Time running out for Israeli-Iranian showdown?

[Skybird]

It... could be.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-559925,00.html


The Israeli government no longer believes that sanctions can prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. A broad consensus in favor of a military strike against Tehran's nuclear facilities -- without the Americans, if necessary -- is beginning to take shape.
(...)
In reaching this conclusion, the Israelis are expressly contradicting the assertion, put forward in a report by US intelligence issued last December, that Iran shut down its nuclear weapons program in 2003. "The Iranians resumed the program at full speed in 2005," says Yossi Kuperwasser, the director for intelligence analysis with Israeli military intelligence at the time.

While the Europeans continue to pin their hopes on diplomacy and are convinced that a negotiated solution that would allow Tehran to save face is still possible, the Israelis already view the UN sanctions regime as a failure. Russia and China, they say, sabotaged the boycott from the very beginning, and even the Europeans have only half-heartedly supported sanctions.

According to the Israelis, companies from Austria and Switzerland have recently signed agreements for the delivery of natural gas with Tehran, and even the German government has only slightly limited trade with the mullah-run regime. "The Iranians don't even feel the sanctions," says Tzachi Hanegbi, chairman of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. According to Hanegbi, the international community will have to unite if it hopes to achieve anything -- "and soon."

[Iceman]

Intresting no one has commented on this.

This is a very serious piece of the middle east puzzle that when plopped down will have an enormous impact on the world economy me thinks not to mention the potential loss of life.

The world appears ripe for kaos.

Put this on top of the Afghanistan leader tired of Taliban peeps coming across from Pakistan and put this all togther and looks very hairy in the middle east almost to the point of boling over.

[Stealth Hunter]

Doubtful they'd get far with their war.

The majority of the Middle-East should not be known for its hospitality towards the Jews and their practices. I should imagine that not only would the conflict involve Iran, but also Afghanistan, Pakistan, and probably the radical portion of Saudi Arabia. You would probably also have a third of the Iraqis (that third being the religious radical portion) participating to fight against the Israelis, but I would not imagine any sort of official Iraqi government/military involvement.

It's a delicate situation over there right now. Thanks to Bush's movements in Iraq, the entire Middle-East has begun to boil. As Shakespeare wrote, "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark."

[MothBalls]

Iran said that Israel needs to be wiped off the map. If you were Israel would you just sit there and wait for them to make good on their threat? One nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day. Seems like the **** is going to hit the fan and everyone will be drug into it.

We need to build some time capsules with our history documented in a way that will last a million years. When the dust settles and another intelligent humanoid species evolves on the planet, they'll have a better chance of survival by making sure their technology doesn't surpass their humanity. Maybe we can keep future civilizations from making the same mistake we are about to make.

I think it's time to call some friends and go share a few pints, while we still can.

[Stealth Hunter]

President Ahmadinejad NEVER said that Israel should be wiped off the map. That's a lie which spread all over the news and Internet. This is what he said:

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

I'm going to give you a link to the website that details what he said. It's not a conspirator website or anything like that, but it does have some very interesting and well-researched information. May I suggest you investigate further.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025

[CptSimFreak]

President Ahmadinejad NEVER said that Israel should be wiped off the map. That's a lie which spread all over the news and Internet. This is what he said:

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



...... :damn:

[Platapus]

Iran said that Israel needs to be wiped off the map.

1. Iran has never said that. One person, the President has made statements that have been mistranslated (perhaps even innocently)

cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#2005_.22World_Witho ut_Zionism.22_speech

Wiped off the map is an English Idiom. There is no equivalent idiom in Persian. Therefore it is most unlikely that the President would use the words that would be translated in to the English "wiped off the map".

As a clarification, President Ahmadinejad compared Israel to the Soviet Union in the first speech. This part is often not included in English translations. Now the Soviet Union was not destroyed by military action, it was "destroyed" from within. What President Ahmadinejad meant was that the people of the area would dissolve the state of Israel and form a new jointly governed state representing all the people of the area.

2. President Ahmadinejad has no authority over the military at all. It is confusing as he holds the title of President which usually means the boss. Even if he did mean that he wanted the destruction of Israel (which was not the meaning in Persian) he simply can't do anything about it.

3. The person who does have authority over the military is the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. He has made two separate official declarations that Iran has no intention of attacking Israel. One in 2005 and one in 2007.

So this raises an interesting question

Why do we put credence on the words of the person who does not have control over the military but we don't put credence on the words of the person who does have control over the military?

The answer is that the words of President Ahmadinejad (when mistranslated) support our perception of Iran and the words of the Supreme Leader Khamenei refute our perception of Iran.

However if the media keeps repeating that Iran wants to destroy Israel enough times, it becomes a "fact".

[August]

So when they chant "Death to Israel" or "Death to America" they don't really mean it in a threatening way?

[Platapus]

So when they chant "Death to Israel" or "Death to America" they don't really mean it in a threatening way?

Probably not, it is just an emotional outburst as is common in that culture.

[August]

Probably not, it is just an emotional outburst as is common in that culture.

That's a problem, because it's common in my culture to take stated threats like that very seriously. Especially when they have a history of violence to go with it.

[Platapus]

Probably not, it is just an emotional outburst as is common in that culture.

That's a problem, because it's common in my culture to take stated threats like that very seriously. Especially when they have a history of violence to go with it.


