Iran locked and loaded

Judt

I don't know why this is relevant to the thread. You claimed Iran has crazy views (or something). How is striving to bring stability to Iraq a crazy thing?

You call genocide bringing stability? How interesting. Iran's intentions in the world were brought up as credence to Iran being a peace loving nation with peace loving policies. That's relivant, along with support for Hezbollah and the rethoric their president and others within the country's ruling class spew.

I seriously doubt that Iran is gearing up to build a nuclear weapons. An Oxford Research group has demonstrated the Iranians capability to develope nuclear weapons qutie quickly. But no, the Iranians are not, they are working towards Nuclear Energy.

The Iranians are moving towards the best time to unveil their shiny new toy. Whilst the US military is sitting next door is not that time. But if Barok Obama gets his wish then I'd put the Iranian nuclear unveiling sometime around March 2008, whereupon Iran becomes the big dawg in the middle east and the Israeli's will gear up for a nuclear holocaust.

marco murphy

Judt wrote:

You call genocide bringing stability? How interesting. Iran's intentions in the world were brought up as credence to Iran being a peace loving nation with peace loving policies. That's relivant, along with support for Hezbollah and the rethoric their president and others within the country's ruling class spew.

Meeting the king of Saudi Arabia... I did'nt think genocide was on the agenda for that meeting. The meeting being to bring stablility to the country. I don't know where you have got genocide from.

The Iranians are moving towards the best time to unveil their shiny new toy. Whilst the US military is sitting next door is not that time. But if Barok Obama gets his wish then I'd put the Iranian nuclear unveiling sometime around March 2008, whereupon Iran becomes the big dawg in the middle east and the Israeli's will gear up for a nuclear holocaust.

I think it ends here. Down to opinions now :P

Victor

Judt wrote:

Iraq is essentially three countries - like so many old colonies given arbitrary independence drawn on a map. The south to central region is populated by people religiously and ethnically affiliated with Iran.

Religiously, yes. Ethnically, no. Shia Iraqis are mostly Arabs, speaking Arabic. Iranians are mostly Persians, speaking Farsi.

In fact, in Iran, Shia Arabs (most closly related to Shia Arabs in Iraq) are one of the dissident groups. Iran is bombing separatist Kurds in Iran, to keep in Turkey's good books (lest Turkey, as Israel's ally, allow Israel use Turkish airspace to bomb Iran).

Complicated, isn't it.

marco murphy

Victor wrote:

Religiously, yes. Ethnically, no. Shia Iraqis are mostly Arabs, speaking Arabic. Iranians are mostly Persians, speaking Farsi.

In fact, in Iran, Shia Arabs (most closly related to Shia Arabs in Iraq) are one of the dissident groups. Iran is bombing separatist Kurds in Iran, to keep in Turkey's good books (lest Turkey, as Israel's ally, allow Israel use Turkish airspace to bomb Iran).

Complicated, isn't it.

Iran is bombing seperatist Kurds in Iran, not to keep in Turkeys good books, but because the seperatists want to be apart from Iran.

Gurgle

I'm not too well up on Iran's modern history.
I'm also lazy and in a hurry.

When is the last time Iran attacked/invaded any other country?

Judt

Poblachtach wrote:

Meeting the king of Saudi Arabia... I did'nt think genocide was on the agenda for that meeting. The meeting being to bring stablility to the country. I don't know where you have got genocide from.

The King of Saudi also knows that Iran is to become the big player when big daddy America has run off for lack of a better idea. Iran will take the south-central parts of Iraq for itself and the Shi'ites will kill the Sunni.

When is the last time Iran attacked/invaded any other country?

You could say the same thing about the Soviet Union a lot of the time. They, like Iran, preferred to fight wars by proxy. Iran arms terrorists such as Hezbollah (to fight Israel) and the Shi'ite militia's in Iraq... and don't talk to me about faulty intel, the terrorists there have been using weapons that can only be made in a big specialist factory with precision tools. The Iranian's don't care that the US has them fingered, they're betting they can run the US out of Iraq faster and thus take their new throne before they can be attacked. It's a plain strategy, and unfortunately one that is working quite well.

nacho libre

Judt wrote:

The King of Saudi also knows that Iran is to become the big player when big daddy America has run off for lack of a better idea. Iran will take the south-central parts of Iraq for itself and the Shi'ites will kill the Sunni.


