Mahmoud Ahmadinejad again!

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, if the USA bombed Iran back to the stone age, or otherwise posed some serious challenge to that nut Ahmadinejad, it would go some way towards the redemption of Bush...as long as he tried to minimise civilian casualties etc. etc.

Minimising casualties sure worked in Iraq did'n it. It's arguable that Bush actually gave rise to Ahmadinejad and it's highly immoral to bomb a country because someone spouts some rhetoric (and rhetoric used out of context on many occasions as well as purposfully mistranslated).

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

Bush actually gave rise to Ahmadinejad

That may be true, but the world can only deal with the situation that it now faces, and not wring it's hands about bad decisions in the past.

sovtek wrote:

it's highly immoral to bomb a country because someone spouts some rhetoric

If he just kept mouthing off, it would be one thing. Mouthing off with nuclear potential to back him up is another. This problem isn't going to dissolve into warm handshakes all round and Ahmadinejad seeing the error of his ways.

Frederico

Deleted User wrote:

Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, if the USA bombed Iran back to the stone age, or otherwise posed some serious challenge to that nut Ahmadinejad, it would go some way towards the redemption of Bush...as long as he tried to minimise civilian casualties etc. etc.

eh what?

Frederico

Deleted User wrote:

That may be true, but the world can only deal with the situation that it now faces, and not wring it's hands about bad decisions in the past.

No the hands were wrung before these bad decisions were made.

If he just kept mouthing off, it would be one thing. Mouthing off with nuclear potential to back him up is another. This problem isn't going to dissolve into warm handshakes all round and Ahmadinejad seeing the error of his ways.

How is it going to be solved? by war? just like Afghanistan and Iraq?
Its hypocrisy at the highest level, and its quite clear to me that this is a case of Rumsfeld and Cheney hellbent on going after their old eighties highschool enemy; Iran. They will of course ignore the brutal dictatorship in Uzbekistan, they probably haven't even heard of Mozambique, they've certainly forgotten, along with most of the American public, that a Saudi came up with the plan, that Saudi's flew those planes into those buildings, that Bin Laden is probably hiding in one of the biggest and fastest growing terrorist hotspots in the world; Pakistan.

Look how easily they manipulated us over Iraq, it was the next biggest threat, links to terrorism, Al Aqaeda, WMD..

AbusesToilets

Frederico wrote:

They told us they were making an effort to minimise casualties, that seemed to be enough for some people, but I believe the reports and pictures and stories told a different story.

Those cluster bombs the Israeli's dropped are still causing 3 to 4 casualties a day, they used white phosphorus, they turned Southern Beirut into rubble, flattened many towns, they put the country back a decade, they killed more children than they killed Hezbollah fighters, didn't really achieve any aims, except prehaps boosting Hezbollah's status as a legimate resistance instead of aggressive terrorists.

It was a dirty dirty war, of course presented to us on a silver media platter, the propaganda came thick and heavy However in this new age of skeptisism people were starting to see through the spin and lies. The Hezbollah with all their might caused a few dozen Israeli casualties, whereas the IDF with as much apparent restraint as possible killed over 1000 civilians, and nowhere near that number of Hezbollah fighters.

The large number of civilian casualties came from Israel persuing Hezbollah into urban areas.Let me ask you a question,what form of military action would you have taken in pursuit of Hezbollah?And given that Hezbollah had already initiated rocket attacks on Israel prior to the ambush and kidnapping,military action was unavoidable.

AbusesToilets

nacho libre wrote:

you seem to be more informed than an IDF solider who described fighting Hezbollah. His account of fighting Hezbollah differs from yours. Also, If they were making great efforts to minimise casualties why drop so many cluster bombers in civilian aeras. You will have noticed there is a U.S. investigation into this.

http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs8398

In the article you linked to the Major being interviewed had this to say:
"Taylor says the one tactical area where the IDF has been particularly effective is also the area where they've been the most criticized: Attacks on villages where they believe Hezbollah supplies are stockpiled.

"The villages are used as logistic bases," he says, "but they usually fight from bunkers in outlying areas. They have tunnel systems with camouflaged entry points where they can enter in one place and exit somewhere else. We've been fairly successful at cutting off the supplies from the villages, which forces them to come out eventually."

The way to fight Hezbollah, he says, is to outlast them in a war of nerves."
What other way is an army meant to combat a force that operates in built up urban areas and uses civilian infastructure for it's operations?

AbusesToilets

(1) Israel have the bomb as they have lots of neighbours that don't like them, and like having the leverage an atomic bomb gives them over their neighbours.
(they don't want anyone else to have the bomb)

(2) Iran want the bomb to keep Israel from bombing them/attacking them and to stop American trying to invade them.