This is why it is very important that you don't evaluate another culture by applying your cultural biases.

"Especially when they have a history of violence to go with it."

The funny thing is that this is probably what the Iranians are saying about us. :)

[Stealth Hunter]

Probably not, it is just an emotional outburst as is common in that culture.

That's a problem, because it's common in my culture to take stated threats like that very seriously. Especially when they have a history of violence to go with it.

Tough it out.:p

[SUBMAN1]

Am i reading this right? Are some people here advocating that the Iranians are stupid and have no idea how their words are going to be interpreted? For real? I think i have some Iranian friends in the US that would be most offended by your statements.

Not buying it in the slightest. These people are not stupid, nor ignorant. They mean what they say.

Political Correctness is invading this forum harshly.

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

Am i reading this right? Are some people here advocating that the Iranians are stupid and have no idea how their words are going to be interpreted? For real? I think i have some Iranian friends in the US that would be most offended by your statements.

Not buying it in the slightest. These people are not stupid, nor ignorant. They mean what they say.

Political Correctness is invading this forum harshly.

-S
But they've been saying these things for a while. They are very far right on the political scale and are playing to their base.

They are smart people. Certainly smart enough to realize what would bring about their destruction.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

But they've been saying these things for a while. They are very far right on the political scale and are playing to their base.

They are smart people. Certainly smart enough to realize what would bring about their destruction.

PDYes and no. The are not playing to their base as much as you think however. These are indimidation tactics for Israel, and to a lesser extend, the world. The Ayatolla doesn't care much about playing to the base since they are under his thumb already, and as such, under the presidents thumb in the name of Islam. These words are from the President of the country to the world, and the Iran's neighbors. To inspire hatred and acts of violence to land they see as theirs, which is land the Jews occupy in their minds. The Jews sit on Persian land, and that is how they see it till the end of time.

-S

[Officerpuppy]

I'm sure Israel can take care of itself unless they get declared war on by all sides again, I just hope the US does not get involved, the US has so much on its plate already that opening up a new front is just gonna tear the military apart.:damn:

And what IF Iran didn't have nearly the nuke capabilities that the world thought they had, its gonna be a repeat of Bush's WMD in Iraq incident, especially if the US got involved. And even if the US did not get involved, as the article points out, as an ally of Israel, Iran and maybe other countries will see it as further western aggression and take it out on the west anyway.

It's unfortunate that negotiations are failing but judgeing by the events in the middle east lately and current oil prices, war out there will effect the whole world both who are involved in the conflict and those who aren't.:down:

I say if the UN can't stop this from starting, chalk that up as another failure for the UN, wasn't it created to stop these kind of things from happening in the first place?:nope:

[August]

The funny thing is that this is probably what the Iranians are saying about us. :)

Were they saying it when they took our embassy people hostage back in '79 as well?

[Blacklight]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Platapus
The funny thing is that this is probably what the Iranians are saying about us. :)


Were they saying it when they took our embassy people hostage back in '79 as well?

Not to mention all the bombings they've sponsored over the years that have killed hundreds, maybe even thousands of innocent people.

[Skybird]

Doubtful they'd get far with their war.

Not much a long-lasting war, but a series of air strikes to try taking out key installation, and as it sounds: not even all (probably becasue several key sites are so deeply buried in the rocks that they cannot be reached by conventional bombs as lomng as there is no new superbomb the public so far has not heared of).

The majority of the Middle-East should not be known for its hospitality towards the Jews and their practices. I should imagine that not only would the conflict involve Iran, but also Afghanistan, Pakistan, and probably the radical portion of Saudi Arabia. You would probably also have a third of the Iraqis (that third being the religious radical portion) participating to fight against the Israelis, but I would not imagine any sort of official Iraqi government/military involvement.

Religiously motivated nutheads are always beyond calculation, but the governments of all Gulf States as well as most sunni governments like Egypt and Saudi Arabia will not move a finger for iran being hit. nothing better than the Israelis doing the dirty work for them and removing a major threat to them could happen to them. Only if nukes get involved, the diplomatic situation becomes more unpredictable.

It's a delicate situation over there right now. Thanks to Bush's movements in Iraq, the entire Middle-East has begun to boil. As Shakespeare wrote, "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark."

This is one of the opportunities when I must stay away from Bush criticising. the Iraq war certainly have helped to harden the Irnian detemrination, nevertheless they have had the motivation to go nuclear since long before the Iraq war.


----


The translation thing, that has a grain of truth, and one should remember that the temper of people in that part of the world is more "spiking" and their languages idioms are more colourful, exaggeration is it'S daily bread and butter. However, if remarks about a nations destruction are being made several times, in several contexts, and at several opportunities, and dressed in different set opf words, the chance that it always, in each opf these combinations, is just not meant serious, becomes thin, and declining each time another such opportunity is being used to threaten Israel. Also, relgious nutheads are not known for thei sense of realism, even less so when they adore martyrdom and also argue in favour of martyr fellow muslims if it helps their casue. After all, death for them holds no fear, and they are not shy to sacrifice Muslims if it helps the holy cause. Do not assume reason nor realism in such minds.

