[Kerrigan]

What I find most interesting about the problem with Iran and the Middle East is the way in which it fits into historical perspective.

Iran has never been a colony of the UK or Europe, but for most of the 19th century and part of the 20th century, the UK and Russia managed to pressure Iran into modernizing itself. This period coincides with the golden age of economic globalisation.

We all know how the 20th century went: political disintegration befell Europe and spread through Asia as well. Iran has become extraordinarily stagnant and provincial.

But here we are again, globalisation is sweeping back through Europe and Asia, and the world's most important blocs (the US and the EU) are pressuring Iran into modernizing. Like the old crank Karl Marx said, the global economy forces even the most backward despots into modernity.

I've no doubt that Iran will modernize, but it's just a question of how, and when. If the nuclear threat is as real as the EU and UN say it is, then it may just be a matter of months before some country takes action. Then Iran will be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Yes, it does. Saying otherwise is naive.

No it dont.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Athens

No it dont.

It doesn't to you and me, but it does to the people that want Israel gone the most.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

What I find most interesting about the problem with Iran and the Middle East is the way in which it fits into historical perspective.

Iran has never been a colony of the UK or Europe, but for most of the 19th century and part of the 20th century, the UK and Russia managed to pressure Iran into modernizing itself. This period coincides with the golden age of economic globalisation.

We all know how the 20th century went: political disintegration befell Europe and spread through Asia as well. Iran has become extraordinarily stagnant and provincial.

But here we are again, globalisation is sweeping back through Europe and Asia, and the world's most important blocs (the US and the EU) are pressuring Iran into modernizing. Like the old crank Karl Marx said, the global economy forces even the most backward despots into modernity.

I've no doubt that Iran will modernize, but it's just a question of how, and when. If the nuclear threat is as real as the EU and UN say it is, then it may just be a matter of months before some country takes action. Then Iran will be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.

This says Ahmadinejad is looking forward to triggering the final war signalling the return of the Mahdi.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1221/p01s04-wome.html

By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

JAMKARAN, IRAN – For those who believe, the devotion is real. Tears stream down the cheeks of 2,000 men ripe for the return of the Mahdi, the 12th Imam they expect will soon emerge to bring justice and peace to a corrupt world.

Eyes stare upward and arms open wide to receive God's promised salvation. The storyteller's lyrical song speaks of tragedy on the path to salvation, prompting cries of anguish and joy.

As at a Christian revivalist meeting that promises healing and redemption, many weep as they pray for the Shiite Muslim version of the second coming of the Messiah. "Sometimes I feel they don't need me," says Mahdi Salashur, the religious storyteller, after leading congregants on an emotional late-night journey. "They are wired to God in their hearts."

Among the true believers is Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who predicted with "no doubt" his June election victory, months in advance, at a time when polls gave him barely 1 percent support. The president also spoke of an aura that wreathed him throughout his controversial UN speech in September.

"O mighty Lord," Mr. Ahmadinejad intoned to his surprised audience, "I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last repository, the promised one, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace."

[...]

From redressing the gulf between rich and poor in Iran, to challenging the United States and Israel and enhancing Iran's power with nuclear programs, every issue is designed to lay the foundation for the Mahdi's return.

[...]

Ahmadinejad is instead transporting Iran back to the first radical years after the 1979 Islamic revolution, defined by battling imperial US and Soviet powers and Zionism. The former Revolutionary Guardsman says Israel is a "tumor" that must be "wiped off the map." He denies the Holocaust. And he is pushing the Iran's nuclear-power card; stalled talks with the European Union to curb those plans resume Wednesday in Vienna.

[...]


"Bush said: 'God said to me, attack Afghanistan and attack Iraq.' The mentality of Mr. Bush and Mr. Ahmadinejad is the same here - both think God tells them what to do," says Mr. Mohebian, noting that end-of-time beliefs have similar roots in Christian and Muslim theology.

"If you think these are the last days of the world, and Jesus will come [again], this idea will change all your relations," says Mohebian. "If I think the Mahdi will come in two, three, or four years, why should I be soft? Now is the time to stand strong, to be hard."

