This I have to take issue with. Since coming to power, the Iranian theocracy has sought to export their brand of Islam to neighboring countries.
Other than numerous border skirmishes with Iraq, the Iranian mullahs sought to have Hussein overthrown by inciting the Iraq Shia. They were behind the development and support of Hezbollah to overthrow the sectarian government in Lebanon. So from the outset, no one will argue that Iran has been one of the primary sources of instability in that region.
In addition, Iran's Ahmadinajad has made numerous inflammatory and very threatening remarks regarding Israel and its existence. Putting aside his horrific actions as a Holocaust denier, he told 3,000 Iranian students, "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map." Even the former Iranian President said that if his country were to develop a nuclear weapon it would be used to destroy Israel. Ahmadinajad has also said that any Muslim country that has friendly relations with Israel will face the wrath of their own people.
Assuming that Ahmadinjad is sane then his statements represents a clear threat to at least Israel. If he is a mad man then it is worse. In either case to allow this regime to access a nuclear weapon is irresponsible and needs to be avoided at all costs - particularly if you are the State of Israel and do not have a death wish.
I am not disputing any of your other arguments: from the Shah to Iraq.
Other than invading Iraq, the US neo-cons sought to have Hussein overthrown by inciting the Iraq Shia. (Before this current invasion)
So from the outset, no one will argue that the US has been one of the primary sources of instability in that region.
In addition, US leaders have made numerous inflammatory and very threatening remarks regarding Islam, Arabs and their existence.
Assuming that Bush is sane then his statements represents a clear threat to Middle East stability at least. If he is a mad man then it is worse. In either case to allow this regime to access a nuclear weapon is irresponsible and needs to be avoided at all costs. Small varmints, if you will.
Welcome to ET. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
Too bad it is too late to stop the US neo-cons from getting their hands on nukes. Hopefully the Dems will have a landslide win in 2008. Small varmints, if you will.
By the way, if the U.S. was trying to incite the Iraq Shia, then why were they providing support to Hussein in his war against Iran?
When you say "from the outset" what is your time frame? Because the British and French were causing more instability in the region long before the Americans.
Again you did not address what i wrote about which has to do with Iran and their threats to the region - particularly Israel. Unless you regard them as legitimate threats.
The US is off-and-on threatening military action against Iran. The US is Israel's main ally. The US has a large portion of its armed forces right next to Iran right now. How can the US's disposition not have everything to do with it?
[i]By the way, if the U.S. was trying to incite the Iraq Shia, then why were they providing support to Hussein in his war against Iran?[/i]
I didn't say it made sense. Neo-cons rarely do. However, those were at different times. The US encouraged a Shia uprising in Southern Iraq once they decided Hussein was no longer useful.
[i]When you say "from the outset" what is your time frame? Because the British and French were causing more instability in the region long before the Americans.[/i]
Well, if that lets the US off the hook, it lets Iran off the hook too, eh? I was just using your words. The point was that there is more than one destabilizing force in the Middle East and the US is the biggest one at the moment (what with that Iraq mess and all).
[i]Again you did not address what i wrote about which has to do with Iran and their threats to the region - particularly Israel. Unless you regard them as legitimate threats.[/i]
Iran is a threat to Israel. Israel is a threat to Iran. Israel isn't exactly a stabilizing force in the Middle East either.
The point of my comment is that a US/Israel war on Iran isn't going to help matters, it will only make things worse (unless wiping all threats to Israel off the map is the goal I guess, although how that is morally suprerior to the 'wipe Israel off the map' crap I don't know). Small varmints, if you will.
But anyway, I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers the Bush I era Shia uprising we (the US that is) encouraged at first then abandoned to a reprisal that wiped it out. People seem to forget that.
Not to mention the various times we've led the Kurds in Iraq down the primrose path then screwed them over (or at least stood back while they got screwed over). Small varmints, if you will.
like this like this or like this Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
I personally do not think the Iran Mullahs are that crazy and did intentionally install Ahmadinajad to counter the rhetoric of opposing countries.
I am concerned about nuclear weapons in the hands of countries that are not totally stable which Iran is not. We can see that in Pakistan right now. If Musharraf's regimes falls some of the options places Europe and the U.S. in grave danger.
Regarding Iran, I think what is happening is lots of saber rattling on all sides which is fine as long as it results in a diplomatic solution as it appears to be in North Korea.