And if that does not convince you and you still want to follow the EU's fruitless effort to leave it to meaningless words, not even enforcing sharp sanctions, not to mention to prevent Iranian nukes by force: then see it this way: if you were Israel - would you really be willing and would you really think you can afford it to think of it as just a translation error...? Would you be willing to put the existence of Israel and the life of hundreds of thousands of Israelis at risk?

You would be both stupid and irresponsible if you do.

I also have problems to imagine the Israelis lack language experts making them aware of possible translation errors. Instead I am sure their language experts for the region's countries are more aware than those of any other Western nation.

The situation in the ME is boiling hot indeed, but Bush only has helped in that, he has not raised it. the situation does not come from Iraq, but the challenge the Shia regime in Teheran is posing to the sunni governmnts in the region, and the war they are already fighting against each other in the hidden - and that one since centuries. Seen that way, Iraq served as a catalysator to speed some things up, but the basic problöems has been there since long. And the Palestine question or the existence of Israel are not the most urgent questions at all. Get them solved - and the major conflict still would be there, boiling. They are little more than propaganda ammunition to please the crowds in islam's streets. Most Araba nations have learned that if they leave Israel alone, it poses no threads to their regimes, dictatorships or theocracies, and they have arranged themselves with Israel's existence. the powerinterests of the governments nowadays focus on different things than driving Israel back into the ocean.

At the same time one needs to be aware that a healing between sunni and shia powerfactions also is not in our interest, because that would mean that Islam now has more power to turn even united against Europe. No matter if you wish them peace or wish them war - you always get your fingers burnt when touching it. we should be thanlful that they are so split amongst themselves, for we even have both hands full with dealing with Islam in the fractured political status it is in right now - and we prove to be unable to handle it successfully, and fall back in face of its claims.

The world is a chess board. And it is more complicated than just a translation error. Focussing on the latter only helps to extend the European diplomacy game, that so far has created no substantial results, and even more: gets actively corrupted by China, Russia, and lacking determination of the Europeans to even enforce their own sanctions. to put trust in that not even-half-hearted effort, is the worst of all options.

[Platapus]

The funny thing is that this is probably what the Iranians are saying about us. :)

Were they saying it when they took our embassy people hostage back in '79 as well?


No back then they were complaining about how in 1953 the American CIA instigated an overthrow of a democratically formed government and brought back a dictator who abused the people with secret polices, kidnapping, torture, and repression.

[Skybird]

No back then they were complaining about how in 1953 the American CIA instigated an overthrow of a democratically formed government and brought back a dictator who abused the people with secret polices, kidnapping, torture, and repression.

... and actively supressed the rise of the theocratic islamists.

It's a dirty story for sure, but that lies in the nature of the matter. Where is it written the world is a nice and tidy place...

[August]

No back then they were complaining about how in 1953 the American CIA instigated an overthrow of a democratically formed government and brought back a dictator who abused the people with secret polices, kidnapping, torture, and repression.

Yeah that nasty Shah. Giving women the right to vote, instituting land reforms and generally modernizing the nation. What the heck was he thinking? :roll:

[joegrundman]

Well you know how irrational non-americans can be, august.

[Schroeder]

Well you know how irrational non-americans can be, august.
So sanity is limited to the US only?:hmm:

[Skybird]

Well you know how irrational non-americans can be, august.
This is a hot candidate for getting awarded the "most stupid comment of the month" award.

[August]

Well you know how irrational non-americans can be, august.
So sanity is limited to the US only?:hmm:

No the Aussies have some as well, from what i hear...

[Tchocky]

Something tells me joe was not being entirely serious.

[Skybird]

Is that so? Well, I must admit I miss the context for I have blocked August's postings.

Joe, if you have been sarcastic, please accept my apology.

[August]

I have blocked August's postings.
:lol: What a [blocked]!

[Von Tonner]

From New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?ex=1307678400&en=efa2bd266224e880&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

"But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/) (http://www.president.ir/eng/%29), refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran's most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say "wipe off" or "wipe away" is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.

The second translation issue concerns the word "map." Khomeini's words were abstract: "Sahneh roozgar." Sahneh means scene or stage, and roozgar means time. The phrase was widely interpreted as "map," and for years, no one objected. In October, when Mr. Ahmadinejad quoted Khomeini, he actually misquoted him, saying not "Sahneh roozgar" but "Safheh roozgar," meaning pages of time or history. No one noticed the change, and news agencies used the word "map" again.

Ahmad Zeidabadi, a professor of political science in Tehran whose specialty is Iran-Israel relations, explained: "It seems that in the early days of the revolution the word 'map' was used because it appeared to be the best meaningful translation for what he said. The words 'sahneh roozgar' are metaphorical and do not refer to anything specific. Maybe it was interpreted as 'book of countries,' and the closest thing to that was a map. Since then, we have often heard 'Israel bayad az naghshe jographya mahv gardad' — Israel must be wiped off the geographical map. Hard-liners have used it in their speeches."

The final translation issue is Mr. Ahmadinejad's use of "occupying regime of Jerusalem" rather than "Israel."

To some analysts, this means he is calling for regime change, not war, and therefore it need not be regarded as a call for military action. Professor Cole, for example, says: "I am entirely aware that Ahmadinejad is hostile to Israel. The question is whether his intentions and capabilities would lead to a military attack, and whether therefore pre-emptive warfare is prescribed. I am saying no, and the boring philology is part of the reason for the no."