That mind-set also hearkens back to the missionary ambition of the newly forged Islamic Republic. "What Ahmadinejad believes is that we have to create a model state based on ... Islamic democracy - to be given to the world," says Hamidreza Taraghi, head of the conservative Islamic Coalition Society. "The ... government accepts this role for themselves."

Any possibility of détente with the US may also be in jeopardy, if the US-Iran conflict is cast in Mahdaviat terms. That view holds that the US - with quasireligious declarations of transforming the Middle East with democracy and justice, deploying military forces across the region, and developing a new generation of nuclear weapons - is arrogantly trying to assume the role of Mahdi.

A top priority of Ahmadinejad is "to challenge America, which is trying to impose itself as the final salvation of the human being, and insert its unjust state [in the region]," says Mr. Taraghi.

Taraghi says the US is "trying to place itself as the new Mahdi." This may mean no peace with Iran, he adds, "unless America changes its hegemonic ... thinking, doesn't use nuclear weapons, [or] impose its will on other nations."

[...]

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Corpse of Chewbacca

See, Wiskedjak, they tried that. It's called the 1947 UN Partition Plan of Palestine. The Jews accepted it. The Arabs, on the other hand, had some different ideas.

So now, over 50 years later, they want to retroactively accept something which they originally rejected en mass.

Puts the world in a tough place.

But, if you believe in peace and possibility, then place your stock in negotiations and dialouge. Pray for peace, believe in peace, advocate for peace. Not for destruction.

To continue this line of discussion I am starting a new thread.

"The History of Palestine 1900 - 2000"

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Perhaps you should study the traitor Sadat a bit more before praising him like you do.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/518/eg6.htm

Al-Ahram Weekly On-line
25 - 31 January 2001
Issue No.518

Nasserist paper in court over Sadat headline
By Gihan Shahine

The question of freedom of expression, a recurrent theme in public debate, has again been sparked by a lawsuit being brought against the weekly newspaper Al-Arabi. This time, the controversy is swirling around the issue of slander and how far political criticism can go before it crosses the line.

A frank discussion of history is certainly permissible. An analysis of presidential policies is also fair. But does anyone have the right to denounce a deceased leader as a traitor -- and in a blaring newspaper headline to boot? The question is a bone of contention between the family of the late President Anwar El-Sadat and the two chief editors of Al-Arabi newspaper, the mouthpiece of the Nasserist Party.

A recently published editorial titled "Nasser, the hero of the age; El-Sadat, the greatest traitor" angered El-Sadat's widow, Jihan, and their four children. The family filed a libel lawsuit against the newspaper, demanding compensation of LE5 million, the closure of the paper for three months and the imprisonment of its two chief editors. The lawsuit will be heard by the criminal court of northern Cairo on 20 February.

Farid El-Dib, the lawyer of the El-Sadat family, contends that calling El-Sadat the greatest traitor is an offence punishable under Egypt's Penal Code. Legally speaking, a person is branded a traitor for committing an act that threatens the country's independence, unity, peace or safety. Spying for another country, propagating news against one's country or joining the armed forces of a foreign country with which the country is at war all fall under this definition. High treason is punishable by death under Egyptian law.

Citing the cases of the 1973 victory against Israel and the return of Sinai under the 1979 peace treaty, El-Dib claims that El-Sadat was "a symbol of patriotism" who dedicated his life to the service of his country. "El-Sadat's 1973 victory stands in sharp contrast to the 1967 setback that claimed the lives of 25,000 Egyptians," he said, adding that in any case, the defamation of anyone, even historical figures, after their death should not be allowed, since they cannot defend themselves.

Al-Arabi's chief editors, however, argue that by calling El-Sadat a traitor, they simply exercised their right to freedom of expression. Executive Chief Editor Abdel-Hamid Qandil says that the word "traitor" was merely used as a "metaphor" in a political context, and that its usage should be distanced from any strict legal definition.

"By 'traitor' we meant that El-Sadat betrayed Nasser's national development project in return for peace with Israel," Qandil explains, saying that they hold El-Sadat primarily responsible for Egypt's current economic crisis and the deteriorating conditions in Palestine. "We are not going back on our viewpoint," Qandil insists, "but we tolerate other views. The press should be an open forum for all opinions."

Al-Arabi Chief Editor Abdallah El-Sennawi has argued that a court is not the right place to settle political and intellectual disputes. "This case is a sharp reflection of the narrow margin of freedom of expression that is available," El-Sennawi said. "Criticism is a main component of liberty." Lawyer El-Dib responds that El-Sadat's family is ready to accept criticism, but not slander.

El-Sadat was assassinated in 1981 by Islamist militants angered by the signing of the peace treaty with Israel. Following the peace deal, El-Sadat was often the target of criticism and was branded a traitor on more than one occasion. It is curious, then, that El-Sadat's family should decide only now to make a stand and take the case to court. El-Dib says that slander is simply unacceptable.

But Qandil believes the move is an attempt to close down Al-Arabi because the newspaper has caused so many problems. "An announcer on the [Qatari] Jazira channel used the same term [traitor] and nobody took him to court," Qandil notes.

Asked why the newspaper chose to spark off a debate over El-Sadat now, Qandil explains that the commentary was part of its millennium issue. One interesting rumour has it, however, that slamming El-Sadat was an attempt by the Nasserist Party to close down its own newspaper. The party is suffering from internal divisions and the newspaper is mired in debt.

"This is a joke," Qandil scoffs. "No party would ever close down its own newspaper."

It is clear to me that the other side of your argument calling Sadat a traitor is one that shouldn't need to be explained to anyone interested in preserving innocent life.

As we have seen true warriors grow and soften with age, experience and wisdom, one can't help but realize that Sadat, Rabin and Sharon (all well known for their military performance) finally saw PEACE as the greatest gift a leader could give their people.

Economic downturns come and go and Egypt's economy will undoubtedly get better. When do you think there will be peace for Israel and the Palestinians?

Anyone who calls Sadat a traitor is sadly mistaken. The lives that have been saved are worth any of the problems this peace supposedly brought on.

If the Palestinians were to make peace they could get on with accepting the billions of dollars that would flow into the P/A and start building their nation in peace.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Athens

No it dont.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RIRedinPA
I would agree with your point (as long as they feel under threat) except for the major point being that the elimination of Israel has been a declared goal by many Arab states. And those goals were stated at the very formation of the Israeli state, when Israel presented no threat, militarily or economically to the rest of the Arab world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak
"Elimination of the Israeli state" does not necessarily mean the murder of the Israeli people. I, too, would like to see Israel eliminated, and replaced with a state built on the philosophies of both people in the region; Jews and Palestinians.

Athens, if you are speaking grammatically then you are correct. The statement in question does not NECESSARILY mean killing the Israelis.

However, when you look at the statement in context it means killing them. When you look at the statement historically and consider what was meant when the Arabs/Muslims used the term (as they undoubtedly did as they started war after war and mounted attack after attack) it means killing them.

When you look at it in the context of the what Muslims are taught in their holy books it means killing them.

If you consider what someone would have to do to eliminate the state of Israel it means killing them.

And, finally, when you look at what Ahmadinejad has stood for and worked toward and advocated and espoused in any and every news report I've ever read, it means killing them.

But, strictly speaking, no; eliminating the Israeli state does not mean killing the Israelis.

[aberdeenwriter]

SIGH!

It looks like I spoke too soon.

Speaking of eliminating the state of Israel, here is an account of how it would be done with no mention of any deaths!

[email protected]

December 2003

[On 14 December 2003, a letter appeared in the "Jerusalem Post" written by Joseph R. L. Simkins of Texas. After analysing the present political situation, he concluded: "There are only two plausible outcomes: the destruction of Israel or the expulsion of the Arabs." This reminded me of two articles I had written some 16 years ago and I reproduce them here.]


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Letter from London
17 August 2005



LIQUIDATION OF THE JEWISH STATE

[I wrote this article in April 1988. It was published in "The Jerusalem Times" (the then Israeli edition of the "Jewish Press" of New York) of "week of July 8 to July 14, 1988", pages 6 & 15, "the Scribe" (the Journal of Babylonian Jewry, London) dated July 1992, page 1, and in a Hebrew translation in the Israeli newspaper "Moledet" dated September-October 1992, pages 24-25. Sadly, it seems more real today than when I wrote it nearly 16 years ago. I am therefore reproducing it word for word as I then wrote it.]

