanted to hear it, post 9-11), when so many on the left are keen to apologise and make excuses for Iran's own aggressive posturing as merely that? I'm sure someone will say its because Bush's words were accompanied with action, where as Ahmedinejads are not - so must we wait before Iran attacks the US presence in Iraq, Israel, or holds the world to ransom, before we get worried?
Again, I'm not advocating war as the necessary option at this time - but so many people seem to chastising the US and Israel as the aggressors in this case, and bending over backwards to justify or apologise for the behaviour of Iran, when Irans behaviour is still so clearly out of line with the wishes of the vast majority of the international community.
7_V
I want a Linn - in a DB9
I wondered how long it would take to get to the Israel=Nazi argument. I don't intend to get into further discussion of that nature on a hi-fi site.tones said:
Nonsense. However, that's your view so there's not much point debating is there?
Of course not. After all, when Syria was lobbing shells down on Israeli kibbutzes from the Golan prior to 1967, it wasn't anti-Israel, was it?
7_V
I want a Linn - in a DB9
I agree with Senator McCain's proposal that Iran be thrown out of the World Cup. That would send a clear message to the Iranian people that Ahmadinejad's rantings are unacceptable and may even lead to a popular uprising against the government. When Iran defeated the USA 1-0 in the group phases (a couple of world cups ago) there was partying on the streets of Tehran for days afterwards. They didn't even qualify.Will said:
When a football crazy nation like Iran is given a choice between national pride through ownership of nuclear weapons or through a national football team, the football team would win hands down.
Football is the true opiate of the masses.
Regards
Steve
tones
compulsive cantater
Because of the accuracy of the comparison, perhaps?7_V said:
If that's your attitude, I guess not.
Times have and do change. The Middle East has changed and is changing. The "Economist" once put it very nicely - Israel v. the Arabs is a David v. Goliath struggle - with Israel as Goliath. Ultimately the Arab regimes are realists - how many of them are really determined to help the Palestinians at the expense of their own national interests? It's reminiscent of the old joke about Colonel Quaddafi - he was prepared to fight to the last Egyptian for the liberation of Palestine. And if a realistic solution to the Israel v. Palestine problem were on the table, I'll bet they'd take it after some face-saving groaning and moaning.
I think I know where you're coming from, Steve - you hate terrorism. So do I - I'm a Belfast Protestant. I despised the IRA for the atrocities it committed (including the deaths of people who were my friends and the narrow escape of my mother in a bomb blast in central Belfast, when an entire shop window fell around her). But ultimately you have to realise that the IRA existed only because of injustices perpetrated in the past. This is not condoning terrorism which was and always will be wrong, it's simple recognition of the facts. And only when the facts are recognised and accepted can things be put sort-of right. The clock can never be turned back, but it can be persuaded to work again and keep reasonably good time.
7_V
I want a Linn - in a DB9
I don't recall hearing that the Israelis have rounded up millions of Palestinian men, women and children, put them into cattle trucks and transported them to death camps where they have been stripped, gassed, had any gold fillings removed and been cremated.tones said:
That is what 'Nazi' means to a Jew like myself.
Comparisons between Israelis and Nazis are hugely in error because of the scope, scale, actions and intentions. The sickness I feel when thinking about it is the reason that I don't wish to discuss it further, Tone, not because of the 'accuracy of the comparison'.
tones
compulsive cantater
I thought I detected some heat in the conversation and it becomes now clear, and I can understand why and sympathise. Naturally Israel has never resorted to a Final Solution, and I'm sure it never would, and I apologise for any implication that it ever would - this was not intended. However, in my opinion, the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis resembles the treatment and routine humiliation of the Jews at the start of the Nazi era, before the Nazi state decided on the Endlösung. This surprises me constantly about Israel, a democratic state with humane values. It was more understandable in more dangerous times, surrounded by a much more hostile Arab world. But that has changed, and I think that Israel has everything to gain and little to lose by extending the hand of friendship. This is one of the very fundaments of Judaism, a great religion that also gave the world Christianity and Islam. Remember G-d's commandment to Moses before the Israelites crossed into the Promised Land - be kind to aliens (foreigners) and allow them to share in the prosperity of the land "Remember that you were slaves in Egypt" (Deut.24:22)7_V said:
Shalom.
7_V
I want a Linn - in a DB9
I don't think the Arab world is less hostile to Israel now, Tone, and certainly not Syria whom you mentioned earlier.tones said:
Although, it's true that Egypt has been pragmatic enough to sign peace accords with Israel (in the days of Sadat who was IMO a great man and genuine peace-maker), it's also true to say that the actual line of Egypt towards Israel is hardly non-hostile. If you want an idea read the accounts of the Egyptian press reported by English language Egyptian blogs such as "Big Pharaoh" or "Sand Monkey".
I suppose that it's likely that the Egyptian government hates Hamas even more than Israel because of their links with both Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Anyway, I hope that you're right, Tone, that there is less Arab hostility towards Israel. Now, did anyone tell Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs?