1:The fact of Israel having the bomb was/is the main element keeping the Arab nations which surround it from attacking it directly.Given that it has faced the prospect of all out annhilation on a number of occasions from coalition of Arab states,i don't see the problem with that.Israel is a functioning democracy,much more so than Iran,a country which it seems people here have much more affinity with.
2:When has Israel or for that matter the US ever attacked Iran? How many times? 0 What would they gain from such an attack? Nothing,except the likeyhood of all out war across the middle east.Nobody in either administration is seriously considering such an attack

Manic Moran

AbusesToilets wrote:

2:When has Israel or for that matter the US ever attacked Iran? How many times?

Well, you could argue that Operation Preying Mantis was an American attack on Iran, though it was in response to USS Samuel B. Roberts being damaged by an Iranian mine so not really an unjustified one.

NTM

Frederico

AbusesToilets wrote:

The large number of civilian casualties came from Israel persuing Hezbollah into urban areas.Let me ask you a question,what form of military action would you have taken in pursuit of Hezbollah?And given that Hezbollah had already initiated rocket attacks on Israel prior to the ambush and kidnapping,military action was unavoidable.

I wouldn't have attacked them in the first place. From a military standpoint how about the IDF grow a pair and go in and fight Hezbollah instead of Nazi Germany-esque raising towns to the ground. They just flattened the place with little or no regard for human casualties, despite what the well groomed special media propaganda guys were saying.

The Brits didn't start fanning out into the countryside and dropping White phosphorus and clusterbombs on the Irish did they when the UK mainland was being bombed by the IRA, why? because thats unthinkable.

The Israelis achieved nothing with this attack, just made themselves a hell of alot more unpopular, lost alot of soldiers and strengthened Hezbollah. They didn't even get their two soldiers back. Seems like they can't help provoking others, more overflights, more houses demolished in Palestine, more Palestinians killed every day, more Lebanese killed every day, yet we're still so indoctrinated to believe they are the good guys.

Frederico

AbusesToilets wrote:

2:When has Israel or for that matter the US ever attacked Iran? How many times?

Well there was the little incident where the US shot down one of their airliners. When you constantly meddle with a country for years, support its enemies, plot coup d'etats, freeze billions of dollars of assets, replace the Shah, perform military manevuers as close as possible, etc, it doesn't count as a direct attack, but you shouldn't really be surprised if that country doesn't like you very much.

Just reading now that Rice is yet again urging the UN security council to adopt a resolution putting sanctions Iran. I don't remember that happening when Pakistan was getting nukes? do you?

I doubt the US will ever stop trying to provoke Iran.

I am basically 100% sure we will see some sort of special forces/air attack on Iranian facilities in the next 10 years almost definitely by Israel, with America nearby, unless the situation changes dramatically.

AbusesToilets

By Frederico Well there was the little incident where the US shot down one of their airliners. When you constantly meddle with a country for years, support its enemies, plot coup d'etats, freeze billions of dollars of assets, replace the Shah, perform military manevuers as close as possible, etc, it doesn't count as a direct attack, but you shouldn't really be surprised if that country doesn't like you very much.

As opposed to Irans record of peaceful interactions with the countries around it?I accept that the US and Iran have a history of confrontation,certainly since the rise to power of the Ayatollahs,but i think you're really streching things to propose that the society that Iran has is superior to that of Israel.Which is the impression i get from your posts.I am wrong in that?

Sgt. Sensible

Frederico wrote:

replace the Shah,

The US supported the Shah, and this led to the embassy hostage thing.

uberpixie

AbusesToilets wrote:

As opposed to Irans record of peaceful interactions with the countries around it?I accept that the US and Iran have a history of confrontation,certainly since the rise to power of the Ayatollahs,but i think you're really streching things to propose that the society that Iran has is superior to that of Israel.Which is the impression i get from your posts.I am wrong in that?

Since when does a society's supposed superiority come into this?

Israel: mass murder civillians, steal Palestinian land and water, torture their prisoners, have a strong right wing section of their society that would wipe all Arabs off the face of the earth if they could.

Iran: supports terrorism, have very strict religious laws about woman that we think are crazy are against human rights, have a very right wing section of their society that would love to wipe Israel and the US off the map.

Israel is much more free for women, but treat their Arab population like dirt.

TBH both are just as good/bad as each other.

Personally I don't like the actions of any of the countries involved US, Iran, Israel.

But to claim any one of the above countries is superior in it's society or morals is mis guided and quite frankly naive.

They are all an absolute shower of c unts. They all have blood on their hands.

Frederico

AbusesToilets wrote:

As opposed to Irans record of peaceful interactions with the countries around it?I accept that the US and Iran have a history of confrontation,certainly since the rise to power of the Ayatollahs,but i think you're really streching things to propose that the society that Iran has is superior to that of Israel.Which is the impression i get from your posts.I am wrong in that?

Superior? when do I propose that? I'm not particularily fond of Iran, but you cannot compare that country to Israel and America for the sheer level of aggression and provokation.

