Keeping all options on the table
As you know, Dr. Ahmadinejad
The pleas of the anti-war majority in the West, here
Have consistently fallen on deaf ears
“Why bring war when Iran is asking for peace?” we pry
But you’ve seen their replies in the sun and the sky
Not a very constructive dialogue, right?
I mean, you seem to have intelligence
A sense of humour and little desire for belligerence
But man, have you ever considered discontinuing your nuclear programme?
I know the temptation to resist must be unbearable
Whether or not their accusations are veritable
But even if you are just building power plants
What do you think is going to happen when somebody bombs them?
Part of your country will become inhospitable to the biological
Destroyed by the physical
This is only my own personal assessment
I recognise that other forms of energy might not offer as quick a return on your investment
But if your first priority is the safety of your citizenry
If it might help to prevent the shitstorm about to be unleashed on your country
Then all that I am saying is that it might be worth considering
You may have spent a lot on this
I don’t know what percentage of your GDP depends on nuclear research’s continued existence
But entertain with me the possibility that it’s just not worth it
If it is true that your nuclear programme is solely for peaceful purposes
And you shut it down because they coerce you with violence and servitude
That does not mean that they somehow “win”
It is the victimisation of the vulnerable by the powerful
Does the bully win a game of stop-hitting-yourself?
Or do they risk losing everything?
Farming on a floodplain, but let me explain
This is not a normal bullying situation
Our desecrated blood relations hang in the balance
Worries about being subjected to mass assassination
Like Muslims in a Balkan nation
Their lives at the mercy of war criminals
As has been the case throughout my own
And so you must exhaust every possibility to end this dispute peacefully
Even if you do believe that they will always be aggrieved of late
There is nothing to be won by taking a stand for its own sake
Shame on the rest for threatening
To abandon their own principles of self-determination and liberty
And return to the type of violence that should be consigned to history
In international relations you have to take into consideration
The violent implications of aggression and exaggeration
What do we have here, politics aside?
A conflict between what used to be allies
On whom we can no longer rely to prevent an even worse Iraq in our lifetimes
Worldwide, we should say with pride
That we have the power and authority to make them abide
By the same laws that they pertain to enforce
When negotiations become a farce, it has got to go to court
Due process… maybe, this time, there would need to be some evidence
The mechanisms are not impregnable
They’re corruptible and confrontational
But if for some reason it can’t be taken to the International Court of Justice
If that court is perceived to lack legitimacy
Then this must be remedied immediately
Even if it takes a new court
A new Security Council composition
A truth and reconciliation commission
What choice do we have?
We all know what has happened in Afghanistan and Pakistan
The murder of civilians, displacement of millions
Avoiding violence is the whole point of the law and courts
You might retort that even judicial support won’t make them abort
Pointing to The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America
And to comparable cases over the years
I know it could be argued that it doesn’t matter what you do
If they want to invade, they will invade
But, Mahmoud, for you to have led effectively
We must not be able to ask if you could have done more retrospectively
Irrespective of their subjective selectivity
From this day
For no Iranians to die at the hands of Washington, London or Tel-Aviv
At this point, isn’t that the biggest win you could possibly achieve?
By Criminonymous
-
1
February 18, 2012 at 08:51 -
During my own all to brief time in Iran I saw that ordinary Persians were decent and kind but the government types f**king idiots. Bit like Ingerlund then. Jingoistic tub thumping? Isn’t that redolent of UK and the Malvinas?
-
2
February 18, 2012 at 09:33 -
I can find it in my heart to forgive most things. But not bad poetry. And this is execrable.
-
6
February 18, 2012 at 09:53 -
Why does a country with such a massive supply of oil need nuclear power stations? The research and development costs will take centuries to repay.
On the other hand, a by product of nuclear power stations is war grade nuclear material. This is the only reason for this work.
Iran does NOT need nuclear power stations. If the money spent on them was spent on infrastructure then the prosperity of all Iranians would rise.
-
7
February 18, 2012 at 10:40 -
Iran does need nukes for peaceful purposes. Oil production has been declining and domestic consumption increasing. In 20? ish years it is plausible for Iran to become a net oil/gas importer. Producing civilian nuclear power will reduce consumption, extending exports. Saudi & Kuwait are also investing heavily in starting their own Nuclear power generation programs.
-
8
February 18, 2012 at 15:09 -
“a by product of nuclear power stations is war grade nuclear material”
Please explain the science behind this process?
-
9
February 18, 2012 at 23:50
-
-
10
February 18, 2012 at 13:01 -
Personally, I do not believe that Iran’s interest in nuclear power has a peaceful purpose behind it. One only has to listen to the rhetoric from Tehran to have a sense of deep forboding. I believe that the aquisition by Iran of fissionable material, never mind the construction of an actual weapon will, ultimately, lead either Israel or other interested parties to take action… with as yet unforseeable consequences. Never mind the Iranians for the moment, I have no wish to interfere in their internal politics, but let’s face facts. The whole area is vital for the economic wellbeing of the entire western world.