Peace be with you.
greg
Its a G thing
I quite agree that using the term Nazi is not relevant. Though considering the catastrophic treatment of European Jews over many hundreds of years, it seems questionable that a nation created as a sanctuary from such treatment should treat another people in the way Israel treats the Palestinians. The acts of terrorism inflicted upon Israel are in no way justified, but, like the Irish Republican terrorists, those in Palestine see these acts as the only weapon available against a powerful and unjust occupier.7_V said:
7_V
I want a Linn - in a DB9
greg said:
Sorry Greg, I don't buy that. The Palestinians could choose to talk or negotiate. Not for nothing is it said that "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity".
The Palestinian income per capita is amongst the lowest on Earth but the aid they've received per capita is by far the highest in human history.
They could have used the billions of aid dollars to develop their infrastructure, their economy, their schools and their hospitals. They could farm their land, develop their industries and look after their refugees. In fact they could do all the things that they've told the EU and the USA that they would do if they got the money. Instead they've used it to make a few corrupt officials very rich indeed and to pay for terrorism and to the families of suicide bombers and prisoners.
Read accounts of the various tri-part negotiations that have taken place in Camp david or Oslo with the Americans, Israelis and Palestinians. Don't read the Israeli, American or Palestinian accounts though, read the accounts by Saudi or Jordanian negotiators who were present. Look deeply enough and you'll see the truth. Don't think that terrorism is or was their only option.
Even if the Palestinians wanted to fight instead of talk, they could choose to use their suicide bombers against military targets. I despise terrorism against civilians full stop. For the record, I despise the IRA or any other terrorists, as well and this includes the relatively few, early Jewish attacks against the British.
As for your view that the Jews should be better because of "catastrophic treatment over hundreds of years"...
Bollocks.
Why should European anti-semitism give the aggressors the right to tell the victims how they should be?
The Jews are just like any other people, no better and no worse.
Sorry Greg but despite the IRA, the UK hasn't experienced terrorism on anything like the same scale as the Israelis (relative to their population sizes). I wonder how things would be if there were a couple of hundred 7/7 attacks in a two or three year period. How might the 'anti-racist' British treat their Muslim minorities then?
greg
Its a G thing
Some very interesting points Steve, I'll endevour to research the accounts you refer to. I think I didnt make myself clear - all acts of terrorism are deplorable of course. I'm simply pointing out that many ordinary Palestinians probably explain the acts of terrorism in those terms. The perspective on whether a terrorist is a criminal or a freedom fighter depends on which side of the fence one sits and the level of education and awareness. It is clear indoctrination of young Palestinians makes it likely most would see suicide bombers as martyrs.7_V said:
Murdering civilians is beyond condemnation. I cant offer anything useful to say about it
I didnt say that. I just dont accept that Israel act in a responsibe manner as a nation. The spotlight is on them because of the history of the Jews treatment in Europe, that cant be avoided. The process of the creation of modern Israel has created more problems than it has solved IMO.
I didnt compare the IRA to Palestinian terrorists in terms of the number of attacks or the mode of attack, I simply compared the mentality of "freedom fighters" who dont see themselves for what they are - terrorists.
The British treatment of the Irish has at many points in history strayed into the criminal. The comparison points are occupation and greater force which, I think quote naturally, triggers guerilla tactics. The differentiator are the morals applied. Killing civilians in any circumstances is clearly morally abhorrent.
7_V
I want a Linn - in a DB9
Greg, I didn't mean to imply that you were comparing the IRA with the Palestinians. Sorry if I gave that impression.
One more thing on the Jews and prejudice thing. I hate racism and always have. A few years ago I was working a stall on Camden Market and I got into conversation with some young Germans. They were very nice guys and we were having a good chat. At some point they said that I must come and visit them in Germany and I found myself saying that NO WAY would I come and stay in Germany.
But suddenly I saw the hurt in their eyes and I realised that, although I always told myself that I wasn't prejudiced, I was. At that moment I just let it drop.
Since then I married a German lady and have two half-German children. So now I...
... bloody hate the Kraut bastards again.
(just kidding)
But seriously, I hate to see Palestinians being treated badly by some Israelis, although I can understand why. The enmity between Arabs and Jews runs quite deep and only time could heal.
So there you go. Jews and prejudice - probably not much different overall to anyone else - even me - and maybe you. A pity though.
One more thing on the Jews and prejudice thing. I hate racism and always have. A few years ago I was working a stall on Camden Market and I got into conversation with some young Germans. They were very nice guys and we were having a good chat. At some point they said that I must come and visit them in Germany and I found myself saying that NO WAY would I come and stay in Germany.
But suddenly I saw the hurt in their eyes and I realised that, although I always told myself that I wasn't prejudiced, I was. At that moment I just let it drop.
Since then I married a German lady and have two half-German children. So now I...
... bloody hate the Kraut bastards again.
(just kidding)
But seriously, I hate to see Palestinians being treated badly by some Israelis, although I can understand why. The enmity between Arabs and Jews runs quite deep and only time could heal.
So there you go. Jews and prejudice - probably not much different overall to anyone else - even me - and maybe you. A pity though.
greg
Its a G thing
Quality7_V said:
