Is a US-led war with Iran inevitable?

[dubai_phil]

OK back to geo-politics.

 

Who STARTED the Arab Spring uprisings?

 

Who had the model that everyone else used?

 

Some have asked WHY keep stirring the pot?

 

Now answer those questions, then understand that Iran IS building a Nuke.

 

Then - decide, which course of action is actually better?

 

Stir the pot, keep increasing pressue on the nation (BEFORE they get a Nuke) and hope that the educated Middle Classes finally arise again, and bump off a Scientist whenever you can.

 

OR

 

Wait until they actually HAVE a bomb.

 

Perspective.

 

Now is a war probable? yes because more likely than not the sabre rattling will cause another mistake (like the unfortunate Souls on the Iran Air A300 Airbus)

[aintforever]

I couldn't give a monkey's chuff if Iran had nukes, I don't blame them. They would be foolish not to invest in defence given the fact that both their neighbours have been invaded by the US.

 

You have to be a mug to believe all this anti Iran propaganda, it's a carbon copy of the lies that led to the Iraq war.

[Thedelldays]

 

You have to be a mug to believe all this anti Iran propaganda, it's a carbon copy of the lies that led to the Iraq war.

it simply is not though.....really

[aintforever]

it simply is not though.....really

 

Why should they not have nukes? They have every right to defend themselves, especially given their vast natural resources.

[Thedelldays]

Why should they not have nukes? They have every right to defend themselves, especially given their vast natural resources.

you are right, and such a simplistic question deserves such a simplistic answer....they should not have nukes because they are bad..

 

there you go

[aintforever]

you are right, and such a simplistic question deserves such a simplistic answer....they should not have nukes because they are bad..

 

there you go

 

Don't believe everything you read.

[alpine_saint]

If you haven't got anything constructive to add to this debate Alpine then why bother? It seems you have taken exception to anybody levelling the slightest bit of criticism towards the US without offering any sensible reasons why.

 

 

I'll tell you why. The mouth-frothing anti-US sentiment has got so bad on here certain individuals will be saying "Poor Little N. Korea, so misunderstood" next...

Iran is building nukes, is developing ICBMs and is country run by a set of medieval values and nutjob religious fervour. The leadership of Iran is capable of ANYTHING.

 

I'll ask again... do you believe the US is whiter than white?

 

No I dont, but I dont see the relevance of this and I dont believe that US behaviour is justifcation for a bunch or lunatics being given carte blanche to develop thermonuclear weapons.

[alpine_saint]

Don't believe everything you read.

 

Come on then, you tell us how Iran is so misunderstood.

[Sheaf Saint]

I'll tell you why. The mouth-frothing anti-US sentiment has got so bad on here certain individuals will be saying "Poor Little N. Korea, so misunderstood" next...

Iran is building nukes, is developing ICBMs and is country run by a set of medieval values and nutjob religious fervour. The leadership of Iran is capable of ANYTHING.

 

No I dont, but I dont see the relevance of this and I dont believe that US behaviour is justifcation for a bunch or lunatics being given carte blanche to develop thermonuclear weapons.

 

But it is a historical fact that the current regime is in charge of Iran because of US meddling in their affairs. That is the point that is being made, which you appear to be overlooking.

[Saintandy666]

If there was any all-out war, and hopefully there won't be, China and Russia's stance will be important. I can see Russia staying vaguely neutral(though they are known to be supporting Syrias regime), but I think China wouldn't stand from it. They have too much to lose from such a war as their current ascension to superpower status is based upon economic domination of a worldwide kind, and if the US/EU is engaged in some kind of all out war, their exports will drop and their internal market isn't developed enough yet to make up the difference. Relative stability is in their interests at the moment.

[Verbal]

Come on then, you tell us how Iran is so misunderstood.

 

Has anyone seriously argued that Iran is 'misunderstood'? Most on here have suggested a calculation of risk. Whatever claims you want to make about the ruling clerics' fanaticism - and it IS pretty dreadful, although mostly and brutally directed at Iranians - what is the worst that Iran has done against the West? I've offered up the Hezbollah kidnappings in Beirut and the US embassy hostage-taking in 1979-80.

 

I'd be curious to know what you have to add to that list.

