First to make clear, I do not want Israel to attack Iran.

But they do talk a lot about it. as does the United States.

I believe it was 1981 when Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear facility at Osirak.

A pre-emptive strike, "no nuclear weapons for you, Saddam."

If I was to think like a hawk in the Israeli Pentagon, I would want that attack on Iran to occur, soon enough to stop their nuclear technology program. I would want that attack to be a "when", not an "if".

OK, so - when ?

I would want it to occur at a time when the Bush Administration is in office, and has 6-12 months left in office, to help manage the inevitable blowback from such an attack.

I would want it to occur at a time when the Straits of Hormuz are peppered with US naval craft. I would want it to occur at a time when
Iran is surrounded by American troops (to the West, in Iraq, and to the East, in Afghanistan.)

I would want it to occur before the US economy completely crashes.

If I was the US government, i would want that attack to occur before Iran can set up the oil bourse denominated in currency other than
dollars (that was one of Saddam's mistakes).

Iran's oil bourse is scheduled to start operation tomorrow - Sunday, Feb. 17.

One other note - the US talks a lot about bringing Democracy to Iran. Well, Iran did once have a democratically elected leader named Mossadegh.

He was deposed in the 1950's by the US and England.

In other words, any American talk about "bringing democracy to Iran" is mushroom food.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wwSwimming:
I am concerned that an attack on Iran is imminent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
So let me ask this question, hypothetically, if it became clear that Ahdiwhatshisname is creating a nuclear facility in order to create bombs to destroy Israel, would it the be legit to bomb the facility?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
So let me ask this question, hypothetically, if it became clear that Ahdiwhatshisname is creating a nuclear facility in order to create bombs to destroy Israel, would it the be legit to bomb the facility?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:

Israel is a nuclear armed country backed by one of the most powerful countries in the world. Iran has no nuclear capabilites at the moment and has been singled out by Bush as being part of the "axis of evil." Not that I think Iran building nukes is a good thing, but Iran is probably pretty damned scared, and how are you going to convince Iran to not go nuclear when several of its enemies already have?

---

Please re-read my hypothesis Aristotle and answer the question if you choose.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
Please re-read my hypothesis Aristotle and answer the question if you choose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bacchus:
My answer would be no though secretly I hope Israel would be nuked, or at least just jerusalem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
And Coyote I hold that the president of Iran is a dangerous bigot. I choose not to work hard at using his name properly , my choice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
...he would be the last person I would want to be near a nuke button.

---

quote:

---

The Bush administration has agreed to turn over to international inspectors intelligence data it has collected that it says proves Iran worked on developing a nuclear weapon until a little more than four years ago, according to American and foreign diplomats.

The decision reverses the United States’ longstanding refusal to share the data, citing the need to protect intelligence sources.

The administration acted as the International Atomic Energy Agency is scheduled to issue a report as early as next week on Iran’s past nuclear activities. Administration officials hope that the nuclear inspectors can now confront Iran with what the Americans believe is the strongest evidence that the Iranians had a nuclear program.

---

I liken it to when your kids fight over something and you take it away so neither of them have it. If there was a earthquake and Jerusalem were destroyed, ti would be equally good for me. I fear there will never be peace in the middle east until that which they fight over is gone.

The problem with your rather bigoted assumption that if Iran is run by bigots (which it may be) it would express said bigotry by a suicide devastation of the entire country of Israel, is that Iran already has a very impressive array of weaponry and military might. It could, if it so chose, rain fire and destruction on Israel right now, and yet it never has. Not only that, but it has never made any aggressive uses of its arsenal towards its neighbours at all.

So your goat-entrail divination into the true intentions of the Iranian high command is very amusing, but not nearly as reliable as looking at their actual track record, which is to be extremely unaggressive and non-confrontational. Nuclear weapons aren't going to change anything. The bombs are bigger, but all the same pluses and minuses apply and the aggressive behaviour would be just what it is today. Nothing.

Israel, on the other hand, is rather famous for its copious and hair-trigger aggression. It attacks without warning, it attacks without provocation, it attacks non-military targets, and it goes after defenseless opponents with overwhelming force. So let me rephrase your question to you:

Given that the largest and most dangerous military in the Middle East is also a proven aggressive belligerent power, given to inexplicable shocking displays of violence, and also has nuclear capability, would you support the destruction of its nuclear facilities by any means necessary before it starts using its nuclear weapons with the same reckless abandon that it uses its other weapons?

[ 16 February 2008: Message edited by: Jacob Two-Two ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
Well I have to assume that you misunderstood my hypotheisi Cueball. Let me try again though I thoughtI was pretty specific. I said that the nuclear bombs were to be used against israel. Since you seem to know little about the geography of that area a nuclear bomb detonated over Israel would pretty well destroy the entire country. That would include the mass murders of about 7 million Israelis. That would include about 2 million Israeli Arabs. More than likely it woulod also mean the certain deaths of another 1-2 million Palestinians living in the PA and Gaza.