But to others, "occupying regime" signals more than opposition to a certain government; the phrase indicates the depth of the Iranian president's rejection of a Jewish state in the Middle East because he refuses even to utter the name Israel. He has said that the Palestinian issue "does not lend itself to a partial territorial solution" and has called Israel "a stain" on Islam that must be erased. By contrast, Mr. Ahmadinejad's predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, said that if the Palestinians accepted Israel's existence, Iran would go along.

When combined with Iran's longstanding support for Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah of Lebanon, two groups that have killed numerous Israelis, and Mr. Ahmadinejad's refusal to acknowledge the Holocaust, it is hard to argue that, from Israel's point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat. Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel.

So did Iran's president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question."

[Stealth Hunter]

Certainly smart enough to realize what would bring about their destruction.

Tsk, tsk.

If the United States or Israel goes to war with Iran, then Russia will be there to fight with them. Ahmadinejad and Putin signed an alliance. It would end up a loss for the United States and most certainly for Israel if a war began, and even if the United States took Iran, then the American economy would be destroyed when the Iranians sabotage and destroy their oil wells whilst shipping reserve barrels to Russia. They would bleed this country dry. If they stopped giving us oil, the price per barrel would soar well over $200.

With Russia having a load of nuclear weapons, I wouldn't be surprised either if it did come to nuclear war, in which case North Korea would join Russia and Iran since they all kind of stick together and have good relations with one another.

[August]

Certainly smart enough to realize what would bring about their destruction.
Tsk, tsk.

If the United States or Israel goes to war with Iran, then Russia will be there to fight with them. Ahmadinejad and Putin signed an alliance. It would end up a loss for the United States and most certainly for Israel if a war began, and even if the United States took Iran, then the American economy would be destroyed when the Iranians sabotage and destroy their oil wells whilst shipping reserve barrels to Russia. They would bleed this country dry. If they stopped giving us oil, the price per barrel would soar well over $200.

With Russia having a load of nuclear weapons, I wouldn't be surprised either if it did come to nuclear war, in which case North Korea would join Russia and Iran since they all kind of stick together and have good relations with one another.

I see a lot of wishfull thinking here SH. Russian and Germany also signed a pact once and look how that turned out. What happens if the Russians don't come and pull your chestnuts out of the fire you created? What if, for example, the allies were to promise Russia that warm water port they've always wanted, and maybe half the oil fields in return for staying out of it?

[Stealth Hunter]

From New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?ex=1307678400&en=efa2bd266224e880&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

"But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/) (http://www.president.ir/eng/%29), refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran's most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say "wipe off" or "wipe away" is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.

The second translation issue concerns the word "map." Khomeini's words were abstract: "Sahneh roozgar." Sahneh means scene or stage, and roozgar means time. The phrase was widely interpreted as "map," and for years, no one objected. In October, when Mr. Ahmadinejad quoted Khomeini, he actually misquoted him, saying not "Sahneh roozgar" but "Safheh roozgar," meaning pages of time or history. No one noticed the change, and news agencies used the word "map" again.

Ahmad Zeidabadi, a professor of political science in Tehran whose specialty is Iran-Israel relations, explained: "It seems that in the early days of the revolution the word 'map' was used because it appeared to be the best meaningful translation for what he said. The words 'sahneh roozgar' are metaphorical and do not refer to anything specific. Maybe it was interpreted as 'book of countries,' and the closest thing to that was a map. Since then, we have often heard 'Israel bayad az naghshe jographya mahv gardad' — Israel must be wiped off the geographical map. Hard-liners have used it in their speeches."

The final translation issue is Mr. Ahmadinejad's use of "occupying regime of Jerusalem" rather than "Israel."

To some analysts, this means he is calling for regime change, not war, and therefore it need not be regarded as a call for military action. Professor Cole, for example, says: "I am entirely aware that Ahmadinejad is hostile to Israel. The question is whether his intentions and capabilities would lead to a military attack, and whether therefore pre-emptive warfare is prescribed. I am saying no, and the boring philology is part of the reason for the no."

But to others, "occupying regime" signals more than opposition to a certain government; the phrase indicates the depth of the Iranian president's rejection of a Jewish state in the Middle East because he refuses even to utter the name Israel. He has said that the Palestinian issue "does not lend itself to a partial territorial solution" and has called Israel "a stain" on Islam that must be erased. By contrast, Mr. Ahmadinejad's predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, said that if the Palestinians accepted Israel's existence, Iran would go along.

When combined with Iran's longstanding support for Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah of Lebanon, two groups that have killed numerous Israelis, and Mr. Ahmadinejad's refusal to acknowledge the Holocaust, it is hard to argue that, from Israel's point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat. Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel.

So did Iran's president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question."

Not surprised the New York Times would start this up. When one station starts saying this stuff, they all typically follow. I've begun to distrust the American news anymore. I'll listen to things about flooding and bad weather and events, but these people are useless otherwise. FOX News for instance tried to pin the California Forest Fires on Al-Qaeda, because apparently terrorists are running rampant in this country (reminds me a lot of the Salem Witch Trials and the Red Scare).

Ahamadinejad said (and I quote from Farsi):

"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

The 2005 video I can't find, or at least without some newscaster talking over him. If you can find it, listen carefully to the words he uses.