Three years have now passed since the summer of the year 2002 when the Jewish State was liquidated and a P.L.O. state established in Eretz Israel. A few weeks later, in accordance with article 6 of the P.L.O. National Covenant, all Jews and their descendants who had arrived in Eretz Israel since the "beginning of the Zionist invasion" of 1917, were expelled.

Since my family had British citizenship, we were able to go and live in England and together with the tens of thousands of others having British citizenship we arrived in England.

The P.L.O. had allowed for "humanitarian reasons" for every expelled Jew to take one small suitcase of belongings not exceeding $200 in value. Everything else was confiscated. We therefore arrived penniless in England. In view of the high prices of property in England, the best my family could find was a dilapidated property in a slum area of London. As a result of the dampness of the property, two of my children have been hospitalised with rheumatic fever. The strain of such conditions has brought my wife to the verge of a nervous breakdown.

However, Jews who originated from the U.S. or Western Europe were relatively fortunate. We had a place to go to. In contrast, there were over two million Jews who were expelled from Eretz Israel, who originated from Arab or communist countries.

A few hundred Jews from Russia, lacking all alternatives returned to that country. They were almost all arrested as Zionist spies and sent to Siberia or even worse. They had obviously been unaware of a group of Jews, who in the late 1920s, had left Eretz Israel to return to Russia in order to establish a kibbutz there! Stalin had had most of them murdered or sent to Siberia.

Today there are over two million Jews wandering all over the world trying to find a place to live. As in the case of Jews wanting to escape from Hitler in the late 1930s, no country wants to accept them. In those days, President Roosevelt convened an international conference in the French resort city of Evian to discuss their fate, but everyone of the participating 33 countries gave an excuse why not to accept them. Today, there is a slight improvement over the 1930s. The U.S. has agreed to take 2000 Jews and Australia 250. But these numbers are laughable in view of the fact that the wandering Jews number over two million. Every day one reads of cases of these Jews dying of malnutrition and of others committing suicide.

Will this problem ever be solved?

How did we get ourselves into such a mess?

It began in the 1980s, when the Arabs as part of their tactics, began to talk about "peace" in the framework of an "International Conference". The left, who since the Six Day War, had been eager to hand over Judea and Samaria, the heart of Eretz Israel, to the Arabs, jumped on the bandwagon. Groups such as "Peace Now" began to hold rallies and demonstrations with slogans such as "Peace for Territory", and world Jewish "intellectuals", who had never lived in Israel, sent round letters demanding "territorial compromise". They never explained that in view of the fact that over three-quarters of Mandatory Palestine - the area designated as the Jewish homeland - was in Arab hands [i.e. (Trans)jordan], it should be the Arabs who should be handing over land in Transjordan to the Jewish State in exchange for peace. The Arabs played their part to try and weaken the resistance of the Jews, by continually throwing stones, grenades and Molotov cocktails at Jewish vehicles, and attacking Jews in the street.

International pressure to "withdraw" to the pre-1967 borders increased and these were coupled with threats of sanctions. Had the Jews in Israel been united this pressure could have been withstood. But with the left joining forces with the international community, Israel caved in and in 1992 signed an "agreement" with the Arabs to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders, and for the removal of all the Jewish settlers who by then had reached over 120,000. The exception was East Jerusalem, and it was agreed that the solution to this "problem" would be "deferred to a later date".

Within three months of signing this agreement, Israel had withdrawn from these areas. There was no money to pay compensation to the 120,000 settlers. All that was available was money to build shacks for these people on the coastal plain. A vague promise was given to build apartments some time in the future, a promise which was never implemented.

A few months later, the Arabs were demanding Israel "returns" Arab Jerusalem, threatening a "Holy War" from the entire Moslem world should they not do so. Here, even the left balked and joined in the chorus that united Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the State of Israel. But this "unity" was sadly not to last long. The U.S., Western Europe and Japan, fearing for their oil supplies, argued that since in 1938, Czecho-slovakia had had to surrender the Sudetenland for the sake of "world peace", Israel in the 1990s, could not be allowed to endanger world peace for the sake of just an old wall and a few dirty narrow streets in Jerusalem.