Imagine a world without the oil that the region provides, or could provide, because it is irradiated, in the aftermath of a cataclysmic exchange between Iran and Israel… History shows us that mankind IS stupid enough to use such weapons.
Nuclear energy is supremely dangerous in the wrong hands, and even in the allegedly right hands there have been accidents. J. Robert Oppenheimer was right when he said that he had become ‘death, the destroyer of worlds’.
BUT… What are we all to use when the oil and other fossil fuels run out? No one mentions the fact that, as improvements in medicine continue to appear, and well meaning parties tackle poverty and starvation, the world population increases at an unsustainable rate. It is a small planet but, in some corners of the world, the poorest citizens of the planet breed uncontrollably, with no thought as to how they are to sustain those children or what they will feed them upon, relying on the largess of other societies to come to their aid.
It is a harsh and unpalatable truth and I am not saying that I or mine have a greater right to survive, but unless someone does something, in fifty years or so the planet will be FULL.
That the world is so dependent upon oil is its Achilles heel, but that is reality. No amount of pontificating about global warming, or the erecting of windmills everywhere can change that. Even if we covered the UK in windmills, it would not counteract the emissions from emerging countries, like China – and I have been there and seen the reality – the Chinese, amongst others, are simply just not interested in counteracting the polluting effects of fossil fuels (at a local, and therefore corruptible level).
Installing ‘green’ lightbulbs and turning your thermostat down will make ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE to anything, like farting against a hurricane…So, I believe that Nuclear energy is essential to the survival of the world at large, but dangerously irresponsible goverments, like that in Iran, who cannot be trusted to acquire such technology, because they have alternative motives should not be permitted to acquire it. I am not saying that we in the West are utterly responsible, and history has demonstrated that we are not, but we, collectively, are, I believe, more responsible that a fundamentalist goverment with an agenda to destroy another, simply because of a difference of religion. We have been guilty of that in our history and arguably, we are still of that persuasion, but I do not think that anyone in the West would now resort to the use of nuclear weapons against its enemies, or a conventional bomb with radioactive materials incorporated – a ‘dirty bomb’. A terrifying prospect, because of its unpredictability, and because those using such weapons have absolutely no scruples whatsoever. Even their own deaths are not a bar, as has been demonstrated ad nauseum recently.
Lastly, @ John Norman… If you think Anna’s poetry is execrable, let’s all hear yours tehn… Put up, or SHUT UP!
-
11
February 18, 2012 at 15:14 -
“History shows us that mankind IS stupid enough to use such weapons”
Really? when did two nuclear armed states go at it then?
As to the dirty bomb stuff, Everyone from the CIA in the 1950′s to Saddam in the 1980′s regard this as a very limited weapon, utterly useless against someone with real nukes.
-
12
February 18, 2012 at 17:33 -
@Single Acts of Tyranny: So… You are only recently arrived on this planet and have never heard of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I did not say two nuclear armed states attacking each other, I am saying mankind IS stupid enough to use nuclear weapons. There is a difference.
My information (which is apparently very much more current than yours) is that a terrorist attack (remember how many terrorist groups Iran are believed to have sponsored, so no lack of recruits, I suspect) using a ‘dirty’ bomb is a current first strike threat against the West and Israel. It is a credible threat, requiring far less technology. It would not be as devastating a nuclear strike from a country like Israel but… imagine the devastation and consequent response that use of such a weapon would provoke from Israel, for instance. Too terrible to contemplate.
You being an intergalatic space traveller, you probably would not be concerned about the consequences, I suppose, just leave, but for those of us who cannot follow suit, this little planet is all we have.
-
13
February 18, 2012 at 20:31 -
My question was of course when did two nuclear armed states go at it, not when did one nuclear state destroy a non-nuclear adversary. This is pertinent I suggest. You could hardly blame Iran if they were seeking nukes, but they aren’t because they know what would happen.
Now just think through what you are saying. You suggest that a dirty bomb might be provided by the Iranians to either Hezbollah or Hamas (I presume no-one takes seriously the comically ill-thought out Iran/Al Qiada stuff). Okay, they could do that today, it’s relatively easy (so military action would be too late). They don’t. Do the maths. They know what would happen.
The ad hominem stuff? Well, as the late lamented Christopher Hitchens remarked, when someone goes ad hominem, they have conceded defeat, even if they don’t know it.
-
14
February 18, 2012 at 22:02 -
They may not have done yet but with proliferation comes the increased chance that one or other of the fundamentalist Crazy Gangs could… I would rather not take the chance on them doing so.