What happens if the Russians don't come and pull your chestnuts out of the fire you created? What if, for example, the allies were to promise Russia that warm water port they've always wanted, and maybe half the oil fields in return for staying out of it?

Remember though that Iran also supplies Russia with a huge amount of oil. Although the Russians have oil fields of their own, nothing produces as well as an Iranian oil well. They've got the third largest reserve of it in the world.:up:

[Steel_Tomb]

O/T I personally can't wait for the day when we can free ourselves from the need for oil, give the arab nations a great big slap in the face and tell them that they can't hold our economies hostage over hydrocarbons anymore :arrgh!:.

Back on topic....

I think its very nieve to think that Ajaminidad (sp?) doesn't want to see Israel destroyed, of course he does... hes an arab, of which the majority would like to see every israeli turffed out of the Middle East. Irans backing of extemeist militias such as Hezbollah are prime examples of this. Also, to deny the holocaust... what madness is this? How can one say such an event didn't happen? Its like saying the First World War never took place and everyone went round Lenin's house for a brew :damn:. I hope it doesn't come to armed conflict, but if Europe continues to faff about arguing amongst eachother about what sanctions to place and the UN's plans get VETO'd by Russia and China I can see no other alternative. I will die before I see a nation which so openly supports the use of Jihad to wage a "war" against innocent civillians gain nuclear technology. There may not be an immidiate threat, but as nuclear technology becomes easier and easier to produce, the consequences of such weaponry falling into the hands of extremists, who aren't afraid to die or contemplate the consequences of their actions the results aren't even worth thinking about... :dead:

[PeriscopeDepth]

Certainly smart enough to realize what would bring about their destruction.
Tsk, tsk.

If the United States or Israel goes to war with Iran, then Russia will be there to fight with them. Ahmadinejad and Putin signed an alliance. It would end up a loss for the United States and most certainly for Israel if a war began, and even if the United States took Iran, then the American economy would be destroyed when the Iranians sabotage and destroy their oil wells whilst shipping reserve barrels to Russia. They would bleed this country dry. If they stopped giving us oil, the price per barrel would soar well over $200.

With Russia having a load of nuclear weapons, I wouldn't be surprised either if it did come to nuclear war, in which case North Korea would join Russia and Iran since they all kind of stick together and have good relations with one another.
I see a lot of wishfull thinking here SH. Russian and Germany also signed a pact once and look how that turned out. What happens if the Russians don't come and pull your chestnuts out of the fire you created? What if, for example, the allies were to promise Russia that warm water port they've always wanted, and maybe half the oil fields in return for staying out of it?
You can't seriously believe Russia will go to nuclear war for Iran?

PD

[Stealth Hunter]

Where are you getting that information?:hmm:

Ahmadinejad isn't an Arab; he's an Iranian. And before you get stereotypical on Middle-Easterners, we do not all look alike. You might also be interested to know that if you called an Arab an Iranian and an Iranian an Arab in the street, you'd be running from an angry mob in seconds. We don't like to be confused with one another.;)

The part about the Holocaust... I've never really known if he actually meant that or if he just said it to stir up trouble (kind of like Howard Stern with his jokes and what have you; he does it for publicity). Either way, it's a personal view, and although we know it's wrong, the majority of the Iranian people do not dislike Jews nor do they think the Holocaust never happened. The view of a single person does not constitute the view of an entire nation, no matter how powerful the person may be.:roll:

As for the rest of that post... just remember all Middle-Easterners aren't terrorists.;)

[Stealth Hunter]

You can't seriously believe Russia will go to nuclear war for Iran?

You don't know as much as you'd like to think about relations between the two countries. That's not trying to seem rude, mind you, but if you've stayed in Iran or even lived there, you'd know that there's a lot of talk between the countries... very secretive and very sensitive topics, might I add...:shifty:

They're very good friends once you get under the surface.

If it became a war for fuel, then it's very possible that it would result in nuclear conflict (and the one thing Russia has always wanted is resources; they might have enough, but it never hurts to have a little more, especially when your ally has the third largest reserve in the world!).

bebakhchid

It's Bebackshid.:up: Also, you misspelled fransi.

Otherwise, good job. Did you learn to speak Farsi or just write it?

[August]

You might also be interested to know that if you called an Arab an Iranian and an Iranian an Arab in the street, you'd be running from an angry mob in seconds. We don't like to be confused with one another.

Apparently there's lots of things y'all don't like. From what i've read folks in that part of the world don't need much of a reason at all to form an angry mob.

[Steel_Tomb]

Of course I didn't mean ALL muslims/arabs or whatever, that would be like saying all Americans are fat! Its simply not true.

HOWEVER, you cannot deny that there is a deep hatred of the west and the western way of living in the middle east.... people cheering an celebrating on 9/11 is a sick example of such things.

I stand corrected on Ajaminidad, hes Iranian then (I though arab/iranean were one and the same sorry).

[Stealth Hunter]

From what i've read folks in that part of the world don't need much of a reason at all to form an angry mob.

:rotfl::roll:

School teachers are paid... what? Around $25,000-$33,000?:hmm:

[Takeda Shingen]

From what i've read folks in that part of the world don't need much of a reason at all to form an angry mob.

:rotfl::roll:

School teachers are paid... what? Around $25,000-$33,000?:hmm:

No. A public school teacher with a master's degree and experience can expect upwards of $70k. Also, be careful when disparaging educators on this forum. :know:

For all, let's cool down. It's too hot to fight.