The subsequent selective sanctions by these countries against Israel caused an erosion of the "consensus" existing in Israel on the Jerusalem question. By 1995, Israel had completely returned to the pre-1967 borders. Within a few months, the Jordanians had, as in 1948, razed to the ground the beautifully restored "Jewish Quarter" including its numerous Synagogues. Tombstones on the Mount of Olives, especially the new ones added since 1967, made excellent latrine covers.

Due to these selective sanctions, Israel no longer had the money to provide all of the 150,000 Jews who had been living in the suburbs of East Jerusalem, even with shacks. Many were just given tents. What a traumatic experience it was for residents of Ramat Eshkol to move from their luxurious apartments to tents.

The next stage in the Arabs' campaign was to argue, "You have returned the territory you captured in the Six Day War. Now return us the territory you captured in the War of Independence and we will recognise the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan borders. We therefore demand that you withdraw from Western Galilee, Ramle, Lod, Jaffa, Ashkelon and Beersheba." At this demand even the extreme left-wing Mapam had apoplexy. They had built many of their kibbutzim in these places.

The United Nations went into special session and mandatory sanctions were applied against Israel. This did the trick and by the end of the twentieth century, Israel was confined to the 1947 borders. This also meant the loss of West Jerusalem as the capital, which was transferred to Tel-Aviv.

Despite this withdrawal, the mandatory sanctions imposed on Israel by the U.N. were never withdrawn. The U.N. "did not have the time" to discuss the question. As a result Israel's financial situation became desperate. She argued that just as UNRWA (United Nation s Relief and Works Agency) was still financing millions of Arab "refugees" (many of whom were fictitious), she should finance the now over one million Jews who had been displaced as a result of all the Israel withdrawals. This was resoundingly defeated in a vote of the U.N. [ 1 in favour (Israel) ; 184 against ; 1 abstention (U.S.A.). ]

"The Negev is not really part of Israel," screamed the Bedouins, "It was added as a result of the intervention of President Truman." The State Department accepted this reasoning arguing that Israel had misused President Truman's generosity by building a nuclear station in the Negev and refusing to allow international supervision, and they demanded Israel's withdrawal from the Negev. By this time, Israel had lost all ability to resist and by April 2002, Israel was reduced to a narrow strip of land on the coastal plain and a narrow strip in Eastern Galilee.

Three months later, Arabs armed with just stones, Molotov cocktails and grenades marched on these two narrow strips of land. The regulation commanding soldiers to only shoot in the air and not at any Arabs, were still in force and so the Arabs had no trouble in conquering the area.

Immediately, a P.L.O. "secular-democratic" state was declared in the entire area of Eretz Israel and within a few weeks article 6 of the P.L.O. National Covenant, which authorised the expulsion of all the Jews who had arrived since 1917 was implemented.

Those who had arrived before that date, naively believed that they would have equality in this "secular-democratic" state. Their identity cards were marked with a big red "J" (in Arabic) as in Communist or Arab countries. "Only for statistical purposes," commented a P.L.O. official to the world press. Two months later, the Jews in the P.L.O. state (who numbered over a quarter of a million), were sent to the south of the country for "resettlement". Apologies were made for the use of overcrowded cattle-trucks for this "resettlement". No communication has been received from any of these Jews since their "resettlement" three years ago. "Due to communications difficulties," explained the P.L.O. spokesman. When one remembers the cordial meeting between Hitler and the Mufti and their identity of ideas on "solving the Jewish problem", and also the statement made in May 1948 by the Secretary-General of the Arab League threatening the Jews with "extermination and momentous massacre", one can only fear the worst.

Near to my London damp apartment, lives a former "Peace Now" activist, who was expelled from Israel at the same time as me. "We were wrong in believing the Arabs," he keeps telling me. How this contrasts from the period following the withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines, when "Peace Now" supporters danced in the streets of Tel-Aviv celebrating and naively waving slogans "Now Peace".

The Festivals should be times of joy for the Jewish people. However, when in the Festival prayers, the words "On account of our sins, we were exiled from our land" are said, great weeping is heard in the Synagogues. Maybe, after another two thousand stateless years of wanderings, persecutions, pogroms and massacres, we will again have a state. Let us pray that next time, we will use the opportunity wisely.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

"Elimination of the Israeli state" does not necessarily mean the murder of the Israeli people. I, too, would like to see Israel eliminated, and replaced with a state built on the philosophies of both people in the region; Jews and Palestinians.