I do not see Israel electing Beten-yahoo anytime soon since the majority of Israelis are tired of war and want to be focused on peaceful coexistence with Palestineans and all other neighbors.
Iran is in much the same situation China was during the cold war until there were diplomatic understandings with most countries and trading agreements were worked out.
In Iraq the neo-cons are out. If you watch closely at what is happening Bush Sr. (the master diplomat) has become Bush Jr.'s top advisor which is why you see a sudden shift toward diplomacy on all fronts. Cheney no longer has the power he once had and he had it all.
This so-called surge plan was actually a way for Bush Jr. to paint his way out of a corner that he painted himself into. In September there will be a major shift in policy even if Bush Sr. has to give his son a "time-out."
I'd say Pakistan is the bigger danger when it comes to unstable realms and nukes, seeing as Pakistan definately has nuclear missiles already.
However, Pakistan is a US ally in the so-called "War on Terror" (or whatever they are caling it today) and it is off the media radar in respect to its nuclear arsenal falling into even more extreme hands than it already is. If I had to pick the most likley spot for a nulcear war, Pakistan Vs. India would be it. Small varmints, if you will.
I always believed from that the neocons brought Bush Jr. to power but made sure Cheney was there to run things. Bush Sr. was never one of those neocons and was kept on the outside until the '06 election disaster. Bush Sr. and his allies like Jim Baker forced their way in and have pushed Cheney aside for all intents and purposes.
Regarding nuclear weapons, I don't see any difference between Pakistan and Iran. They are both highly volatile states with significant internal dissent which is a bad formula for for nuclear weapons.
We're talking about the Shia uprising of 1991, which was encouraged by the US in the aftermath of the liberation of Kuwait by Bush the 1st, but then US then figured they preferred Hussein in power to a Shia regime and let Saddam brutally suppress the uprising.
Which, apparently, goes a long way towards explaining why the Iraqi Shia don't much like the US, even if they removed Saddam. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
Do you think Lebanon's sectarian system is an acceptable democratic arrangement? It might be the only way to get disparate communities to share a single state. It worked pretty well until the Israel/Palestine conflict spilled over.
Northern Ireland's political system is also sectarian in ways that make me very uncomfortable and lead to political gridlock, but again it may be a necessity.
And then there's the Low Countries' now obsolete pillarisation.
So, yes, why export Jeffersonian Democracy? The principle of self-rule and self-determination is an entirely different beast. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
I hope that the following addresses the concern that you have that your points are not being systematically addressed.
Please read the article in the following link completely and objectively. You might be surprised about what you know.
Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map - Does He Deny The Holocaust?
Next, check this site for the known unknowns about Israel's nukes.
Strategic Israel-The Arsenal of an Undeclared Nuclear Power
Then search the net for quotes from Israeli leaders over the last 7 decades concerning the rights of Palestinians on what Israel regards as its land. Here is one of David's, but you can search for some of Golda's that are just as reprehensible, or Ariel's or even Yitshak's.
"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978. Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.
Frank Delaney ~ Ireland
Regarding your last statement. You quoted a highly disputed quote allegedly made by Ben Gurion. I am sure that you can go to anti-Jewish websites and find more alleged quotes from other Israeli leaders that are either taken out of context or just fabricated.
There is a longer history of Jews in the Middle East before Israel including earlier in the 20th century.
But if you are speaking about former Jewish leaders and alleged quotes or misquotes I would be very careful about their characterization.
Now, if we can attract more attention to the substantive dispute of the Cole-Hitchens fight, we will also call attention to the fact that translations are tricky business. And those with political agendas can selectively choose translations to obscure the big picture and manipulate the media.
The precise reason for Hitchens' theft and publication of my private mail is that I object to the characterization of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as having "threatened to wipe Israel off the map." I object to this translation of what he said on two grounds. First, it gives the impression that he wants to play Hitler to Israel's Poland, mobilizing an armored corps to move in and kill people. But the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all. The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks.
But the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all. The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks.
It is a shame that nobody had pointed this out before Juan Cole. Cole's translation of the persian passage is indeed much closer to the target. I re-red the persian and Cole is right. It is still a threat, don't get me wrong. There is a quasi-hegelian ring to the original, as something that will occur as history unfolds. Not a nice thing to say (or hope for) but not as awful as the bad English translation made it sound. by STA (sta.blog@gmail.com) on Tue May 9th, 2006 at 07:45:25 PM BST
It is still a threat, don't get me wrong. There is a quasi-hegelian ring to the original, as something that will occur as history unfolds. Not a nice thing to say (or hope for) but not as awful as the bad English translation made it sound.
by STA (sta.blog@gmail.com) on Tue May 9th, 2006 at 07:45:25 PM BST
Also, why doesn't anyone points to the fact that the Iranian president would hardly be the one with the finger on the big red nuclear switch if Iran got the bomb ? The President currently hardly is the most powerful person in Iran... Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
That is right. He is more or less a figure head and mouthpiece for the mullahs.