Iran has lied repeatedly about its nuclear programme. It has attempted to befool the international inspections teams. They have built secret facilities way way underground. Why? Because they are doing something they shouldn’t. Simple as that.
-
15
February 19, 2012 at 05:00 -
Frankie Says (I really wanted to say that!)
“They have built secret facilities way way underground. Why? Because they are doing something they shouldn’t. Simple as that.”
An alternate explanation might be that they fear disruption of any nuclear program via air strikes which you have to admit is at least possible.
-
-
-
-
16
February 18, 2012 at 17:20 -
I believe that if (and it is a big if) Iran was going for nuclear weapons it would be more for defensive reasons than offensive. All current holders of nuclear weapons (including some very dodgy countries) have never used them because they know it’s a zero sum game. However that said, they also know that holding nuclear weapons makes it harder for non-nuclear weapons to be used against them. That’s because the attacking country has to take into account the possible repercussions of attacking and getting a nuke in return.
As for rhetoric, don’t forget that a lot of it for internal consumption. Witness the rhetoric from Argentina.
Oppenheimer was talking about the nuclear bomb, not nuclear power stations. The accidents of nuclear power stations though scary have not actually caused that much death and destruction. Chernobyl killed at most a hundred directly. There could be a few thousand deaths from cancer caused by radiation. There have been none from Fukishama.
Oil and gas running out? There is billions of gallons of oil still to be sucked or dug out of the ground. As techniques progress it becomes easier to get the more difficult stuff out. Then there is gas and fracking. The gas under Blackpool has the potential to run 100% of the UK gas requirements for decades.
Will the population of the world explode and use up too much resources. No. As technology advances and health care increases in a country the birth rate goes down. The reason the birth rate is very high in many countries and in the past was due to infant mortality and the need to have children to run the subsitence farms. So the scare stories that the population of the Earth will be 1000 billion in decades are nothing of the sort – unless the Greens succeed in forcing us to use small organic farms and make everyone grown their own veg. This is what is hindering Africa at the moment. Keeping the farmers in small subsistence farms rather than encouraging businesses to start up.
You’re quite right that covering the UK in windmills won’t do anything for climate change. But for the wrong reasons. That’s becasue if we just left things as they are and allowed technology to progress and make energy generation better and more efficient then CO2 levels will naturally decrease. There is no need to have some sudden demand for a emergency brake on CO2 creation. Climate changes on the scale of centuries. Weather is what happens over years and decades.
Nuclear power is the answer to the world’s energy demands. But it’s not a problem if bad countries have nuclear power. It doesn’t necessarily lead to nuclear weapons. All you are doing is punishing the people of the country for the actions of the leaders. And bad countries can become good. And good countries can turn bad.
-
-
18
February 18, 2012 at 13:17 -
EDIT above
\\From this day – For no [people] to die at the hands of Washington, London or Tel-Aviv – or Baghdad – including Iranians . Unofficial deaths caused by independent organisations (unless carried out in support of Washington, London or Tel-Aviv) will still be OK. \\Interesting (in an odd sort of way) the number of organisations who seem terribly, terribly afraid of ‘NOOK-LEER’ – and don’t feel able to trust ANY Government to use it wisely & well – with one exception . . .
-
19
February 18, 2012 at 15:21 -
I am getting rather tired of blood thirsty fools demanding more and blood, this time from my extended family. Please look at this….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mScWWtRfGQ&feature=related
Yes, Mrs SAOT speaks Persian and I have confirmed the translation.
Really, groundhog day much? Looney in the mid east wants/has WMD so kill, kill, kill. Ring any bells? Don’t be fooled by the same lies again.
Even Leon Panneta (current US defence secretary) says the Iranians are not trying to build weapons.
-
20
February 18, 2012 at 17:48 -
And, of course, the Americans are NEVER wrong about Intelligence matters, are they… Why, that nasty Mr. Saddam Hussain had mountains of chemical weapons and other weapons of mass dest… hang on! The UK went to war partly on the strength and veracity of intelligence gleaned from the Americans, but is was, as they say, bollocks.
-
21
February 18, 2012 at 20:38 -
Er, in case you haven’t got it yet, they weren’t wrong, they were LYING!
Do you honestly still belief they were telling the truth as they saw it and made an honest mistake? Honestly?
If so, well, okay. There is little to be gained from further discourse, just trot along to the recruiting office and fight wars for someone else on the basis of lies or mistakes depending on your take. Ot maybe you just want others to die.
-
22
February 18, 2012 at 21:51 -
Well… as the late lamented Christopher Hitchens remarked, when someone goes ‘ad hominem’, they have conceded defeat, even if they don’t know it. I’ve done my bit fighting wars, thanks very much
My point was that if Leon Panetta, or any American connected with ‘Intelligence’ or ‘Defence’ told me something, I would automatically discount it as either false, fabricated, mistaken or a downright lie…
As to your other argument – ‘Looney in the mid east wants/has WMD so kill, kill, kill’… That may be the safest policy.