So let me ask you once again just to be certain, if it were known that Iran was creating nuclear facilities in order to build bombs that they would drop over Israel do you still hold that despite the fact it would mean the virtual genocide of all Jews and Palestinians living on the land , Israel must not bomb these nuclear facilities?

---

Attacking Iran would be Casus Beli for an attack on Israel, therefore, since your objective is to prevent the destruction you cite, it would be logical to seek other means of resolving the issue through diplomatic means. So, the answer is still no.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
So let me ask this question, hypothetically, if it became clear that Ahdiwhatshisname is creating a nuclear facility in order to create bombs to destroy Israel, would it the be legit to bomb the facility?

---

You mean in the manner that it became clear that Iraq was building weapons of self-destruction? One problem is that we've heard claims like this before and they've turned out not to be valid so why should we trust the Israeli government or military just because it is claiming that another country is doing something when both these institutions have shown a tendency to lie?

We had false information a few years ago about Iran's nuclear intentions. US intelligence has now made it clear that in fact, Iran is doing no such thing and has, in fact, the US Intelligence Estimate has reported with "high confidence” that Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003.

In any case Ohara, would it be legitimate for Syria or Iran to bomb an Israeli facility if it became clear that they were building nuclear bombs at, say (wild guess here) Dimona? Ah, but the Israeli bomb is a peaceful bomb meant only for deterrence I hear you say. Well then, there should be no concern that Iran is going to bomb Israel as the whole point of Israel's nuclear weapons program is to deter that from happening.

Here's an idea. How about having Israel, Iran, Syria, Iraq etc all sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and all agree to not acquire nuclear weapons and to decommission any nuclear weapons that they may or may not have. Oh wait, Iran, Syria and Iraq have already signed the treaty. Well, I guess that just leaves Israel then.

[ 16 February 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
Cueball, you havent come close to answering my question.

---

I said no. Now I have said it three time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
And Coyote I hold that the president of Iran is a dangerous bigot. I choose not to work hard at using his name properly , my choice.

---

Just because you don't like him doesn't mean you get to mock him for having an Iranian name. If you can't figure out why it's offensive, then maybe imagine your deep indignation and histrionics if people decided to start calling all Israeli politicians they don't like "Whathisstein" and "Whateverberg".

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
So let me ask this question, hypothetically, if it became clear that Ahdiwhatshisname is creating a nuclear facility in order to create bombs to destroy Israel, would it the be legit to bomb the facility?

---

Ahmadi Nejad.

Pres. Ahmadinejad.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
You will forgive me but given the unstable nature of Ahmindini...he would be the last person I would want to be near a nuke button

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
Well Coyote by popular reasoning israel has had nukes for decades. Yet have never ever used them nor do I believe they would unless directly threatened.

You will forgive me but given the unstable nature of Ahmindini...he would be the last person I would want to be near a nuke button.

---

Ahmadinejad is portrayed as unstable by the Western mainstream media. One of the world's least accurate sources of information.

I am much more concerned about Bush using nukes than Ahmadinejad. Partially because the US has stated they will use nukes offensively (in the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review in 2005), and because they think they can get away with it.

No longer is there the restraint of what was called Mutual Assured Destruction, for the US.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
Well Coyote by popular reasoning israel has had nukes for decades. Yet have never ever used them nor do I believe they would unless directly threatened.

You will forgive me but given the unstable nature of Ahmindini...he would be the last person I would want to be near a nuke button.

---

And Israel hasn't used a nuke on civilians yet and you want them to get a cookie? Iran also doesn't ilegally and immorally occupy an entire people.

So the only possible conclusion is that he is engaging in deliberate racist name calling. Simple enough: he should be banned or at least suspended for being deliberately racist, even when it is pointed out to him, and people complain.

[ 16 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:

And there's the racism again. Great.

And Israel hasn't used a nuke on civilians yet and you want them to get a cookie? Iran also doesn't ilegally and immorally occupy an entire people.

I'm no fan of the Iranian regime. But your double standards are gross.

---

quote:

---

based on the fact that the guy is a vile antisemite, Holocuast denier who has already made aspersions to wanting Israel gone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
Possibly a double standard but not based on racism at all...based on the fact that the guy is a vile antisemite, Holocuast denier who has already made aspersions to wanting Israel gone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
Possibly a double standard but not based on racism at all...based on the fact that the guy is a vile antisemite, Holocuast denier who has already made aspersions to wanting Israel gone.

---

1. "vile antisemite" - I have seen no reference or allegation to Ahmedinejad not liking Jews or persecuting Jews in Iran or elsewhere.