 

Incidentally, Iran has been developing nuclear capability since the seventies.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Has anyone seriously argued that Iran is 'misunderstood'? Most on here have suggested a calculation of risk. Whatever claims you want to make about the ruling clerics' fanaticism - and it IS pretty dreadful, although mostly and brutally directed at Iranians - what is the worst that Iran has done against the West? I've offered up the Hezbollah kidnappings in Beirut and the US embassy hostage-taking in 1979-80.

 

I'd be curious to know what you have to add to that list.

 

Incidentally, Iran has been developing nuclear capability since the seventies.

 

They were very involved in Basra supplying road side bombs and are reportedly to be very active in Afghanistan.

 

I would argue that there are a lot of very normal Iranians as was highlighted by their protests a while back. In fact I would go as far as to suggest that the placard waving fanatics are very much in the minority.

[Verbal]

They were very involved in Basra supplying road side bombs and are reportedly to be very active in Afghanistan.

 

I would argue that there are a lot of very normal Iranians as was highlighted by their protests a while back. In fact I would go as far as to suggest that the placard waving fanatics are very much in the minority.

 

Both of those are on Iran's borders, of course. Not sure who you mean by 'placard-waving fanatics'. Are you referring to the Green Revolution - the movement that was effectively the immediate precursor of the Arab Spring, and which was brutally suppressed by the clerics?

[Verbal]

OK back to geo-politics.

 

Who STARTED the Arab Spring uprisings?

 

Who had the model that everyone else used?

 

Who started the Arab Spring? In one sense it did begin in Iran - but with the 'Green Revolution' that followed the rigged presidential elections of 2009, not as some wild conspiracy by the clerical state. The idea that the Iranian clerics created a radical, grass-roots popular opposition to itself is, of course, silly, and is the kind of garbage I've heard from a few self-serving Wahhabi 'commentators', keen to justify the brutal suppression of the Shia majority in Bahrain for example.

 

Of course, the majority of the Arab Spring has been fought by nominally Sunni Muslim, not Shia - although the uprising has precious little to do with religion but with basic civil rights.

[dubai_phil]

Who started the Arab Spring? In one sense it did begin in Iran - but with the 'Green Revolution' that followed the rigged presidential elections of 2009, not as some wild conspiracy by the clerical state. The idea that the Iranian clerics created a radical, grass-roots popular opposition to itself is, of course, silly, and is the kind of garbage I've heard from a few self-serving Wahhabi 'commentators', keen to justify the brutal suppression of the Shia majority in Bahrain for example.

 

Of course, the majority of the Arab Spring has been fought by nominally Sunni Muslim, not Shia - although the uprising has precious little to do with religion but with basic civil rights.

 

You took the wrong side of my point.

 

The Green uprising (first time FB & Twitter tried to bring down a regime) was obviously inspired by the people who wanted change.

 

The population of 150 million is by West Asian standards well educated and they have a highly developed "Middle Class".

 

US war with Iran is inevitable because sooner or later someone will make a mistake OR Israel will take a valued judgement on a first strike option BEFORE they can deploy the bomb to their ICBM's.

 

Leadership on BOTH sides are pushing it in that direction with their rhetoric. That doesn't make it RIGHT it just makes it LIKELY.

 

The solution is reform from inside via another uprising, The authorities have tightened up with hacking and monitoring of the people so removing any chance to use Social Media as easily.

 

As for China - that one will be decided by Oil. She needs Iran's oil (and to an extent Agricultural exports) and will not do anything apart from try to ensure she maintains the status quo

[alpine_saint]

But it is a historical fact that the current regime is in charge of Iran because of US meddling in their affairs. That is the point that is being made, which you appear to be overlooking.

 

Right, so its all down to historical finger-pointing, like the British are responsible for Mugabe being such a tw*t in Zimbabwe now ?

 

Let's take it further back; the whole region would look different now if the US hadnt been such oil-pigging smart-arses in 1956 and let us and the French get on securing the region against Arab nationalism by hammering Nasser.

 

And to think I took you seriously up until now...

Edited 13 January, 2012 by alpine_saint

[alpine_saint]

Has anyone seriously argued that Iran is 'misunderstood'? Most on here have suggested a calculation of risk. Whatever claims you want to make about the ruling clerics' fanaticism - and it IS pretty dreadful, although mostly and brutally directed at Iranians - what is the worst that Iran has done against the West? I've offered up the Hezbollah kidnappings in Beirut and the US embassy hostage-taking in 1979-80.