-
23
February 19, 2012 at 04:31 -
Frankie – You openly admit that you don’t beleave “Intelligence” agencies, yet in the same breath use the same rhetoric they do…. Fascinating.
-
-
-
24
February 18, 2012 at 23:17 -
The intelligence agencies knew the truth. The politicians told the lies and the news media repeated the lies knowing they were lies.
Read the Scott Ritter (UN Weapon inspector) books if you want to know how bad the lie was…
-
-
25
February 19, 2012 at 04:24 -
I do wonder what would happen if Iran called the US’s bluff.
If the current Iranian government said it would disband and hold independently verified democratic elections on condition that the US/UK publicly admit to the overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 and provide full reparations to Iran.
Certainly a course of action neither side would consider….
-
-
26
February 18, 2012 at 16:05 -
Mfw. I am off to check if my phone browser has been hijacked and I have been redirected to the Guardian CIF.
Poetic license aside the technical and geopolitical naivety is worrying.
1. Enriching Uranium is easiest to achieve dual use weapons grade material.
2. Enrichment 2.5% fuel : 20% medical : 50% dirty bomb 85% plus missile stable nukes. IAEA found plus 80% traces in 2009. Enrichment from 20% plus to 90% due to decay requires very little time & energy. Coupled with ballistic missile testing delivery systems being developed it is obvious we are 9 months max away from Nuclear armed Iranian regime.
3. Shia Islam is based on prophecy of Hidden Iman rising from “ashes of global catastrophe/Armageddon”
4. Persians are people, good people but the Islamic Revolutionary Council in Iran are totally dedicated to Shia Islam dominating the world after point 3. It is their obsessive duty & desire to fulfill this mandate. They are certainly willing to kill everyone including themselves to achieve return of Hidden Iman.
5. Iran
-
27
February 18, 2012 at 20:46 -
Yes? So why doesn’t the Iranian President just take a few kilos of C4 into the UN building, say “Allah Akbar” and take out all the world leaders? Oh yes,he doesn’t want to die.
Enrichment to 90% plus is trickier than you think. Some IAEA members are US intelligence assets. These were the same guys who ‘found’ isotope traces in Baghdad.
If they had 80% in 2009 and and it takes only 9 months to enrich as you suggest, and they have delivery systems, why wouldn’t they have demonstrated a bomb already and made themselves invulnerable from attack?
Gotta think through the propaganda to be truly free.
-
-
28
February 18, 2012 at 17:00 -
Mfw. I am off to check if my phone browser has been hijacked and I have been redirected to the Guardian CIF.
Poetic license aside the technical and geopolitical naivety is worrying.
1. Enriching Uranium is easiest to achieve dual use weapons grade material.
2. Enrichment 2.5% fuel : 20% medical : 50% dirty bomb 85% plus missile stable nukes. IAEA found plus 80% traces in 2009. Enrichment from 20% plus to 90% due to decay requires very little time & energy. Coupled with ballistic missile testing delivery systems being developed it is obvious we are 9 months max away from Nuclear armed Iranian regime.
3. Shia Islam is based on prophecy of Hidden Iman rising from “ashes of global catastrophe/Armageddon”
4. Persians are people, good people but the Islamic Revolutionary Council in Iran are totally dedicated to Shia Islam dominating the world after point 3. It is their obsessive duty & desire to fulfill this mandate. They are certainly willing to kill everyone including themselves to achieve return of Hidden Iman.
5. Iranain strategists know that the balance of power in the world is shifting against them. The Arab spring with the exception of Bahrain was a Sunni movement and has further enforced siege mentality of IRC leaders. With the down fall of Syria they will be surrounded. The only hope for IRC to survive is having Nukes and pushing back by force.
6. Everyone needs oil, even the tree hugging vegans on bikes require their soya & fruits to be transported without the Middle east oil all our children starve within 12 months. Therefore suppression of nuclear ambition of Iran until non middle east energy sources can become viable is mandatory. It is not the environmental concern but the weakness and dependence on mid east oil that spawned the strategic reasoning for renewables & domestically produced energy. It is the reliance on mid east & Russia for oil & gas.
7. Forcing the regime to negotiate & stop development of weapons grade enriched Uranium stops them a attacking Israel. 1 successfully deployed nuclear device would wipe out Israel’s population in a flash. The IRC know this and are crazy enough to carry out such a holy mission as killing Jews who do not submit to Islam is mandated & obligatory. Israel knows this would leave them holocausted twice within 100 years. Would you take the chance. Therefore Israel must strike hard & fast or face certain destruction. If Iran goes nuclear so will Sunni states. All that nukes in hands of 500 million Islamists means certainly a nuclear attack on Israel and millions of dead Jews again. If this happens we have no oil and again no food. How long will London/berlin/paris/ all cities survive without food supplies being delivered.