Wiskedjak, I must commend you for how you quietly proposed this idea and then let us say and think what we would. And yet, all along you KNEW exactly how an elimination of the Israeli state could be accomplished bloodlessly and "replaced with a state built on the philosophies of both people in the region; Jews and Palestinians."

If all of the 800,000 or so refugees were to be returned to ISRAEL and given the right to vote the day after the election the matter would be settled.

No more Israel.

You knew this but let us spout off anyway.

I don't know what that says, exactly, but it is certainly a display of mental and emotional discipline.

[ThisGuy]

I find the title of this thread to be highly offensive. Mods, please lock it. Thank you.

[aberdeenwriter]

Do you believe "ThisGuy?" I think he is putting us on. Feigned outrage?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by ThisGuy

I find the title of this thread to be highly offensive. Mods, please lock it. Thank you.

You obviously are an usurpator:

We are refering to This Guy.

You are only ThisGuy.


Big difference.

Another damn treehugger, apologetic, eco-conscious, peacenik hippy-commy Libby trolling a Right-full thread.

meh.

[ThisGuy]

Why do all of you hate my freedom?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by ThisGuy

Why do all of you hate my freedom?

I find the title of this thread to be highly offensive. Mods, please lock it. Thank you.

Intolerance. Whining. Or failure to signify you were just kidding.

[Jawbone54]

I don't hate your freedom. I hate what you do with your freedom, which I am free to do.

So perhaps the question should be: Why do you hate my freedom to hate your freedom?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Intolerance. Whining. Or failure to signify you were just kidding.

Are you kidding or are you really serious?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Are you kidding or are you really serious?

I don't know if you are American or reside in America but even the most repugnant speech is (in most cases) protected by the Constitution. That's one of the things we are trying to support throughout the world. Freedom.

ThisGuy wrote:

I find the title of this thread to be highly offensive. Mods, please lock it. Thank you.

His request was so absurd I wondered if he was intolerant of other's freedom of speech, whining about the subject matter or joking.

Of course it isn't U.S. policy to assassinate foreign leaders. IIRC.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

I don't know if you are American or reside in America but even the most repugnant speech is (in most cases) protected by the Constitution. That's one of the things we are trying to support throughout the world. Freedom.

ThisGuy wrote:

His request was so absurd I wondered if he was intolerant of other's freedom of speech, whining about the subject matter or joking.

Of course it isn't U.S. policy to assassinate foreign leaders. IIRC.

Woaw.

You were born without a sense of humor, obviously.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Woaw.

You were born without a sense of humor, obviously.

No, I don't find humor in ambiguity. It's like waiting to sneeze. What you said and what ThisGuy said were ambiguous. One of the meanings could be funny but until I know which is which I can't run the possibility I was laughing at the wrong thing.

[aberdeenwriter]

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw says Military Action Against Iran is Not an Option

13 January 2006

Straw also believes that military action is not a viable option at this stage.

"This can only be resolved by peaceful means, let us be clear about that," he said. "Nobody is talking about invading Iran or taking military action against Iran. And, again to quote the White House, Iran is not Iraq."

Whatever the next step, Iran is threatening to halt all instant inspections at its nuclear sites by U.N. observers if the matter does in fact go to the Security Council.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-01-13-voa17.cfm

[Kevin]

Even if that is what he believes, he shouldn't be announcing it. Iran will just get more confident.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Even if that is what he believes, he shouldn't be announcing it. Iran will just get more confident.

I agree.

You usually shouldn't remove options from consideration. Unless they are trying to lower the tensions of the Iranians. Heightened tensions and a hair trigger could set off some of the Iranian terrorist hit teams, inadvertently. Or, maybe everyone knows the score (hitting ALL Iran's nuke sites would be very difficult and some would still survive) so having the world sitting on the edge of their chairs in dread does no one any good.

[Pendergast]

Yeah.

And politians are Ace of Spades and terribly naives.

[Jawbone54]

The policy we have of not assassinating foreign leaders is ridiculous. Let's get some SEALs in there and make the man cease to exist.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

The policy we have of not assassinating foreign leaders is ridiculous. Let's get some SEALs in there and make the man cease to exist.