You could say the same thing about the Soviet Union a lot of the time. They, like Iran, preferred to fight wars by proxy. Iran arms terrorists such as Hezbollah (to fight Israel) and the Shi'ite militia's in Iraq... and don't talk to me about faulty intel, the terrorists there have been using weapons that can only be made in a big specialist factory with precision tools. The Iranian's don't care that the US has them fingered, they're betting they can run the US out of Iraq faster and thus take their new throne before they can be attacked. It's a plain strategy, and unfortunately one that is working quite well.

You could say the U.S. has done the same thing all over the world by supporting terrorists, separatists groups and militias. They are currently funding Ahwazi arabs and Iranian Kurds who are involved in acts of terror against the Iranian Government.
Iran is sending a delegation to Baghdad for this peace conference.
It had made peaceful overtures to America in the past which have been flatly rejected by Condoleeza Rice. Iran has no history of invading others countries and initiating agression. America has already invaded Iraq. It's now threatening Iran. Surely, after the Iraq WMD fiasco you are not relying on your own supposition, are you? Do you have evidence that the IAEA doesn't?

Judt

On the topic of "Did he or didn't he say 'Wipe Israel off the map', the Beeb editors have an interesting take on it (from http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/):

Did Iranian President Ahmadinejad say Israel should be wiped off the map? There is a body of opinion who argue he did not, and he has been misquoted. The BBC does attribute the quote to him so I thought it might be useful to set out why.

President Ahmadinejad made the remark at a conference. The comment was picked up and translated from the Farsi by the BBC's Monitoring Service. Those who challenge the 'wiped off the map' translation argue other translations would be more accurate, among them:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

They argue the President was merely repeating a quote from Ayatollah Khomeini. They also point out that when subsequently asked about the quote President Ahmadinejad said he had not been advocating practical military action against Israel and that he was saying Israel has no legitimacy as a state.

So why do we continue to use it? The BBC's experts at the Monitoring advise "there is no direct translation into English of the Farsi phrase used by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Therefore there a number of possible ways of rendering the Farsi original into English. However, in the context of the whole passage we believe our original interpretation is an accurate reflection of the words."

At the end of last year after a complaint from a viewer that Andrew Marr had used the phrase "wiped off the face of the map", the position was investigated by the BBC Governors' Complaints Committee (before it was replaced by the BBC Trust). The judgement reads in part:

"The Committee carefully considered the wording of the translation of the speech from a number of sources, including translations from BBC Monitoring and from the Middle East Research Institute in Washington. The Committee also reflected on how the speech had been translated in British newspapers and on Al Jazeera Online. The Committee noted the inherent problem with accuracy in translations. It noted that all the translations varied to a greater or lesser degree, and it was difficult to decide which, if any, was the most accurate. None of the various translations provided any evidence for the charge that Andrew Marr had misrepresented what the Iranian President had said.

The Committee felt that the language used by the Iranian President was highly emotive by its nature and had been recognised as such in the international condemnation of what he had said. Andrew Marr had done nothing more than highlight this in his introduction. The Committee was also clear that neither the language nor the tone used by Andrew Marr could be considered as showing bias."

Peter Rippon is editor of PM and Broadcasting House

Now seeing as the Beeb could hardly be said to be Fox news in its reporting of the Middle East, I'm inclined to follow this conclusion and agree with it. Of course you can always choose to believe whatever you want, but I think that this again points to Iran being more than a simple peace broker in the Mid-East.

Nacho, I agree - the US did a whole lot to create the current mess the world is in. But we have to get ourselves out of it somehow, and they're the only guys with a big enough shovel. We do have to tell them to dig upwards every now and again, and I agree, the US has botched much of the "War on Terror". At the end of the day however a nuclear armed Iran, or a suicide bomber on a Dublin bus or a British Airways aircraft you just happen to be on, affects us all. For better or worse we're in this together, because at the end of the day the thing we all have in common is this small planet we live on. Even a "small" nuclear war between say Israel and Iran would screw us all.

