Time running out for Israeli-Iranian showdown?

[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.

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.

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?

[August]

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?

[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]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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?

[joegrundman]

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

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

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

So sanity is limited to the US only?:hmm:

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

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]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I have blocked August's postings.

What a [blocked]!

[Von Tonner]

From New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/we...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/), 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."