Since I do not agree with your opinion, why not applying the same recipe?

Let's send the SEALs to your home.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Even if that is what he believes, he shouldn't be announcing it. Iran will just get more confident.

Quite the opposite. If Iran is being honest about their intentions, care must be taken to ensure Iran doesn't feel they will be attacked and decide to weaponize their nuclear programs. If Iran is developing nuclear weapons, care must be taken to ensure Iran doesn't accelerate their program.

[Spliffdaddy]

^ see also; North Korea

[mania]

the CIA obviously sux at assassinations - check the news on the Pakistan bungle.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by mania

the CIA obviously sux at assassinations - check the news on the Pakistan bungle.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

When we 'empower' others to do our dirty work we always end up having to fight our mercenaries.

When we try to do these nasty things ourselves we have trouble because we're just too damned decent to pull it off well.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

If Iran is being honest about their intentions, care must be taken to ensure Iran doesn't feel they will be attacked and decide to weaponize their nuclear programs.

I don't think fear of them being attacked would cause them to do such a thing. They want them regardless for "power" reasons.

[von Wrangell]

Just to remind you people:

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued a Fatwa in August 2005 that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons.

It's just such a shame that you don't understand the importance of this.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

JAyatollah Ali Khamenei has issued a Fatwa in August 2005 that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons.

It's just such a shame that you don't understand the importance of this.

Yes and Korea said they wouldn't make nukes either.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yes and Korea said they wouldn't make nukes either.

Islam is a little different then Korea.

[Kevin]

Oh yes, I know this, I know this.

My statement still stands.

[Athens]

Is it not easier to work with a country and to keep seals in place and to keep inspectors in place and to monitor over pissing them off and driving everything underground?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Athens

Is it not easier to work with a country and to keep seals in place and to keep inspectors in place and to monitor over pissing them off and driving everything underground?

Only if that country cooperates.

[Athens]

Well Iran was orginally, but perhaps you can explain cooperation a little. It usally means 2 sides giving a little and actually working together... I see one side making demands and another side refusing.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Athens

Well Iran was orginally, but perhaps you can explain cooperation a little. It usally means 2 sides giving a little and actually working together... I see one side making demands and another side refusing.

Take Iraq for example. Now compare that situation with the one in Africa.

See how different reactions to weapons programs and inspections by two different places turned out two different ways?

[Athens]

i dont understand your example?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Athens

i dont understand your example?

Do you not know the recent disarmament history in Africa?

You probably didn't hear about it, or know about it because everything went like it was supposed to.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Quite the opposite. If Iran is being honest about their intentions, care must be taken to ensure Iran doesn't feel they will be attacked and decide to weaponize their nuclear programs. If Iran is developing nuclear weapons, care must be taken to ensure Iran doesn't accelerate their program.

But, you see, that is the crux of the issue. IF Iran is being honest. There is no way to know whether they are being honest now or whether they will change their minds after the fact.

I'll remind all of you reading this, whereas the US sure doesn't WANT to be nuked - even once - we could, however, absorb such an attack and survive as a nation. But Israel can only be wrong ONCE. One nuke and they are destroyed.

How would you feel if your sworn enemy who wanted you dead asked for an ability that the was a pre-cursor to the ultimate weapon and there was no way to prevent their weaponizing that pre-cursor?

You ever notice how someone with a brand new very expensive car will park really far from Wal-Mart's front door, far away from any other cars? You know why they do this is because they can't take the chance of someone making a mistake and so they do what's necessary to prevent the danger.

Israel is doing everything it can to prevent the danger, but Iran has said they want to open their doors and ding Israel. They want to ding Israel so badly that Israel will be totaled. They admitted it. So to give them a parking pass into the special parking area doesn't make sense for Israel.

It doesn't make sense for anyone who really values human life and World peace and stability.

So, the first question should be, "How can Iran secure the energy and power it legitimately needs and is entitled to without threatening Israel?"

The second question should be, "Assuming there is no WMD capability, what can be done to lessen the possibility of Iran attacking Israel?"