 

I'd be curious to know what you have to add to that list.

 

Incidentally, Iran has been developing nuclear capability since the seventies.

 

And Israel have bombed it back to square one already once. I'm hoping for a repeat.

 

You lefties can bleat about Israel and the US having nukes, but they havent used them and havent threatened to use them either. Its not what democratic countries do. N.Korea has threatened a nuclear exchange in the past, and I expect Iran to threaten some form of "Allahs will" once they have the capability.

[pap]

You lefties can bleat about Israel and the US having nukes, but they havent used them and havent threatened to use them either. Its not what democratic countries do. N.Korea has threatened a nuclear exchange in the past, and I expect Iran to threaten some form of "Allahs will" once they have the capability.

 

If this is truly what you think, then you haven't thought it through.

 

Hardly seems worth the bother explaining what would happen if Iran decided to attack or even nuke somewhere. This has already been expanded upon and clearly hasn't made an impression so far.

[alpine_saint]

If this is truly what you think, then you haven't thought it through.

 

Hardly seems worth the bother explaining what would happen if Iran decided to attack or even nuke somewhere. This has already been expanded upon and clearly hasn't made an impression so far.

 

Iran doesnt think it will suffer a nuclear response because the world is too sh*t-scared of losing access to the regions oilfields. That breaks the whole concept of MAD and opens up all sorts of dangerous scenarios.

[Sheaf Saint]

And Israel have bombed it back to square one already once. I'm hoping for a repeat.

 

You lefties can bleat about Israel and the US having nukes, but they havent used them and havent threatened to use them either. Its not what democratic countries do. N.Korea has threatened a nuclear exchange in the past, and I expect Iran to threaten some form of "Allahs will" once they have the capability.

 

Do the names Hiroshima and Nagasaki not mean anything to you???

 

Again, we come back to the example of Pakistan. This is a pure Islamic state that has been in a perpetual state of war with its most hated neighbour since the country was granted sovereignty, and was in the hands of a two-faced, backstabbing military dictator when they developed their nuclear weapons, yet despite that they still managed to refrain from launching one. I have seen nothing at all from Iran to suggest that they would be any different.

 

I'm not saying I'm happy about the situation - I am fundamentally a pacifist and would be much happier if nobody had nukes. But, sadly, I am realistic enough to know that's not how the world works, and I just don't see Iran as being this massive threat to world peace that you make it out to be. Lets face it Alpine, you do have a certain reputation on this forum for over-exaggerating your point somewhat.

[alpine_saint]

Do the names Hiroshima and Nagasaki not mean anything to you???

 

 

Yes, it means a total irrelevancy from the context of a potential nuclear exchange in modern times, that I knew that some pedantic so-and-so would bring up as soon as I wrote the sentence.

Edited 13 January, 2012 by alpine_saint

[alpine_saint]

There is something wrong with some of you, if you cannot see that Iran fancies itself as a regional superpower in the Middle East, throwing its weight around in the national interest in the same way as you howl that the US does globally, only with a medieval barbaric twist as defined by the fundamental Islam ideals that govern the nation. Now that Iraq , Egypt and Syria are in turmoil and weakened, Iran feels this is its time to make its move.

 

If you lot are comfortable with having the world economy held to ransom by religious whack-jobs, so be it. Dont expect everyone else to share your opinion.

[Sheaf Saint]

Yes, it means a total irrelevancy from the context of a potential nuclear exchange in modern times that I knew that some pedantic so-and-so would bring up as soon as I wrote the sentence.

 

I wasn't being pedantic at all. You are trying to argue that the criticism levelled at the US is unfair, yet they are still the only nation ever to have launched a nuclear weapon which is completely contradictory to your statement...

 

You lefties can bleat about Israel and the US having nukes, but they havent used them and havent threatened to use them either.

 

This statement is completely false - Just how is that irrelevant? You can't win arguments by stating absolute untruths!

 

And by labelling anybody who doesn't share your rabid anti-Iranian sentiment as a leftie, you do yourself no favours at all.

[pap]

There is something wrong with some of you, if you cannot see that Iran fancies itself as a regional superpower in the Middle East, throwing its weight around in the national interest in the same way as you howl that the US does globally, only with a medieval barbaric twist as defined by the fundamental Islam ideals that govern the nation. Now that Iraq , Egypt and Syria are in turmoil and weakened, Iran feels this is its time to make its move.