The only solution is to Stop Iran going Nuclear at any cost until regime is replaced, moderated or alternative sources of energy can be established and deployed.
Just because we want to be moral, legal up standing good citizens of the world will not stop us suffering a calamity if Iran goes nuclear weapons ready.
It is easy being a pacifist bleeding heart idealist dreamer wishing utopia into existence but survival requires defensive, offensive and at times deplorable actions.
All the airy fairy communities of dreamers live within a shield created by people who are willing to sacrifice their blood to preserve the lives of future generations. It would be great if the world was different but it is not.
The world does not have pacifist countries because as lovely as it sounds every time it is attempted they are murdered.
It’s like a jungle sometimes, it keeps me wondering how I keep from goin under.
-
29
February 18, 2012 at 20:56 -
Yes, Bahrain, they were shias calling for democracy who were slaughtered by Saudis and who armed them? And the Arab spring was no sunni movement. It was simply a globalist deal to stick their own puppets in power, otherwise why did the Libyan “people” set up a central bank in Benghazi on day three of the uprising? Yep, external forces were pulling their strings.
-
30
February 19, 2012 at 02:44 -
(2)Enrichment
Traces of bomb-grade uranium found in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082201447.html
(3) “…ashes of global catastrophe/Armageddon”
How is that any different to the second coming of Christ in Christianity?
Over 50% of Americans and a good proportion of elected Republican Party members believe in global armageddon and second coming of Christ.
http://grist.org/politics/scherer-christian/ gives a reasonable overview.
(4) Persians are people, good people
So are Americans good people. But fundamental right wing Christians hold positions of power in American government and have an obsessive duty & desire to fulfill the second coming of Christ.(5) Iranain strategists know that the balance of power in the world is shifting..
Egypt became a net energy importer, the Egyptian state could no longer subsidize wheat prices. Literally Egyptian families could not afford to put bread on the table. Prolonged hunger always brings civil unrest. Iran is more concerned about becoming a net oil importer, loss of oil revenue and a hungry population.(6) Everyone needs oilTrue, but any conflict in the middle east has negative ramifications. Saudi & Kuwait are developing nuclear programs. Iran is also working on cutting edge nuclear fusion research which by the very nature of the technology can only be used for electrical power generation.
(7) Forcing the regime to negotiate…
Cornering an angry animal tends not to be the best method of conflict resolution. Believing Iran will preemptively use nuclear weapons is a Strangelovian fantasy. Technically plausible, but highly unlikely. Iran would be turned to glass as a consequence.(8) pacifists
Disagreeing with your views is not being a pacifist. But then a pacifist wouldn’t have overthrown the democratically elected Iranian government in 1953.I agree with your opening statement that geopolitical naivety is worrying and I also accept that the issues in the middle east are profound and deeply complicated.
The single geopolitical issue which dominates all governments today is energy scarcity. Almost every single major geopolitical event at the moment is in part, or in whole, because of energy.
-
-
31
February 18, 2012 at 17:20 -
Even Leon Panneta (current US defence
secretary) says the Iranians are not trying to build nuclear weapon ”What he said was they are not currently able to construct one as they have not enough uranium enriched to sufficient level to be stable enough to put in a war head. They will reach this mile stone in sumner. They have the missiles ready and waiting.
-
33
February 18, 2012 at 17:42 -
Close your eyes for a moment and think of the names of two famous Iranians… Any two… I thought of Dr. Mahmoud Ahmajinedad and the disgraced Metropolitan Police Commander, Dr. Ali Dizaei. Neither of them not exactly model citizens… The fact that one of them is in prison and the other one routinely makes threats to remove the entire state of Israel from the map speaks volumes for the whole place. Let them have the ‘Bomb’? No bloody way!
-
34
February 18, 2012 at 20:01 -
35
February 18, 2012 at 21:01 -
For me it was Mossadegh (spelling!!) and the Shah followed by Khomeni and of course Omar Khayam, Darius the great, Maz Jobrani and the really great googoosh
Er, to break in with reality for the nth time, the Dr did NOT threaten to wipe Israel off the map, check my link for the actuality, not what you have been told.
Primary sources, my friend. Primary sources.
-
36
February 18, 2012 at 21:35 -
OMG, I had forgotten about Googoosh. I hadn’t realised she stayed in Iran and only left in 2000. Lets just say I was an impressionable young lad at the time.
-
37
February 18, 2012 at 22:14 -
Your attempt to paint Dr. Mahmoud Ahmajinedad as a pacifist and future potential Nobel Peace Prize winner is risible.
Here are a few quotes from the great man himself:
“…Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury”.