[aberdeenwriter]

If a fatwa is so important, is such a binding declaration or proclamation maybe this would help resolve the situation.

Issue a fatwa ordering all the terrorist attacks to stop for a year. Once the world sees the power a fatwa has over the actions of Muslims maybe then it would carry more weight in the minds of those whose lives would be resting on nothing more than faith.

But, now that I think of it, why wouldn't the wise men of Islam have already issued a fatwa against terrorism unless they approved of it?

And if they can only issue fatwas that are in accordance with the Koran then doesn't that implicitly say that Jews and other non-Muslims are fair game? And wouldn't that answer my question as to why some Muslims hate and want to kill Jews?

[ThisGuy]

You need to find yourself a lover.

[deltacav19]

no in all honesty i think moblieazation of armed forces is required or spec. operation, we need to show him that wut he is planning on doing is wrong and the u.n. nor the world will idley sit by and watch someone possibaly kill thousands and go unpunished. if it cant be resolved peacefully then millitary action IS required. and as for those who say NUKE HIM first..... bad vibes, oh lets counter a terroist threat whit a terroist attack of our own, not only will we kill thousands but we will lose allies and possibaly risk ww3!

do u seriously think that is ok, r u willing to live with that, or would u rather be drafted?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by ThisGuy

You need to find yourself a lover.

Is sex your answer for religious violence? Nice try, but copulation rarely affects more than just the intimates. What about the fundamental Muslims? Are you suggesting they, also, take your advice?

And here's a song lyric prompted by your simple minded post.

Todd Rundgren's classic, "We gotta get you a woman."

Leroy, boy, is that you?
I thought your post-hangin’ days were through,
Sunk-in eyes and full of sighs,
Tell no lies, you get wise,
I tell you now we’re gonna pull you through,
There’s only one thing left that we can do.

We gotta get you a woman,
It’s like nothin’ else to make you feel sure you’re alive.
We gotta get you a woman,
We better get walkin’, we’re wastin’ time talkin’ now.

Leroy, boy, you’re my friend
You say how and I’ll say when
Come and meet me down the street
Take a seat, it’s my treat
You may not ever get this chance again
That empty feeling’s just about to end.

Talkin’ ’bout life and what it means to you,
It don’t mean nothin’ if it don’t run through
I got one thing to say, you know it’s true
You got to find some time to get this thing together.

Talkin’ ’bout things about that special one
They may be stupid but they sure are fun
I’ll give it to you while we’re on the run
Because we ain’t got time to get this thing together, ’cause we
Got to get together with a woman who has been around,
One who knows better than to let you down,
Let’s hope there’s still one left in this whole town,
And that she’ll take some time to get this thing together.

We gotta get you a woman
And when we’re through with you,
We’ll get me one too.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by deltacav19

no in all honesty i think moblieazation of armed forces is required or spec. operation, we need to show him that wut he is planning on doing is wrong and the u.n. nor the world will idley sit by and watch someone possibaly kill thousands and go unpunished. if it cant be resolved peacefully then millitary action IS required. and as for those who say NUKE HIM first..... bad vibes, oh lets counter a terroist threat whit a terroist attack of our own, not only will we kill thousands but we will lose allies and possibaly risk ww3!

do u seriously think that is ok, r u willing to live with that, or would u rather be drafted?

Your nickname suggests a military orientation. If you are an operator, may God bless and keep you.

In answer to your question, I think the least amount of violence and commotion needed for the job, the better! I don't know that anyone could get close enough, soon enough to prevent Iranian mischief. But, if that is possible, then yes, I'd agree with breaking US law to assassinate someone who has vowed to wipe Israel off the map and to bring about the death of America.

"Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism? But you should know that this slogan and this goal are achievable, and certainly can be achieved," Ahmadinejad proclaimed before the huge crowd in Teheran.

The crowd responded with the popular Islamic chant, "Death to America!"

[Rumor]

We could send Arnold and his elite group of commando's over there...

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Rumor

We could send Arnold and his elite group of commando's over there...

No, wait! You have a problem with 007???

Yeah. James Bond is the man for the job!

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

No, wait! You have a problem with 007???

Yeah. James Bond is the man for the job!

Not since he went blonde, he's not.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

Not since he went blonde, he's not.

What about the Connery version?