The Management

[Stealth Hunter]

In the city perhaps.:up:

Please note I'm not too open of racist/stereotypical comments, either.:shifty:

[Takeda Shingen]

In the city perhaps.:up:

Actually, it's the reverse. City teachers tend to be on the lower end of the scale. You need to go to the suburbs to find the real pay.

[Stealth Hunter]

I might keep that in mind. Interesting information.:hmm:

[Stealth Hunter]

It's a difficult language if you're not raised with it.

If you can read and write and speak it, you could get a very good governmental job in translation services. They pay a lot.

[SUBMAN1]

The funny thing is that this is probably what the Iranians are saying about us. :)
Were they saying it when they took our embassy people hostage back in '79 as well?

No back then they were complaining about how in 1953 the American CIA instigated an overthrow of a democratically formed government and brought back a dictator who abused the people with secret polices, kidnapping, torture, and repression.I have a friend that would probably like to punch you in the nose right now. It was the best time in all of history for all Iranians.

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

You can't seriously believe Russia will go to nuclear war for Iran?
You don't know as much as you'd like to think about relations between the two countries. That's not trying to seem rude, mind you, but if you've stayed in Iran or even lived there, you'd know that there's a lot of talk between the countries... very secretive and very sensitive topics, might I add...:shifty: I know there's a lot of talk between the countries. Not all of it happy. Like how Russia has been delaying completion of the Bushehr reactor and blaming Iran for not paying, which the Iranians deny. Or how an Iran-Turkey pipeline has been superceding pipelines through the fUSSR in Russia's attempt to shore up their position in the Euro energy market. Or how Iran won't buy Russian fighters or subs again unless they are forced to (though they do seem to be fond of something the Russians have long been leaders at making - SAMs).
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IG28Ak03.html

They're very good friends once you get under the surface. Neither side trusts one another. It is a relationship brought on by a common enemy in the region. It is in both their interests to minimize American influence in both the Middle East and the Caucasus.

If it became a war for fuel, then it's very possible that it would result in nuclear conflict (and the one thing Russia has always wanted is resources; they might have enough, but it never hurts to have a little more, especially when your ally has the third largest reserve in the world!). I just don't see it. They are allies of neccessity, and ones that don't trust each other at that. MAD kept the fUSSR and the USA from going to nuclear war with each other. It is silly to think that Iran will change anything about that. And it's laughable that you list North Korea as the third power in this fictious nuclear triad that will oppose the United States.

Russia is simply one of a few powerful countries that will openly associate with Iran. It is a symbiotic relationship for both countries due to their interests in the region. But even then Russia realizes it has to keep its distance from Iran, who is an international pariah. They have signed a treaty, but one that is largely symbolic and certainly not a suicide pact.

PD

[August]

From what i've read folks in that part of the world don't need much of a reason at all to form an angry mob.
:rotfl::roll:


That isn't true? I mean those mobs we saw rioting, burning and killing each other over some silly Danish cartoons were imaginary?

And what does my salary got to do with it? BTW your estimate is way low...

[August]

Come on August, calling an Iranian an Arab is just like calling Steed an Irish :D
"Angry mobs" is just a colourful image ...

But Mikhayl, I didn't call them Arabs and believe me I do understand the difference.

[Stealth Hunter]

From what i've read folks in that part of the world don't need much of a reason at all to form an angry mob.
:rotfl::roll:


That isn't true? I mean those mobs we saw rioting, burning and killing each other over some silly Danish cartoons were imaginary?

And what does my salary got to do with it? BTW your estimate is way low...

Not as common as you're led to believe... or as you have led yourself to believe.

And I'd watch the racist comments.:know:

[August]

And I'd watch the racist comments.:know:

Please quote the racist part.

[SUBMAN1]

Not as common as you're led to believe... or as you have led yourself to believe.

And I'd watch the racist comments.:know:Tell that to the 28 cars and 35 garbage trucks! http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019994.php

:p

They must have been rioting for a long while to even find 35 garbage trucks! Wow!

-S

PS. They rioted in 50 countries. Seems to me a ton of people.

[Stealth Hunter]

And I'd watch the racist comments.:know:

Please quote the racist part.

Gladly.

From what i've read folks in that part of the world don't need much of a reason at all to form an angry mob.
That isn't true?

[SUBMAN1]

And I'd watch the racist comments.:know:
Please quote the racist part.
Gladly.

From what i've read folks in that part of the world don't need much of a reason at all to form an angry mob. That isn't true?I don't think so. Its fact, not fiction, and doesn't call out an ethnic type. To call this racism is to try to censor it too. Bad!

-S

[Skybird]

The major threat from an nuclear armed Iran is not that it would attack Israel directly. The major threat is a nuclear armed Iran getting involved in proliferation, and supplying terror organisations. If there will ever explode a nuke in the US, it will have been build on the American continent or assemble preconstructed components there, or will have been delivered via ship or air crago, in a container or something like that - you get the idea. A small company jet also is a possebility, or a trawler. europe is more likely to get delivered a complete package instead of seeing such a terror bomb being constructed in a Western nation, due to the shorter distance and the land-travel opportunity.

[Platapus]

The funny thing is that this is probably what the Iranians are saying about us. :)
Were they saying it when they took our embassy people hostage back in '79 as well?