 

If you lot are comfortable with having the world economy held to ransom by religious whack-jobs, so be it. Dont expect everyone else to share your opinion.

 

....and if you're interested in more cartoonish depictions, be sure to check out the work of Disney or Hanna Barbera.

[alpine_saint]

I wasn't being pedantic at all. You are trying to argue that the criticism levelled at the US is unfair, yet they are still the only nation ever to have launched a nuclear weapon which is completely contradictory to your statement...

 

 

 

This statement is completely false - Just how is that irrelevant? You can't win arguments by stating absolute untruths!

 

 

Yeah, I just dont know how to respond to this crass over-simplification.

 

Apparently, because the US used two very low-yield inefficient atomic bombs with limited knowledge of long-term effect in order to shock Japan into a surrender and the end of a long bloody war nearly 70 years ago, probably saving hundreds of thousands of lives in the long-term, this must mean their finger is hovering over the button at every opportunity to unleash a huge fleet of missiles armed with high-yield thermonuclear missiles, so that anyone who dares disagree with the US on foregin policy should go out and develop their own to counter the rabid American threat.

 

All this despite the impact and threat of nuclear weapons is now cleary researched and documented, an advantage the US didnt have when it make its uninformed decision to use the fledgling technology the best part of a century ago...

 

No you are right, there are perfect parallels and citing the events of WW2 are a perfect precidence for what is going on in the 21st Century...

 

[alpine_saint]

....and if you're interested in more cartoonish depictions, be sure to check out the work of Disney or Hanna Barbera.

 

Which part of what I wrote is "cartoonish" ?

[jjsaint]

I don't even know why I am weighing into this. You lot have firmly held opinions which I am unlikely to sway.

 

Perhaps Iran's helpful suggestion that Israel should be 'wiped off the map' is enough to make one worry about their aggressive tendencies. And I have not forgotten the hostages from the US embassy in 1979.

 

I am not sticking up for US/UK foreign policy, as there are many aspects with which I disagree. However. if there is going to be a war, with the West on one side and Iran on the other, I know who I'll be cheering for.

 

And yes, after 9/11, 7/7, Madrid and countless similar atrocities throughout the world I am twitchy about any Islamic state showing any signs of sabre-rattling, especially a nuclear-armed Islamic state. I believe that the effects of Pakistan having the bomb will prove to be disastrous over time.

 

I wouldn't worry about a full blown war, though, as US and Israel (as well as the UK and France possibly) will ensure that Iran's nuclear scientists keep having unfortunate accidents. Again I'm not justifying assassinations but perhaps it is better than becoming embroiled in a traditional land war with the casualties piling up.

[Saint in Paradise]

I just hope that this war which will probably result in destroying most of us will

happen after Saints get promoted so we can all die with that happy knowledge.

 

Actually the only good news is that for the first time in human history the lunatic

politicans who start every war will also suffer as much as the normal people who

usually bear the brunt of all the really bad stuff.

Edited 13 January, 2012 by Saint in Paradise

[skintsaint]

I just hope that this war which will probably result in destroying most of us will

happen after Saints get promoted so we can all die with that happy knowledge.

 

 

Its ok...in a nuclear war we live in the best part of the world to avoid it all...apparently.

[Sheaf Saint]

Perhaps Iran's helpful suggestion that Israel should be 'wiped off the map' is enough to make one worry about their aggressive tendencies.

 

Sorry jjsaint, but you have fallen victim to the scaremongering and propaganda of the elite-controlled western media. Ahemdinijad never said that at all, as I have already mentioned in one of my previous posts. What he actually said was that he believed the current Israeli political regime should be wiped from the pages of history. Absolutely not the same thing.

[Sheaf Saint]

There is something wrong with some of you

 

And you wonder why some people take exception to your posting style!

[Verbal]

And Israel have bombed it back to square one already once. I'm hoping for a repeat.

 

You lefties can bleat about Israel and the US having nukes, but they havent used them and havent threatened to use them either. Its not what democratic countries do. N.Korea has threatened a nuclear exchange in the past, and I expect Iran to threaten some form of "Allahs will" once they have the capability.