“…The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of the war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land”.
“…The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world”.
“…We are not afraid of nuclear weapons. The point is that if we had in fact wanted to build a nuclear bomb, we are brave enough to say that we want it”.
Primary sources, my friend. Primary sources.
-
38
February 19, 2012 at 03:29 -
I cannot speak for SAoT but understanding the truth is not a pacifist position.
Yes Iran does use sabre rattling rhetoric at times, but then so does the West.
I don’t think preemptively bombing Iran into the stone ages is a very enlightened position to take. And using lies and disinformation to justify that position is, frankly, immoral.
-
39
February 19, 2012 at 05:11 -
Now then, straw man arguments much. I have little time for the Dr, regarding him as just as much of a sociopthatic deluded killer, as other mass murdering religous leaders who reckon god told ‘em to go to war. You know like GWB who openly admitted he thought god told him to destroy Iraq or indeed or own dear departed Tony Blair who thought he had a hotline to god.
To be clear the Iranian leadership is just as evil and murderous as any other in the region. They supply limited primitive weapons to terrorist murderers. We supply complex expensive weapons to murderers like the Saudis who happily massacre Bahrainis (and attract not a peep of complaint from i-Dave and the super pals) or our old friends the Israelis who murder forei
Do you see any irony in quoting unreferenced ‘primary sources’?
-
40
February 19, 2012 at 05:13 -
Sorry that should read
Israelis who just murder opponents in foreign countries like Dubai or Iran which is about as clear a definition of terrorism as you can get.
-
-
-
41
February 18, 2012 at 23:42 -
I am on my phone so cannot easily cross post links and quotes but just to clarify the context of the “wipe Israel of the map” translation debate.
Original source was an a speech made by the Ayatollah over 20 years ago. It spoke of metaphorical “pages of history” and was translated at the time by FARS as “off the map” It is often quoted by politicians in Iran in the context of destroying the Jewish state and people through military attack. There is no point getting worked up about the translation of individual words when the meaning of the phrase is known domestically by the audience to clearly signal the future destruction of the state of Israel. If I recall correctly you can read it on his own website http://www.president.ir to get the translation the regime is now using.
A comparison in English would be the “rivers of blood” reference to Enoch Powell speech being “streets of blood” or “roads of blood” the specific wording does not matter it is what is being inferred by the original speech and the intent of a person quoting the speech to reference agreement or disagreement with a concept.
It is true there is no reference to “map” but the quote is correctly translated as “eradicate” the Jewish state. The specific words do not really matter.
I wonder how sympathetic you would be to the KKK talking in the same way about blacks or a Nazi style party directing similar statements another ethnic minority.
Our western governments are deeply flawed, self interested and corruptible it is true but all the institutions, values & rights you hold dear were created by them, funded by them and legitimized by them.
It is sometimes necessary to fight for freedom. It is sometimes necessary to kill for freedom & in exceptional circumstances to attack first. History will judge the wisdom & details but this is not only about oil, power, wealth and influence. This is about ensuring survival of our people and children.
Imagine the lives that would have been saved by preemptive strike on Hitler. Itchy happened there would be those convinced he posed no threat. The act of stopping catastrophe can lessen the argument by people doubting whether it would have happened. People would argue power mad Britain attacked a peaceful Chancellor in Hitler without justification.
Would you rather be murdered in your home so the killer could be properly convicted based on evidence or do you shoot as the knife wielding person comes through your window. Multiply that scenario by 20 million lives and that is the dilemma facing us with Iran’s nukes.
-
-
42
February 19, 2012 at 05:04 -
I second SAoT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh
IRA members are Catholic, does that mean all Catholics are bomb throwers? If a Catholic priest rapes a child does that make all priests pedo’s? Some Christians are homophobic bigots, does that mean all Christians are bigots? Some Brits promote race hate, does that make all Brits racist scum?
-
-
43
February 18, 2012 at 18:22 -
Iran will feel very threatened being in such Isolation.
Why are we right and they are wrong.
Why is it OK for us to hold a nuclear bomb but not them? ( diversity which is rammed down our throats all the time , does this not apply?)
We talk about them being a threat but how many countries have they invaded over the last 30 yrs and how many have we invaded over this period?
Iran would not dare use a nuclear bomb on the UK to do so would invoke a full NATO response which at a stroke would render most of thier major cities vitrified sand.
We should chill out , stop waving the Sabres and have dialogue with Iran.
Iran hates Israel have the nuclear option— which is entirely undestandable -
44
February 18, 2012 at 21:31 -
Mutually assured destruction, should do the trick. Even the mad mullahs should be able to comprehend that, because if they want Armageddon I think Israel is ready to oblige if it comes down to national survival.
Thank you 2Mac for a well reasoned response to the infantile international court of injustice or truth commission pablum. While the “holy” men build nuclear weapons the infantilised west seek UN-style resolutions, and we all know how that does not work.