Victor

Judt wrote:

Now seeing as the Beeb could hardly be said to be Fox news in its reporting of the Middle East, I'm inclined to follow this conclusion and agree with it.

You do realise that the "BBC's Monitoring Service" is an extension of GCHQ? http://www.gchq.gov.uk/

http://www.monitor.bbc.co.uk/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Monitoring
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/uk/bbc.htm

marco murphy

The King of Saudi also knows that Iran is to become the big player when big daddy America has run off for lack of a better idea. Iran will take the south-central parts of Iraq for itself and the Shi'ites will kill the Sunni.

Thats just imagination. Where do you base this story?

Iran arms terrorists such as Hezbollah (to fight Israel) and the Shi'ite militia's in Iraq... and don't talk to me about faulty intel, the terrorists there have been using weapons that can only be made in a big specialist factory with precision tools. The Iranian's don't care that the US has them fingered, they're betting they can run the US out of Iraq faster and thus take their new throne before they can be attacked. It's a plain strategy, and unfortunately one that is working quite well.

There is no evidence to suggest Iran is arming Shia Militias in Iraq. What weapons could only be made in ''specialist factories''?

What the hell is Iran's interest in Iraq based on your imagination?

Gurgle

Judt wrote:

Iran arms terrorists such as Hezbollah (to fight Israel) and the Shi'ite militia's in Iraq

Uh-huh.

The US arms terrorists all over the world and has done for decades.
The UK colluded with the Unionists in the North.

So, to answer my own question, Iran in its current political form has never started a war.

nacho libre

Judt wrote:

On the topic of "Did he or didn't he say 'Wipe Israel off the map', the Beeb editors have an interesting take on it (from http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/):



Now seeing as the Beeb could hardly be said to be Fox news in its reporting of the Middle East, I'm inclined to follow this conclusion and agree with it. Of course you can always choose to believe whatever you want, but I think that this again points to Iran being more than a simple peace broker in the Mid-East.

Nacho, I agree - the US did a whole lot to create the current mess the world is in. But we have to get ourselves out of it somehow, and they're the only guys with a big enough shovel. We do have to tell them to dig upwards every now and again, and I agree, the US has botched much of the "War on Terror". At the end of the day however a nuclear armed Iran, or a suicide bomber on a Dublin bus or a British Airways aircraft you just happen to be on, affects us all. For better or worse we're in this together, because at the end of the day the thing we all have in common is this small planet we live on. Even a "small" nuclear war between say Israel and Iran would screw us all.

Hasn't Khomenei decreed that acquiring and stockpiling of nuclear weapons is forbidden?

Frederico

Unlike these boards, the US administration is probably full of people with the same ideas Judt has. No doubt they are squawking and flapping their arms frantically against yet another percieved threat, urging escalation and threats, ramping up the situation.

At the moment I would back Iran a hell of alot more than many 'freedom loving peaceful' Western nations, simply based on evidence and fact rather than fearmongered fiction.

Judt

Ok, I can see that a lot of minds are not for turning here. At the end of the day we can run round in circles. Let me just say this: I never hold that the US is perfect. Far, far, far, bloody far from it. Iraq has been a massive screw up, and I was opposed to that war on a political level - I don't use "Well, we got rid of an evil man" as my last resort when the WMD argument dissipated into thin air.

However I do also believe that entirely basing my judgment of a future situation on the conduct of the US in a previous war is folly. I've taken it into account in making my mind up as to whether or not Iran is pursuing peaceful or military nuclear power as its ultimate goal. I think that given the world climate and other indicating factors that they are going for the bomb. Many of you disagree with me, for various reasons. At the end of the day however I think that a policy of avoiding conflict at all costs leaves you with a gun to your head. Similarly a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye doesn't do you much good either.