Apparently Ahmadinejad did not say Israel will be wiped off the map and Khrushchev did say "We will bury you . . ." Neither leader had enough internal support to do much damage. All part of the purpose of the U.N. so that countries could say what they want as long as they did not toss missiles.
Sounds similar to Khrushtchev's "We will bury you"...
The US installed a puppet government in Iran in 1953. It was this government that Khomeini was referring to...it was there, and it was gone. Iran didn't get wiped off the map. The regime was replaced.
And this is exactly what he predicts will happen with the regime in Jerusalem. Not that Israel will get wiped off the map, (there is no such slang term used in the language) but that there will be a regime change in Jerusalem.
I am getting the impression that the problems of the world are greatly exacerbated by people's expectations that they should be able to read every person's statements with the dictionary of a certain mental midget sitting in the White House.
Did anyone take "This is not a game" as a sig line yet? Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.
I understand the intent of his message which is consistent with the political dialogue surrounding the Israeli-Palestinean issue.
I am of the belief that Ahmadinejad's very existence is a direct result of Bush's unilateral classification of Iran as an enemy soon after 9/11. He is serving a purpose for Iran which is to counter the rhetoric being thrown against it.
This started with the question of whether Iran represented a threat to the region. Of course they do but not any more than other of the Middle East countries. The central element of instability is Iraq and if a negotiated security agreement between certain countries can be worked out then it will serve to defuse most tensions.
The issue that still remains is nuclear weapons in Iran which the government has yet to admit to their development but is certainly progressing toward that. For what purpose would they need it?
leaving aside the idiotic "axis of evil" speech, and since I've started quoting STA, let's do it again:
The U. S. position is unclear, perhaps because of an internal struggle within the Bush administration between those who advocate trying to reach an accommodation with Iran led by Secretary of State Rice and the hawks led by Dick Cheney.Let me make a point that I cannot emphasize enough. The Iranian position is no more clear. What is missing from most articles about Iran is the general fracture that exists in the country. This is new; it is a first in modern Iran. As a country, it has usually had a real unity. The Iranian regime is no longer regimented! It is fractured for the first time in modern Iranian history. The difference between Afghanistan and Iran, or at least one of the differences, used to be that no governing body in Afghanistan could hold the country together. Hence warlords. In Iran, however poorly managed, the government in place -- Shah's or the current retards -- had a discernible political line. The infightings and backstabbings are pushing Iran into a new territory. I am not even talking about conservative vs. moderates [sic]. Even the conservatives can't agree on practically anything. Ahmadinejad is in place because they cannot deal with each other. The war talk helps create a semblance of unity where there is none. An attack against Iran would create unity, among the rulers, but perhaps even among the people. by STA (sta.blog@gmail.com) on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 04:39:18 PM BST
The U. S. position is unclear, perhaps because of an internal struggle within the Bush administration between those who advocate trying to reach an accommodation with Iran led by Secretary of State Rice and the hawks led by Dick Cheney.
What is missing from most articles about Iran is the general fracture that exists in the country. This is new; it is a first in modern Iran. As a country, it has usually had a real unity.
The Iranian regime is no longer regimented! It is fractured for the first time in modern Iranian history. The difference between Afghanistan and Iran, or at least one of the differences, used to be that no governing body in Afghanistan could hold the country together. Hence warlords.
In Iran, however poorly managed, the government in place -- Shah's or the current retards -- had a discernible political line.
The infightings and backstabbings are pushing Iran into a new territory. I am not even talking about conservative vs. moderates [sic]. Even the conservatives can't agree on practically anything. Ahmadinejad is in place because they cannot deal with each other.
The war talk helps create a semblance of unity where there is none. An attack against Iran would create unity, among the rulers, but perhaps even among the people.
by STA (sta.blog@gmail.com) on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 04:39:18 PM BST
Oh come on. I mean, what exactly was Hezbollah created against?...
Your other points have been dealt with. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
It was created in the 80's during their civil war to support/impose Shia rule. You have another answer?