Meanwhile some believe that after NATO’s woeful outing in Libya they are capable of a robust response, NATO’s Meditteranean cruise and subsequent events in Syria have only strengthened Iran’s resolve that they are incapable of any timely response. In my opinion Iran are 100% correct in reaching that conclusion.
-
46
February 18, 2012 at 22:58 -
It really doesnt matter what anyone on this site thinks about Iran or its intentions. The local politics is simple enough. Israel does not want anyone else in the region to be nuclear armed. The Sunni powers dont want the Shia powers to be nuclear armed. We all need fear the region embarking upon an arms race because the area is full of unstable regimes with lots of money. And there seems to be a concensus brewing in the internet world that Israel will bomb the Iranians and everyone will be happy at that save the Mullahs in Tehran.
Wasnt the world a simpler place when it was shaded pink?
-
48
February 18, 2012 at 23:54 -
Why harp on about nuclear when germ warfare is both cheap , suited to suicide types and makes all the west go weak at the knees.
Nobody really lies awake about being bombed by a nuclear device but everyone knows what disease can do. -
49
February 19, 2012 at 06:13 -
As I seem to be in a thread with loads of people, I thought perhaps a quick summary post might be favourite.
First off, the acquisition of nuclear power does not mean nuclear weapons. This is clear. It is not impossible to enrich uranium sufficiently if you get enough of the raw stuff, but it is much trickier.
Second, the ‘dirty bomb’ stuff is nonsense. Just research the concept as a weapon and you’ll see its poor, but if the Iranians were dumb enough to give some material to Hamas to explode in Tel Aviv (thereby killing people with explosives, some immediate radiation sickness and later cancers) they know the response it would draw. It is technically possible now and they haven’t done it.
Iran does indeed sponsor terror groups with cash and light weapons. Utterly vile and murderous, but they aren’t going to give then nukes because they know what comes next and despite all the rhetoric we hear, no leaders ever engage in suicide bombing because they like being leaders. Iran’s attitude to gay people is truly horrible, medieval and simply wrong. It is non sequitur.
I am delighted at least that the Iran/Al Qaiada stuff seems to have been dropped, they of course each regard the other as apostates. Thus it is less likely that Iran would hand over nukes to AQ because the first target might very easily be Tehran not Tel Aviv. If AQ ever did acquire a nuke (I can’t see it because who ever gives ‘em one, dies about ten minutes later in a retaliation strike) it would be from co-religionist Pakistan whose own security forces have AQ sympathetic elements.
As to who is the good guy and who is the murdering war monger, well
US military activity since the Islamic republic came into being includes:
1979 – Nicaragua, backing Somoza and then the Contras
1980 – El Salvador, support for the murderous military government
1981 – Air strike on Libya
1982 – Lebanon, supporting the doomed government
1983 – Grenada, destroying a coup d’etat
1986 – Support for the Duvaliers in Haiti
1987 – Start of significant support for Saddam Hussein (sic) then fighting Iran
1988 – Destruction of Iranian civilian air liner by US navy
1989 – Panama, destroying formerly supported dictator
1990/91 – Kuwait (overt lies and propaganda here)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmfVs3WaE9Y
1992 – Somalia
1993 – Bosnia
1998 – Sudan (the baby food factory, so called blow-job bombing)
1999 – Serbia
2001 onwards – Afghanistan
2003 onwards – Iraq
2004 onwards – Drone attacks in Pakistan
2007 – Somalia
2011 – Libya (supporting NTC)Whereas Iran, though it clearly does support and sponsor terrorists in Lebanon, Israel and Southern Iraq hasn’t actually invaded anyone. It has been attacked however losing somewhere between half a million and one million people (depending on whose figures you believe) and itself became a victim of WMD’s and bombing of its cities (Mrs SAOT’s school was destroyed by a scud about half an hour after she left it). So to reiterate, both nations are run by murdering liars.
It is now clear for anyone who cares to research it even slightly that the Iraq attack and the preparatory news/political commentary was a lie. Not an error (which would be criminally negligent in itself) but an outright lie. Brits were never “45 minutes from doom” any more than they are now.
And it’s ground hog day. Same story, same lies. I am ashamed to say, I believed it first time around with Iraq albeit I couldn’t understand why they thought Saddam wouldn’t fire the WMD’s as the tanks rolled into Baghdad, I now know.
As George Bush 2 can’t quite say “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me” If this doesn’t convince you, I can do no more.
-
50
February 19, 2012 at 18:59 -
“murdering war-monger”…….. ah yes the well-reasoned arguement.
No doubt you were quite happy leaving Ghaddaffi (Libya 1981) to supply the IRA to bomb your cities, allowing Saddam (Kuwait 1990) to threaten your oil supply, leave Osama to peacefully co-exist with the world in Afghanistan (2001).