I think what will happen is that there will be an air war with Iran and the country will be crippled. Either that or Iran will become the strong men in the middle east, leading their alliance with Syria, arming Hezbollah and moving in to protect their "people" in South Iraq. That could convince other mid-east nations, like Jordan or Saudi Arabia, to get nuclear arms as well. As we all know the Mid-East is too volatile for that kind of power play.

So, Iran will be stopped because yes, people who think along my lines on this issue (but not on many others) are in power in the US. At the end of the day I think that this hawk strategy will work a lot better than a dove strategy which leaves us in a 1939 situation.

We'll see what happens, but I'd rather a small war now than a big one later. Call me a bigoted gun toting idiot if you will, but I think that a real politik view of the world will keep us safer from nuclear conflict than taking a blind eye approach.

My opinion... as I say, we could go round and around on this without agreeing. I'd rather we disagree now than suddenly agree whilst the fallout is coming west on the wind.

magick

At the moment I would back Iran a hell of alot more than many 'freedom loving peaceful' Western nations, simply based on evidence and fact rather than fearmongered fiction.

well if you love Iran so much go live there, give you about a week before u come crawling back to the "Western Nations"

if you back Iran, u back terror, Oppression, religious fanaticism.


Hope u have a nice trip :rolleyes:

Sand

Now now magick, oppressive theocratic regimes like Iran are best supported from the safety of liberal democractic western states. Interesting though that Frederico has declared his support for Iran. Their position on crimes against chastity is firm, firm but fair.

Previously arrested for attending a party and being alone in a car with a boy, Atefah received her first sentence for "crimes against chastity" when she was just 13.

Public hangings for sex outside marriage too and for homosexuals.
Fredirico,you're welcome to that regime...

fly_agaric

Judt wrote:

I'd rather we disagree now than suddenly agree whilst the fallout is coming west on the wind.

Is that west from Europe towards Ireland (and then the US?) or west towards Europe from the ME??
I really doubt if it comes to it the Ay-Rabs, Persians, and Jews would be content with just nuking each other out of existence.:(

Gurgle

magick wrote:

if you back Iran, u back terror, Oppression, religious fanaticism.

Thats pretty accurate alright, theres a lot wrong in Iran.

But they aren't doing anything to the rest of us.

Maybe leave them to themselves until the people rise up and throw out their
government?

Since its obviously that bad there, they are sure to do it sooner or later. The victims of that war will be held up as hereos and martyers, like Michael Collins etc.

The alternative is to go in with an army to 'liberate' them. Iraq is a pretty good example of how and why that doesn't work.

RedPlanet

honestly, to read Judt's postings...:rolleyes:
This thread should be moved to the Conspiracy Theories board.

oscarBravo

That's dangerously close to a personal attack, RedPlanet.

sovtek

RedPlanet wrote:

They are probably responding to US provocation.
How would you like it if an unfriendly country that wishes you ill will, started building up naval forces just off your boundaries?

And had already attacked another country on it's list of evil doers which happens to include your respective country.
I think the Iranians would crazy not to try and get the bomb especially after it's been threatened with nuclear attack by said country.

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

I think the Iranians would crazy not to try and get the bomb especially after it's been threatened with nuclear attack by said country.

yeah,everyone should have the bomb,it's safer that way,the more that have it the less chance it will be used... Everybody is homogeneous and all that of course.

Theres no such thing as hotheads/mad people
Theres no such thing as mad people
Theres no such thing as mad people
Theres no place like home
Theres no place like home
Theres no place like home

Clicking my ruby slippers together now 3 times

sovtek

Judt wrote:

Ohh snore. Israel is a recognized state on the UN statute books. Hezbollah is not. Let's use the UN as our benchmark, seeing as you like them so much when they agree with you.

It's a state recognized by the UN alright...with a stack of UNSC resolutions telling it to stop terrorizing it's neighbors and to give the land it took back.
Oh and to put it's hundreds of nukes under inspection of the IAEA and sign the NPT!

Sure, and in Ireland I have every right to own a firearm. But unless I can prove I'm not a headcase who is going to use it merely for catching my dinner then I can't have one. Iran has the right, but it has to pass the "We won't nuke you" test, first.

It has done that already.