No back then they were complaining about how in 1953 the American CIA instigated an overthrow of a democratically formed government and brought back a dictator who abused the people with secret polices, kidnapping, torture, and repression.I have a friend that would probably like to punch you in the nose right now. It was the best time in all of history for all Iranians.

-S

I don't really care about your violent friends

[August]

Gladly.

Sorry, I disagree.

[Iceman]

Go back to topic...Crikey..lol..I think someone used the correct word here for your lack vision Stealth...."Nieve"...but I did not realize your heritage is from over there so I understand your bias now. :)

It is a powder keg in the middle east and the spark can come from any fire over there.

I'm still waiting for some retaliation from Syria for Israel's little excursion into they're territory a few months back.

Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.....we ain't buying it.

Go sell crazy somewhere else lol..

[baggygreen]

I love that analogy iceman..

Syria won't retaliate against israel because they know if they were to try, the world would believe these 'israeli lies' about there being a nuke plant in Syria.

Same deal goes with the rest of the ME, if israel were to attack Irans facilities, then you'd hear a lot of outrage from gulf states who would at the same time be thanking israel for setting back a nasty threat.

There might be more suiide bombings by the palestinians, might be more rocket attacks by hezbollah and retaliatory raids by the israelis, but i dont think much more than that would happen to israel.

The real retaliation would be Iran sinking a tanker in the gulf (possibly a live-fire exercise that goes 'oh so horribly wrong'), or even just mining it. Oil skyrockets, gulf is closed to shipping, and Iran gets its own back at the west who it will deem to have supported Israels actions.

[August]

The real retaliation would be Iran sinking a tanker in the gulf (possibly a live-fire exercise that goes 'oh so horribly wrong'), or even just mining it. Oil skyrockets, gulf is closed to shipping, and Iran gets its own back at the west who it will deem to have supported Israels actions.

Wouldn't that hurt the rest of the Gulf states as much or more than the west? After all if we ain't buying it, they ain't making money selling it.

[Stealth Hunter]

Gladly.

Sorry, I disagree.

Doesn't really matter if you disagree. You're not a forum authority.

[PeriscopeDepth]

The real retaliation would be Iran sinking a tanker in the gulf (possibly a live-fire exercise that goes 'oh so horribly wrong'), or even just mining it. Oil skyrockets, gulf is closed to shipping, and Iran gets its own back at the west who it will deem to have supported Israels actions.
Wouldn't that hurt the rest of the Gulf states as much or more than the west? After all if we ain't buying it, they ain't making money selling it.
When you say Gulf States, that means to me Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and the UAE. They are certainly Western aligned, some more so than others. All it would take is the Iranians publically saying they've mined the entire Gulf and and for a single ship to explode for oil to go to prices that would make $135/barrel seem quite reasonable. And they'd be able to take it a lot longer than we would.

PD

[Skybird]

Funny that some people only talk about the "middle east" with old simplistic clichés.
"Syria retaliating against Israel" ? Get yourself a newspaper, they've been negociating peace since a few weeks, so you might have to wait a bit longer.

And how successfully and seriously meant the negotiations go. Wowh! ;) No sign that Olmert started it as a means of distracting from his problems, and never meant it serious. Forgotten that Syria wants back the territory of the Golan that it rightfully has lost to the victim of it'S war of aggression against Israel.

I recommend you print out the negotiation news, frame it nicely, put it into your cupboard so that the glass cannot brake, and then you can find it in fourty years and have a remembering session of how nice it all could have been if only... yeah, if only...;)

Neither Syria nor Israel is serious in these negotiations. For Olmert, it is about distraction, for Syria about collecting worldwide sympathies for at least the "honest" attempt. Living the life as rogue-state is not nice, so from time to time you seek some relief from that image.

[SUBMAN1]

I don't really care about your violent friendsAhh, but alas, it seems to be a comon theme from over there! :D

-S

[Skybird]

I didn't say it was otherwise, did I ? :roll:
Re-reading your posting I still understand it as expressing that they are seriously negotiating. And that I doubt.

[Skybird]

Well I agree it's misleading but the point of my post was, with ongoing negociation (however a scam they can be), a "Syrian retaliation against Israel" is not gonna happen. As you point out, Assad seems to be following Gaddafi's path, trying to look nice, opening diplomatic channels which were closed since a long time, etc. That makes the above "retaliation" even more science fiction, that's all :)

really? at the same time they are heavily engaged and active in operations to undermine and control Lebanon, form ties with Iran, supplying weapons to Hezbollah.

and the other thing: if I would wish to launch a strike against somebody, I would do it while he is sleeping, or I would try to make him safe and comfortable, and win his trust - while putting a poison in his vine.

Deception and hiding is part of politics, globally, and in the orient no less. That the negotiate means nothing at this point of time. So, one should be careful before reading something into it, or conclude on motivations.

[August]

Gladly.
Sorry, I disagree.
Doesn't really matter if you disagree. You're not a forum authority.

Neither are you. Especially in matters of racism.

[Stealth Hunter]

Gladly.
Sorry, I disagree.
Doesn't really matter if you disagree. You're not a forum authority.

Neither are you. Especially in matters of racism.

Did I claim to be?

[August]

Did I claim to be?