 

As others have pointed out, this is a ridiculous response. But aside from your somehow wiping Hiroshima and Nagasaki away from your memory, or probably not even knowing that the last time a democracy threatened to go nuclear was 2002 (look it up), you really lack an ability to engage in an argument sensibly. To repeat: it's about the calculation of risk - and actually the Israelis' among others, are doing exactly the same thing, calculating risk, which is why they haven't conducted air strikes against nuclear facilities, but have confined themselves (in all likelihood) to the series of targeted assassinations of nuclear scientists, officials and revolutionary guards.

 

One calculation is: the difference between the nuclear facilities now and then is that now they're up and running. So any attack could have truly shocking consequences. The world would unite in condemning the reckless killing of god knows how many people, and the regime would be handed the biggest propaganda coup of its life.

 

But a bigger one is that we've already seen from the first wave of the Green Revolution that there's a voluble opposition to the regime from Iran's relatively large and very well educated middle class. Any outside aggression will destroy that. Change HAS to come from within. Any idea that you can bomb everyone into democracy is, shall we say, a little discredited.

[pap]

Sorry jjsaint, but you have fallen victim to the scaremongering and propaganda of the elite-controlled western media. Ahemdinijad never said that at all, as I have already mentioned in one of my previous posts. What he actually said was that he believed the current Israeli political regime should be wiped from the pages of history. Absolutely not the same thing.

 

Which is the problem in microcosm, really. Too many people believe the soundbites they hear on the news, and don't really bother to do any fact-checking, so they inevitably end up navel-gazing from a false starting point.

 

What's especially depressing is that the information is all out there.

[jjsaint]

Sorry jjsaint, but you have fallen victim to the scaremongering and propaganda of the elite-controlled western media. Ahemdinijad never said that at all, as I have already mentioned in one of my previous posts. What he actually said was that he believed the current Israeli political regime should be wiped from the pages of history. Absolutely not the same thing.

 

Sounds the same to me, or at least the methods to bring either of these about would be quite similar.

 

What I find sad is that you have fallen prey to a different kind of scaremongering, but one that is against your own culture.

[Sheaf Saint]

Sounds the same to me, or at least the methods to bring either of these about would be quite similar.

 

What I find sad is that you have fallen prey to a different kind of scaremongering, but one that is against your own culture.

 

No, it's not even remotely the same thing. Calling for an entire country to be wiped off the map is nothing like calling for a political regime to be removed. Not even the same ball-park.

 

And you think that because I take the time to investigate the truth behind what is reported on our news channels, that means I am against my own culture? If the culture you refer to is the culture of controlling what information is reported to the public in order to gain support for any possible future military action, then yes I am firmly against that; as any sane and rational person should be.

 

Just because I live in the western world, doesn't mean I will blindly accept everything that is fed to me by our political class in the belief that to do otherwise would be against my own culture. My inherent sense of reason prohibits such submissive thinking.

[pap]

Sounds the same to me, or at least the methods to bring either of these about would be quite similar.

 

Not even remotely the same, which I think you know.

 

What I find sad is that you have fallen prey to a different kind of scaremongering, but one that is against your own culture.

 

I don't think so, although I am pretty sure that this line of argument has been used to great effect in the past. Wasn't true then, isn't true now.

 

And what is 'your own culture' anyway? You suggest that everyone on this island is supposed to believe the same things, yet one of the things we cherish the most is our ability to express opinions on a matter without being labelled a traitor, which is effectively what you're inching towards in your unimpressive reply.

 

The simple fact is, the hawks on this thread have failed to demonstrate any reason why Iran is a clear and present threat. When pulled up on their claims, they wheel out the old "against your own country" bolox.

[alpine_saint]

Tha utter arrogance of the anti-US/Semitism-at-all-costs brigade spouting Iranian apologia on here is quite something to behold...

[jjsaint]

No, it's not even remotely the same thing. Calling for an entire country to be wiped off the map is nothing like calling for a political regime to be removed. Not even the same ball-park..

 

So Iran would like to remove the current Israeli regime, and is building nuclear weapons. Sound worrying to me.

 

And you think that because I take the time to investigate the truth behind what is reported on our news channels, that means I am against my own culture? If the culture you refer to is the culture of controlling what information is reported to the public in order to gain support for any possible future military action, then yes I am firmly against that; as any sane and rational person should be.