Err, yeah. Religion being the major reason to start and fight wars since God knows when (if you'll excuse the pun), I certainly don't trust a non-democratic nation run by religious figures. Iran is such a nice country that today a bunch of women protesting about the fact that another bunch of women were arrested and thrown in jail were themselves arrested and thrown in jail. Their crime? Demanding more human rights for women. Yeah, Iran is a trustworthy, peace loving nation and wouldn't use religion or bigotry to sanction anything against its own people or anyone elses.

I trust a country even less that asserts its right to a nuclear first strike in addition to a right to attack a non nuclear country with nukes.

Communist states were the only ones to ever build walls to keep their people in. Fascist states murdered the elderly and infirm. Theocracies keep women under the heel and do things like execute them for the crime of being raped. Judge a country by how it treats its own people, because God knows they'll treat you four times worse.

...and capitalist countries pay slave wages...oh and they own the most nukes...Whats your point?

Actually, that's 20 years of first-hand Irish experience in South Lebanon.

When was the last international terrorist operation carried out by Hezbollah and where was it?

sovtek

Tristrame wrote:

yeah,everyone should have the bomb,it's safer that way,the more that have it the less chance it will be used... Everybody is homogeneous and all that of course.

Theres no such thing as hotheads/mad people
Theres no such thing as mad people
Theres no such thing as mad people
Theres no place like home
Theres no place like home
Theres no place like home

Clicking my ruby slippers together now 3 times

I'm going to ignore the sarcasm and state my point bluntly as it seems to have been lost on yourself.
The mad people in this situation are the people that attacked a country that never threatened it and are now making it more likely that the next country that it wants to attack without provocation will try and aquire nukes.

I'll make my point very bluntly too.
There are very few countries with cop on suffecient that I would trust them with nuclear weapons, Iran wouldnt be one of those countries.
The kind of cop on to realise the futility of using them or getting some proxy to use them on their behalf.

I take your point that of course they will want them-so might the jingaweed but that doesn't mean we should wish that they have them.

marco murphy

For Judt, this is US intellegence for you.

The US claims to be in possesion of a stolen laptop, supplied by and informant from Iran, which contained detailed plans for building nuclear warheads. Remarkably, the detailed plans are in English, not the national language of Iran last time I checked.

IAEA also had said that according to their inspections, and based on US ''intellegence'', there is no evidence of anything ''banned''

http://bellona.org/articles/iaea_letter

fly_agaric

sovtek wrote:

...and capitalist countries pay slave wages...oh and they own the most nukes...Whats your point?

I think that he (like me) would trust Western democracies (even the US:eek: ) with nukes (or even just their own, wholly owned nuclear technology) somewhat more than:

a) USSR (esp. when Uncle Joe was running it)
b) China under Chairman Mao
c) Nazi Germany
and most impotantly
d) Iran under Allah-botherers.

I would too. Despite the shítty wages plebs like me get paid...;)

Sovtek wrote:

I trust a country even less that asserts its right to a nuclear first strike

Pakistan??:) Israel??:)

Sand

...and capitalist countries pay slave wages...oh and they own the most nukes...Whats your point?

And from that they will proceed to argue that, after all, democracy is 'just the same as' or 'just as bad as' totalitarianism. There is not much freedom of speech in England; therefore there is no more than exists in Germany. To be on the dole is a horrible experience; therefore it is no worse to be in the torture chambers of the Gestapo. In general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread.

And people question why I use the quote...

sovtek

Tristrame wrote:

I'll make my point very bluntly too.
There are very few countries with cop on suffecient that I would trust them with nuclear weapons, Iran wouldnt be one of those countries.
The kind of cop on to realise the futility of using them or getting some proxy to use them on their behalf.

I have yet to see this "cop on" being the preserve of the US government. Especially considering that it is the only one in history to ever use it and more recently it wants to start another arms race.

I take your point that of course they will want them-so might the jingaweed but that doesn't mean we should wish that they have them.

Then we should not do things that might make them want it. It's seems obvious to me that threatening to attack them with nukes is going to REALLY motivate them to get em.