2. "Holocaust denier" - I have seen no reference to Ahmedinejad alleging that the Nazis did not commit genocide against the Jews. I have seen words attributed to him saying that Palestinians should not have to pay for that crime.

3. "wanting Israel gone" - I've seen a statement attributed to him predicting that Israel will disappear.

But your allegation that "wanting Israel gone" is connected to anti-Semitism is spurious.

What is Israel? The borders currently maintained by the Israeli regime? I want that Israel gone. The "Jewish state"? I want that ethno-centric quasi-theocratic state gone.

So go ahead and make fun of my name, ohara.

ETA: What Ahmedinejad really is, is a brain-dead religious fanatic clown. His greatest crimes are handing pretexts on a silver platter to the Bushes and Olmerts of this world. This slimy dunce should learn the art of diplomacy. And it would be nice if some non-religious democratic political force could make some headway in Iran and get rid of their theocracy. Unfortunately, all such nascent forces in the past have been crushed by Anglo-American imperialism, so we may have to wait a long time.

[ 17 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
Of course its all lies and propaganda, ya how could I have missed it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
Of course its all lies and propaganda, ya how could I have missed it.

---

quote:

---

"People around the world are fully aware of what is happening in the occupied Palestine. Women and children are being murdered and adolescents taken prisoner. Houses are being demolished and farms burnt down. Yet, when the people of Palestine resist these conditions, they are accused of terrorism. At the same time, the occupier, which does not abide by any principles and terror is part of its pronounced and routine policy enjoys the support of the previously mentioned governments. Let me be blunter. State terrorism is being supported by those who claim to fight terrorism.

---

Whoa! This guy is crrraaaazzzy!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:

You were too busy coming up with ways to make fun of Persian names.

---

How hard can it be to spell Amedinejad's name correctly, when you use more or less the same number of letters in the mispellings that you make up?

[ 17 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:

Whoa! This guy is crrraaaazzzy!!

Crazy and dangerous, like Chavez, Castro, Putin, or any other world leader who doesn't follow the self-righteous narrative of the alleged "democracies".

---

Ahmadinejad said that ? I'm impressed !

Whoa, that link has a few pop-ups.

As for the "Holocaust didn't happen" business, I don't believe that Ahmadinejad means that, if he did say it.

It's one of the most agreed-upon things in history. The numbers might be a little hazy; about 100 million people died in WW2. Kind of har d to keep track of exact numbers in a situation like that.

[ 17 February 2008: Message edited by: wwSwimming ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
My gut feeling is that Amedinejad is a bit of a rum backwoods guy, who has garden variety racist attitudes, and might very well be the kind to make fun of Jewish sounding names, mispell them intentionally and what have you.

---

A 'gut feel' cultivated perhaps from the same sort of influences that purposely misspell his name? The same ones that continue to provide us with purposefully misrepresented translations of his words? In the absence of any truth, gut feels must come from somewhere.

[ 17 February 2008: Message edited by: Slumberjack ]

I remember a guy in my home town by the name of Odegaard. He was often referred to as "Odor Guard". I've seen many variations of the name Huckabee (it's an unusual name and easily susceptible to variations). We had a Finish player on the Wild one time with an unusually spelled and pronounced name and Ms. Sven jokingly said it was pronounced "Johnson"...and that's what she always referred to him as. People make fun of other people's unusual names all of the time.

Does it, however, automatically become a "racist" activity if the person whose name is being made fun of is, say, a Muslim?

What if a Muslim doesn't have a "foreign-sounding" name? Let's say there is a Muslim with the name Chuck U. Farley and people jokingly refer to him behind his back as "Fuck You Charlie"? Not a "foreign-sounding" name but a Muslim. Racist?

What if a white person has a "foreign-sounding" like Kari Oki and people refer to her behind her back as "Karaoke"? Is that racist?

Or, does the name have to be both "foreign-sounding" and the person whose name it is has to be, say, Muslim before it is "racist"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
Possibly a double standard but not based on racism at all...based on the fact that the guy is a vile antisemite, Holocuast denier who has already made aspersions to wanting Israel gone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Palmerston:

Have they found those WMD's in Iraq yet, ohara?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slumberjack:

A 'gut feel' cultivated perhaps from the same sort of influences that purposely misspell his name? The same ones that continue to provide us with purposefully misrepresented translations of his words? In the absence of any truth, gut feels must come from somewhere.

[ 17 February 2008: Message edited by: Slumberjack ]

---

Nope. I more or less agree with Unionist's analysis of Amedinejad's public statements about what Amedinejad has said, in fact, you would know if you knew my posting history that I probably have argued this case as forcefully, and even more forcefully than some here are doing. My gut feeling is based on my general impression of the tone of Amedinejad's statements.