 

The problem is, I seriously doubt that your sources are any less biased (albeit in an opposite direction) than the MSM. And having said this, I would say that the MSM is fairly left-wing and anti-war, unless you read the Mail and the Telegraph. And even with the DT, they allow dissenting opinion to be raised. Do your sources give a balanced view - or are they as I suspect blogs by conspiracy theory crackpots or Trotskyite academics.

 

Just because I live in the western world, doesn't mean I will blindly accept everything that is fed to me by our political class in the belief that to do otherwise would be against my own culture. My inherent sense of reason prohibits such submissive thinking.

 

In theory you would have a point here. I just feel that too many people choose an anti-West viewpoint as their default position, which is submission in its own right.

[Verbal]

Tha utter arrogance of the anti-US/Semitism-at-all-costs brigade spouting Iranian apologia on here is quite something to behold...

 

Anti-semitism? Really? I haven't seen any example of that on here. Can you point it out? Or any lauding of the Iranian regime (who the hell would?). Or any loathing of the US. (Is criticism equal to pathological hatred in your mind?)

 

Honestly Alpine, you really should try to step outside of your prison of ill-conceived prejudices and preconceptions, and try engaging with an argument as opposed to making sweeping, rather dumb accusations.

Edited 13 January, 2012 by Verbal

[pap]

Tha utter arrogance of the anti-US/Semitism-at-all-costs brigade spouting Iranian apologia on here is quite something to behold...

 

You seem to be equating criticism of past and present policy with the notion that detractors hate the US and/or Israel.

 

Nice.

 

And you wonder why your responses are characterised as cartoonish.

[JackFrost]

Tha utter arrogance of the anti-US/Semitism-at-all-costs brigade spouting Iranian apologia on here is quite something to behold...

 

Nope, there's a difference between people disagreeing with your delusions and ill-informed rants and them being anti-Semitic. It's called reasoned debate. Blindly accusing people of being on the opposite extreme when they disagree with your ill-informed rants is incredibly ignorant. How old are you?

 

There is something wrong with some of you, if you cannot see that Iran fancies itself as a regional superpower in the Middle East, throwing its weight around in the national interest in the same way as you howl that the US does globally, only with a medieval barbaric twist as defined by the fundamental Islam ideals that govern the nation. Now that Iraq , Egypt and Syria are in turmoil and weakened, Iran feels this is its time to make its move.

 

If you lot are comfortable with having the world economy held to ransom by religious whack-jobs, so be it. Dont expect everyone else to share your opinion.

 

It already is a regional superpower. Please keep up.

 

And with the USA's and Israel's very recent record of using white phosphorus in their military escapades, I wouldn't trust either of them with a nuclear weapon anymorethan I'd trust Iran.

 

It isn't a surprise you're called a spammer on here when you claim people are so wrong with such arrogance, when you prove yourself completely clueless on even basic elements of the debate that's going on. Your claim that the Americans have never used nukes was as almost as hilarious as when you claimed Iran is responsible for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism over the past 30 years.

[buctootim]

Right, so its all down to historical finger-pointing, like the British are responsible for Mugabe being such a tw*t in Zimbabwe now ?

 

Let's take it further back; the whole region would look different now if the US hadnt been such oil-pigging smart-arses in 1956 and let us and the French get on securing the region against Arab nationalism by hammering Nasser.

 

And to think I took you seriously up until now...

 

Surely you must realise how flawed your logic is. The US vetoed France, Britain and Israel from pursuing the invasion of Egypt in the 1950s. Result? a fairly pro western moderate Egyptian population and government. By contrast the US and UK toppled the elected government of Iran in the 1950s and installed an authoritarian monarch who was only kept in power with western support. Result? a power handed to the extremists, revolution and anti western government.

Edited 13 January, 2012 by buctootim

[buctootim]

Tha utter arrogance of the anti-US/Semitism-at-all-costs brigade spouting Iranian apologia on here is quite something to behold...

 

I work for an US based organisation, spend around 20% of my time there and have an American girlfriend. My views on US foreign policy (note the distinction between opposing US foreign policy and and hating Americans) are no different to many and perhaps most Americans.

[dubai_phil]

As others have pointed out, this is a ridiculous response. But aside from your somehow wiping Hiroshima and Nagasaki away from your memory, or probably not even knowing that the last time a democracy threatened to go nuclear was 2002 (look it up), you really lack an ability to engage in an argument sensibly. To repeat: it's about the calculation of risk - and actually the Israelis' among others, are doing exactly the same thing, calculating risk, which is why they haven't conducted air strikes against nuclear facilities, but have confined themselves (in all likelihood) to the series of targeted assassinations of nuclear scientists, officials and revolutionary guards.