Mad Finn

AbusesToilets wrote:

1:When has Israel or for that matter the US ever attacked Iran? How many times? 0 What would they gain from such an attack? Nothing,except the likeyhood of all out war across the middle east.Nobody in either administration is seriously considering such an attack

Well in one sense your rhetorical question is justified. Israel after all was the go between during the Iran Contra affair when it supplied the Iranians with spare parts etc for its US built aircraft that it still possessed from the time when the Shah was in charge and Iran was America's policeman in central Asia.

As to when America ever attacked Iran: well they did forment a coup to bring down the democratically elected Moussadeq in the 1950s. He had the outlandish idea of demanding a fairer deal from Western Oil companies for the billions they were making out of the Gulf oil fields. The cheek of him. He had to go. The little matter of upholding the democratic wishes of the Iranian people was secondary.

lostexpectation

Olmert compares Iran with Nazi Germany

One of the most controversial Israeli politicians in Israel's parliament or Knesset, Avigdor Lieberman, will now report directly to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in his new cabinet position as Minister for Strategic Threats.Yisrael Beitenu is a dangerous extremist party with fascist tendacies.

???

Hogmeister B

AbusesToilets wrote:

1:The fact of Israel having the bomb was/is the main element keeping the Arab nations which surround it from attacking it directly.

Rubbish. Israel has been at peace with the major Arab states since the 1970s.

AbusesToilets wrote:

Given that it has faced the prospect of all out annhilation on a number of occasions from coalition of Arab states,i don't see the problem with that.

The only time israel ever came close to losing a war with the arabs was in the first six months of the 1947/48 war- there is no example of an arab coalition attempting to annihilate israel, ever. The only time they attacked, 1973, was to recover land stolen in 1967. On the other hand, Israel has on two occasions launched wars of aggression against her neighbours- once, inexcusably, in 1956, and once under the spurious claim of imminent attack, in 1967.

A quick glance at the respecive troop and equipment numbers in any of Israel's wars will show that the Arabs never had a chance of defending themselves from Israel, let alone annihilating her.

AbusesToilets wrote:

Israel is a functioning democracy,much more so than Iran,a country which it seems people here have much more affinity with.

Israel rules over 10 million people, of whom only 6 million are actually citizens. The rest are kept in fenced-in bantustans, blockaded, harassed and killed, with a huge proportion of their land and natural resources given to a few thousand 'settlers'. That is not a functioning democracy, that is a miniature imperial state.

AbusesToilets wrote:

2:When has Israel or for that matter the US ever attacked Iran?

Repeatedly. They have assaulted the Iranian people by removing and killing their democratically elected leader (1953), facilitating their oppression by the brutal Shah for the next quarter-century, fomenting and backing Saddam's brutal invasion in the 1980s and destroying her navy (1988). Ironically the 1980s onslaught of direct and proxy warfare caused the victory of the conservative, dictatorial elements of the Revolution and the vanquishing of the liberals.

Manic Moran

Hogmeister B wrote:

Rubbish. Israel has been at peace with the major Arab states since the 1970s.

Kindof circular logic that, isn't it? The US and USSR were staring down each others nukes for 50 years. WWIII never kicked off. Ergo the nukes were useless. I would submit that the repeated trouncings that the Israelis gave the local Arab nations, combined with the nuclear deterrent, finally gave impetus to the concept that perhaps it's better to live in peace with Israel than to try to keep attacking it.

The only time israel ever came close to losing a war with the arabs was in the first six months of the 1947/48 war- there is no example of an arab coalition attempting to annihilate israel, ever.

What was 1948 then? A minor disagreement?

The only time they attacked, 1973, was to recover land stolen in 1967and once under the spurious claim of imminent attack, in 1967.

Considering the troop movements in Egypt and Syria, and the rhetoric from both, I don't know how spurious that claim was.

A quick glance at the respecive troop and equipment numbers in any of Israel's wars will show that the Arabs never had a chance of defending themselves from Israel, let alone annihilating her.

Well, at least you acknowledge then that the 13-1 odds that Israeli tankers faced in the Golan were a fair fight.

destroying her navy (1988).

As mentioned above, that was in response to the damage done to USS Samuel B Roberts by hitting an Iranian mine.

NTM

Frederico

Manic Moran wrote:

Kindof circular logic that, isn't it? The US and USSR were staring down each others nukes for 50 years. WWIII never kicked off. Ergo the nukes were useless. I would submit that the repeated trouncings that the Israelis gave the local Arab nations, combined with the nuclear deterrent, finally gave impetus to the concept that perhaps it's better to live in peace with Israel than to try to keep attacking it.

true

Considering the troop movements in Egypt and Syria, and the rhetoric from both, I don't know how spurious that claim was.

It was hardcore sabre rattling

Well, at least you acknowledge then that the 13-1 odds that Israeli tankers faced in the Golan were a fair fight.

Technology/training/tactics > numbers

Hogmeister B

Manic Moran wrote:

Well, at least you acknowledge then that the 13-1 odds that Israeli tankers faced in the Golan were a fair fight.

they shouldn't have been in the Golan anyway...