You were the one making the judgements. My salary also seems to be an issue with you. Care to explain why your honor?

[Stealth Hunter]

Ah, but so were you on Muslims and Middle-Easterners. You salary is not an issue, just curious on how much a school teacher makes, that's all.

[Takeda Shingen]

Keep it in PM, fellas.

The Management


http://www.billybear4kids.com/animal/whose-toes/squirrel1.jpg

[Tchocky]

Hehe, squirrel.

Rather good article on US-Israel-Iran here (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/06/19/mccain_iran/print.html). It's primarily a feature on John McCain, but it gives a decent overview.

[August]

Keep it in PM, fellas.

No need. I think we both know where we stand.

[baggygreen]

cute lil squirrel:D

[Iceman]

Hehe, squirrel.

Rather good article on US-Israel-Iran here (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/06/19/mccain_iran/print.html). It's primarily a feature on John McCain, but it gives a decent overview.

The bottom line is that Iran is not, and never will be, a serious military threat to the United States, centrifuges spinning or not.

A nuclear weapon is a serious threat...or even the threat of such a device.

This is absurd nonsense...and I truly feel sorry for you Tchocky if you actually believe the koomby-ya "Rhetoric" of Obama..."America is ready for a change"...is Obama's speil....

Nothing new under the sun grasshopper....when you can snatch the pebble from my hand it will be time for you to understand...

amazing...there is no easy solution,magic wand,or miracle change that either candidate can pull out of his buttocks...to suddenly change what has taken thousands of years to accomplish which is the almost total destruction of the planet...this has been in motion for a long time are you so arrogant to think one "Human" can change that...one will claim to...soon.

Reap It! :)

[Tchocky]

A nuclear weapon is a serious threat...or even the threat of such a device. Ok, now put yourself in the position of the Iranian government, hearing top US officials saying that "no weapon is off the table for dealing with Iran".


A nuclear weapon is a serious threat...or even the threat of such a device.

EDIT - I have no idea what the rest of your post is about.

[August]

[quote=Tchocky]Ok, now put yourself in the position of the Iranian government, hearing top US officials saying that "no weapon is off the table for dealing with Iran".[/quote

If that was the only part they heard you would have a point, but that message changes somewhat when you put it in context:

"no weapon is off the table for dealing with Iran....IF they keep trying to build a nuclear weapon"

[Tchocky]

I hear you, August, and I understand the basic position. There's just a basic disconnect in the logic of threatening nuclear force in order to prevent...nuclear force.

It all seems academic to threaten force, with intelligence agencies saying that Iran is not building a bomb, but continuing with a uranium enrichment program.
I found this to be the most interesting part

In fact, Iran's interests in Iraq are not radically different from America's: a relatively strong central government dominated by Shiites and Kurds (albeit from Iran's view, Shiites and Kurds who would remain beholden to Iran's interests), and a withdrawal of U.S. forces from the country. Unlike the U.S., Iran would probably like to see the various competing Shiite factions in the Iraqi government and the various militias remain strong enough so that no one party or militia can dominate the others. But that shouldn't necessarily be at odds with American interests at this point. We are looking for a graceful exit from a costly and unpopular war, that accomplishes some relative stability in the region -- ensuring that Iraq doesn't collapse as a failed state and become a long-term breeding ground for terrorists who may one day strike further west. (The notion that the American goal is for Iraq to become a beacon of democracy in the Middle East has long been debunked and is no longer even a pretense.)

[August]

I love Salons recommendation. Basically it's "give Iraq to Iran so we can run away". Gawd I really beginning to dislike Democrats. :dead:

[Skybird]

Israel rehearse Iran strike over the Med and Greece, 1400 km striking distance. 100+ IAF fighters and tanker support participated. Israeli spokeman refused to give details. Observers say a lot of Israeli signalling to the EU and the Us is going on about how bitterly determined Israel is to strike unilaterally, if necessary, in order to leave nobody in doubt that they mean it serious.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7465170.stm

Another pearl on the string. Don't know how much place on that string is left, but a string can only hold so many pearls, and not more.

[Iceman]

A nuclear weapon is a serious threat...or even the threat of such a device. Ok, now put yourself in the position of the Iranian government, hearing top US officials saying that "no weapon is off the table for dealing with Iran".


A nuclear weapon is a serious threat...or even the threat of such a device.

EDIT - I have no idea what the rest of your post is about.
I'm sorry...the rest of my post is sarcasim regarding your apparent ignorance concerning world politics and ideologys wondering if it is just an act or if you truly believe that, "just give peace a chance", is a realistic and viable solution to world problems...

But they add that if Israel ever decides to strike, there will be little advance warning - just like when it targeted a suspected nuclear reactor in Syria last September and Iraq's nuclear plant in Osirak in 1981.

Honestly before Sept 11th I hadn't really ever given a second thought about Muslims and there beliefs but I am a quick learner...history is a great teacher. To remain ignorant of the threat that is posed by extreme groups from around the globe is folly and wishing it was'nt so doesn't cut the mustard and I am continually amazed and utterly baffled at the lack of my own government as well as the "UN" to act.

I applaud Israel and stand with them in there efforts when it comes to they're security....this is no difference...none whatsoever in what they do now than what America has done in Afghanistan and Iraq except there cause is even clearer.

Either you deal with them in they're own country or deal with them when they come to your own...always a choice.