Your selective hatred for George Bush but not Clinton is also quite instructive.
Your definition of the “good guy” perhaps ironical, also needs some work.
-
-
51
February 19, 2012 at 11:57 -
OK let us presume that all pro west information is war wongering propoganda and that every source of information from the peacefull Iranian regime is true and that they are a trully misunderstood orce for peace and stability in the world.
Given the current situation where the great Satan, the little Satan and the all controlling Zionist regime and its puppets in every media outlet in the world and its bankers are collectively working together to oppress innocent peacefull Muslims out of a satanicly inspired obsession to steal all the middle east land, enslave the women and drink the blood of the children.
Given this starting position, imagine you are an Iranian strategist engaged in the peacefull pursuit of economic prosperity through domestic energy production. Which path would you walk down as a highly intelligent insider trying to convince a malicious world of your peacefull non violent intentions.
Choice A:
Stop enrichment immediately, open dialogue, allow full access to monitors from IAEA to prove your total innocents, accept offers of free Nuclear Fuel rods to continue research and energy production while the issue is resolved, make friendly speeches, run a diplomatic charm offensive with governments showing your peacefull technology and plans for power stations and economic prosperity, focus on getting economic sanctions lifted and the free flow of your goods to world markets.OR
B: Refuse to meet IEAE, take 5 months to reply to letters of talks, start building underground enrichment facilities, hold Nationally televised sermons in Grand mosque with massive “Death to Israel” signs hanging behind Iman while 5000 worshipers chant “Death to Israel, Death to America”, enrich uranium abouve 2.5%, sent operative abroad to assassinate diplomats, develop ballistic missiles to carry war heads, threaten to close straights of Hormuz, supply 10s of thousand rockets to Hezbollah each year(current supply being unloaded this week in Syrian port), make threatening statements, have supporters attack embassies in Iran, stall for time to allow further enrichment to gain weapons grade material, research weapons grade processing, hold press conferences where you Kiss Quran, Load Nuclear Fuel and talk about zionist regime destruction in same time frame.
How would you proceed to convince the world of your peacefull intentions.
-
52
February 19, 2012 at 13:19 -
As we are both waving our Latin exercise books I might just add ‘quod est necessarium est licitum’…! And I believe it will be necessary (and therefore lawful) to ‘step on’ Iran before too long. Either the US or, more probably, Israel. It would be nice to be reassured by Iran that they have no intentions of hostile acts but I just don’t think that is likely, or that they would be believed.
SAoT has admitted that the leadership in Iran are headed by a ‘sociopathic deluded killer’ – and who clearly, despite all attempts to prove the contrary ARE interested in aquiring nuclear weapons and have sponsored terrorism against the West. That is an essential difference and another significant difference is that the death of the terrorist in committing his outrage is not necessarily a bar to his or her participation – indeed, it appears that death is welcomed and sought as glorious act of martyrdom. Faced with the prospect of lunatic nuclear armed fanatics who welcome death, I don’t think the West can take the chance on Iran being benign in its acquisition of nuclear energy, as the temptation by such a bunch of fanatics to go the extra yard and aquire weapons capable material is probably irresistable.
You say that I should not quote from unreferenced sources, but I maintain that if Dr. Evil didn’t want all this trouble, he should have kept his big mouth shut…
I agree fully that we in the West have our share of psychopathic leaders, GWB definitely being one of them. The major difference is that in the West you are probably unlikely to be ‘dissapeared’ if you criticise the regime and I believe that there is more accountability.
I am not saying that we in the West are always the good guys and anyone else is a bad guy but what we are dealing with is a fundamentally different way of life to ours and a fundamentally different outlook.
What we do not understand, we fear.
-
53
February 18, 2012 at 23:04 -
54
February 19, 2012 at 01:22 -
A bit imperalistic? Yes, probably, but also probably safer.
As I said, I have no interest in the internal politics of Iran but I believe the regime to be dangerous, in a dangerously unstable area of the world. If Iran welcomed inspections of their secret workings and were not such an intractable bunch, the world might feel safer, but… they don’t. They may be growing geraniums down there but they might be doing something else far more sinister.
-
55
February 19, 2012 at 02:15 -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16778292
Inspectors were there, like, two weeks ago
-
56
February 19, 2012 at 03:59 -
The US actively blocked the UN WMD inspectors in Iraq.
Iran has said it is willing to comply with standard IAEA inspectors & protocols. The US is demanding additional conditions which go significantly beyond normal internationally agreed protocols for nuclear inspections.
Is Iran being stubborn? or are conditions being contrived to force Iran into their current position? Based on the history of both Iran and the US its reasonable to assume some truth to both positions.
{ 56 comments… read them below or add one }