 

One calculation is: the difference between the nuclear facilities now and then is that now they're up and running. So any attack could have truly shocking consequences. The world would unite in condemning the reckless killing of god knows how many people, and the regime would be handed the biggest propaganda coup of its life.

 

But a bigger one is that we've already seen from the first wave of the Green Revolution that there's a voluble opposition to the regime from Iran's relatively large and very well educated middle class. Any outside aggression will destroy that. Change HAS to come from within. Any idea that you can bomb everyone into democracy is, shall we say, a little discredited.

 

Which is the answer of course, and now, that Dubya has gone your last sentence is very true.

 

The West HAS to keep up the pressure, has to keep the regime jumping and off balance as there is no way they have the resource to drive the start of the green revolution 2. What is more if they DID then the people would not respond. Like a lot of this part of the world, they like what the West produces but not it's Politics. A revolution should be able to replace the Clerics but would still be Islamic Technocrats running the show - of which Ahmabadman is one anyway

[dubai_phil]

Not even remotely the same, which I think you know.

 

 

 

I don't think so, although I am pretty sure that this line of argument has been used to great effect in the past. Wasn't true then, isn't true now.

 

And what is 'your own culture' anyway? You suggest that everyone on this island is supposed to believe the same things, yet one of the things we cherish the most is our ability to express opinions on a matter without being labelled a traitor, which is effectively what you're inching towards in your unimpressive reply.

 

The simple fact is, the hawks on this thread have failed to demonstrate any reason why Iran is a clear and present threat. When pulled up on their claims, they wheel out the old "against your own country" bolox.

 

Point is though Pap, the thread title is "Is a US Led War with Iran inevitable"

 

Not "Should the US Declare war on Iran"

 

Looking at the US Political scene, knowing that it is all about point scoring for another year or so, then the Rhetoric will keep being cranked up over there. No candidate will get a nomination if he ignores "The Iran problem"

 

Then it comes down to Sabre rattling, the Iranians already held "a tad aggressive" set of Exercises in the Straits of Hormuz & threatened to blow a US Carrier out the water if it came back.

 

Unfortunately, as with many other threads, the I am right has taken it off topic.

 

War with Iran is insane, but it is highly possible, and the Yanks have already made one huge mistake (Iran Air) and it will kick off if they do it again.

 

How long will Iran put up with Car Bombs before they escalate by using their Proxies to do something in Israel? The spiral started years ago.

 

Both sides have to be very careful

[Sheaf Saint]

The problem is, I seriously doubt that your sources are any less biased (albeit in an opposite direction) than the MSM. And having said this, I would say that the MSM is fairly left-wing and anti-war, unless you read the Mail and the Telegraph. And even with the DT, they allow dissenting opinion to be raised. Do your sources give a balanced view - or are they as I suspect blogs by conspiracy theory crackpots or Trotskyite academics.

 

You assume that I am relying on newspapers. Far from it. A little research shows that many language experts have confirmed it as a mistranslation...

 

Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting statement by Ahmadinejad that "Israel must be wiped off the map",[5][6] an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop existing",[7] or to "obliterate totally",[8] or "destroy completely".[9]

 

Ahmadinejad's phrase was "بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود" according to the text published on the President's Office's website.[10]

 

The translation presented by the official Islamic Republic News Agency has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". Norouzi translated the original Persian to English, with the result, "the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."[11] Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[12] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian." Instead, "he did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[13] The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translated the phrase similarly, as "this regime" must be "eliminated from the pages of history."[14]

 

Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime."[15][16][17]

 

Shiraz Dossa, a professor of Political Science at St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia, Canada, also believes the text is a mistranslation.[18]

 

Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini in the specific speech under discussion: what he said was that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." No state action is envisaged in this lament; it denotes a spiritual wish, whereas the erroneous translation – "wipe Israel off the map" – suggests a military threat. There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. The notion that Iran can "wipe out" U.S.-backed, nuclear-armed Israel is ludicrous.[19][20][21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

 

Did Ahmadinejad really threaten to "wipe Israel off the map" or is this phrase just another jingoistic brand slogan for selling the next war in the Middle East?