Knowing Persian folklore about Jewish people, and also a little bit about Amedinejad's history, (he is not exactly cosmopolitan) I would say that Amedinejad likely harbours typical cultural stereotypes about Jews, like they are "good with money". Furthermore, I think it is important to understand Muslim conceptions of religious identity, as established in the Qu'ran, and the general relationships between Believers and Dhimi peoples.

In this regard I think its important to notice that the tradition of almost all Muslim societies where Islam and the Qu'ran are recognized as fundamental sources for law that religious status conveys a different legal position for Dhimi peoples, of which Jews would only be one. This means, for one thing, if you study the relationship of Ottoman State to its religious populations that religion is primary to establishing "national" identity, not ethnicity. So unlike western conceptions of National Identity evolved in the 18th and 19th century whereby nationhood, and ones personal national identity as recognized by the state, are not defined by ones native language, or ones ethnicity, but by ones religion. So, for example, within the Ottoman state, Les Grec's (as they were known by the French), were adherents to the Greek Orthodox Church, regardless of their language, should it be Russia, Greek, or Serbo-Croatian, or what have you. Status of religious national identity conferred certain rights, as well as some limitations, which in some senses could be seen to mimic what we would call multiculturalism, but that in some cases also would appear to be Apartheid in nature.

In Ottoman times this was called the Millet System, whereby local religious leaders of discrete social group were authorized as the local rulers of that group and both responsible for the specific laws of this group, and in general also responsible to the empire as representatives of that group.

Study of the Abbasyiad Caliphate shows similar tendencies, where Jews could be elevated to positions of great authority within the state, but never allowed to reach the top levels of administrative powers, which was reserved for Muslim people. Similarly, looking at modern Iran, we see that Jews are awarded a representative in the parliament of the state, but not really, in practice, allowed to establish themselves in the mainstream of the ruling power structure.

Even though the traditional forms of Islamic inspired government is prejudiced against any non-"believing" peoples, those peoples are usually also accorded very clear legal rights within those traditions, and they are not particularly prejudicial to Jews alone, but any non-believers.

However, none of this is at all similar to National Socialism, or western forms of antisemetism, wherein Jews were routinely subjugated and completely disenfranchised by the ruling Christian societies, and suggesting that racial stygmatization of the kind we know as "antisemetism" in a western sense, exists as the ruling orthodoxy of Islamic based ideologies, is completely off the mark.

So, I think it would be unlikely that Ahmedinejad is an "antisemite" at least in terms of how this term is construed in the western world view, but I think it is very likely that he harbours certain views which are latently prejudicial to any non-believer.

Notwithstanding that Jews and Jewishness have become unusually central to present day Middle East and Asian politics largely as a result of the largely succesful attempt of European antisemites to ethnically cleans Jewish people from Europe, an operation begun by the National Socialist in Germany with their deportation and extermination of German, French, Polish and Russian Jews, and carried through by the British, with the aid of their Zionist allies, when they shaped and founded Israel in the 1940's, over the heads of local Arab people, and their completely just resistance to the overt manifestation of European antisemtism in their midst in the shape of an Israeli colonial state -- many brutalized survivors of the Holocaust became the shock troops of the empire in this British colonial effort.

On this I think Amedinejad and I might agree, even though I also think he is a bit of a backwoods rube, with some weird personal prejudices.

[ 17 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Ohara, start getting the guys name right. A number of people have used it properly on this thread so if you can't remember just cut and paste. Given btw that you pretty much live this mideast policy stuff, I doubt very much that you can't correctly spell the names of the major players in the region.

And Sven, this is different and you know it. We are in a period where our elites are clamouring for an opportunity to go to war with Iran. That does not mean Iran should go uncritisized - I have made criticisms myself and i will again- but it does mean that we must guard against jingoism and stereotyping, the two most potent weapons of the elites in their attempt to bolster public support for war.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
...My gut feeling is based on my general impression of the tone of Amedinejad's statements....[ 17 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bacchus:
Hmm no it would be genocide if I wanted to exterminate a entire race, creed, country etc. One city just isn't it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slumberjack:

A good read, thanks for that, though I would say that being mayor a city of 7 million would bring some residule cosmopolitan exposure.

---

His term as Tehran Mayor was short (less than two years). I suspect it was primarily a preparation step (by forces behind him) to make him look like an acceptable candidate for presidential election. before that he was a governer of a small province.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
Secondly, I had no intentions other than to make fun of him. I still believe he is a racist pig but given that some here seem to hold him in such high esteem I will use his proper name, Ahmadinejad.

---

This is why I don't bother to respond to ohara's complaints. Because despite a moderator intervening on his behalf, he just can't help shitting all over people in his very next post.

In other words, this thread is never going to get better. It was probably doomed from the start. So I'm closing it.

[ 17 February 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]