 

The devil is in the detail, wiping Israel off the map suggests a physical genocidal assault, a literal population relocation or elimination akin to what the Nazis did. According to numerous different translations, Ahmadinejad never used the word "map," instead his statement was in the context of time and applied to the Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem. Ahmadinejad was expressing his future hope that the Zionist regime in Israel would fall, not that Iran was going to physically annex the country and its population.

 

To claim Ahmadinejad has issued a rallying cry to ethnically cleanse Israel is akin to saying that Churchill wanted to murder all Germans when he stated his desire to crush the Nazis. This is about the demise of a corrupt occupying power, not the deaths of millions of innocent people.

 

The Guardian's Jonathan Steele cites four different translations, from professors to the BBC to the New York Times and even pro-Israel news outlets, in none of those translations is the word "map" used. The closest translation to what the Iranian President actually said is, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," or a narrow relative thereof. In no version is the word "map" used or a context of mass genocide or hostile military action even hinted at.

The acceptance of the word "map" seemingly originated with the New York Times, who later had to back away from this false translation. The BBC also wrongly used the word and, in comments to Steele, later accepted their mistake but refused to issue a retraction.

 

"The fact that he compared his desired option - the elimination of "the regime occupying Jerusalem" - with the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel. As a schoolboy opponent of the Shah in the 1970's he surely did not favor Iran's removal from the page of time. He just wanted the Shah out," writes Steele.

 

"It's important to note that the "quote" in question was itself a quote, writes Arash Norouzi, "they are the words of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution. Although he quoted Khomeini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual words belong to Khomeini and not Ahmadinejad. Thus, Ahmadinejad has essentially been credited (or blamed) for a quote that is not only unoriginal, but represents a viewpoint already in place well before he ever took office."

 

Professor Juan Cole concurs, arguing, "Now, some might say, "So he didn't say, 'wipe off the map,' he said 'erase from the page.' What's the difference? Anyway he's saying he wants to get rid of Israel. Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope -- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government. Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that 'Israel must be wiped off the map' with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/260107offthemap.htm

[jjsaint]

Bexy, Bexy, Bexy. Oh dear.

 

Prison Planet = Extremely biased news organisation (at best), Conspiracy Theory nutjob website (at worst).

Wikipedia = well, Wikipedia.

 

These sources do not convince. Give me the NYT any day (which incidentally is one of the farthest-left newspapers in the US, if not the English-speaking world).

[buctootim]

Bexy, Bexy, Bexy. Oh dear.

 

Prison Planet = Extremely biased news organisation (at best), Conspiracy Theory nutjob website (at worst).

Wikipedia = well, Wikipedia.

 

These sources do not convince. Give me the NYT any day (which incidentally is one of the farthest-left newspapers in the US, if not the English-speaking world).

 

Even Fox (right wing enough for you?) accept the phrasing is ambiguous. As do the Governors of the BBC, albeit in rejecting a complaint about Andrew Marr.

http://www.fox19.com/story/16401983/reality-check-was-ben-wrong-about-ahmadinejad-saying-he-would-wipe-israel-off-the-map

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/wiped_off_the_map.html

Edited 13 January, 2012 by buctootim

[pap]

Bexy, Bexy, Bexy. Oh dear.

 

Prison Planet = Extremely biased news organisation (at best), Conspiracy Theory nutjob website (at worst).

Wikipedia = well, Wikipedia.

 

These sources do not convince. Give me the NYT any day (which incidentally is one of the farthest-left newspapers in the US, if not the English-speaking world).

 

Wikipedia is at least sourced and cited.

 

Anyway, here's a Huff Post article covering the same ground, cited on the Wikipedia article.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-weisbrot-and-robert-naiman/arash-norouzi-explains-th_b_39069.html

[Sheaf Saint]

Bexy, Bexy, Bexy. Oh dear.

 

Prison Planet = Extremely biased news organisation (at best), Conspiracy Theory nutjob website (at worst).

Wikipedia = well, Wikipedia.

 

These sources do not convince. Give me the NYT any day (which incidentally is one of the farthest-left newspapers in the US, if not the English-speaking world).

 

Regardless of where I found these, there do not appear to be any quotes anywhere from people claiming that the translation used by the NYT, BBC etc... was correct. They have been universally denounced as inaccurate, and the quotes confirming this on wiki all have citations.