Bomb, bomb. bomb, bomb, bomb Iran

[hrothgar]

Really? Is the debate a question of now or next week? Otherwise, I don't see what the debate is.

 

The debate is whether

 

1. The commonly quoted translation bears any relationship to the original Farsi

2. The expression in question referred to the current inhabitants of the land or the Israeli government

3. Whether the statement is a call-to-action or a (belated) wish

 

Simply put there is an enormous difference between

 

1. Let's go nuke Tel Aviv!

 

and

 

2. Live would be a lot nicer if the Netanhayu government went away...

 

FWIW, I consider it a rather extreme position to suggest that the Iranian statements really meant item 2. At the same time, I think that its ridiculous that there meant item 1.

[mike777]

IN any event I think it is fair to say Iran bombs Israel, they bomb bomb bomb Israel and have for years.

 

 

They provide the bombs and the training and tell people to bomb Israel and they do.

 

Of course the USA has been bombing Pakistan for years with flying robots.

 

 

Whether Israel or the USA want to wait until the last month of construction of a working abomb to do something or not is another matter. Clearly Iran has the sovereign right to build one, I dont think that is the issue. I think we all agree that talking is better than war up to a point. I think many but not all agree there are things worse than war. Which is why I suppose when war is considered the lesser evil it is chosen.

 

However I grant there are many posters and others who believe there can never be anything worse than war.

[kenberg]

Stepping back from specifically Iran, as I recall the usual claim of a country that seeks enriched uranium is that they wish to build power plants. Perhaps they do, but one does not have to be a super skeptic to not take this at unquestioned face value.

 

 

I was thinking a bit about this while driving in. European nations could perhaps play a very productive role here. We are seen, and I admit with considerable reason, as being "on Israel's side" when push comes to shove. Europe, much less so. This could be useful. Perhaps Iran would listen to some advice, not from us. It would help a lot if Iran made it clear that it hopes to work productively for peaceful relationships with all mid-east states. Talk is cheap, I know, but still what one says matters. A clear statement of intent, clear enough that subtle issues of translation don't matter, would be nice. So would an acknowledgement that the Holocaust is historical fact. Denying the Holocaust is not just a matter of historical idiocy, it's a not very subtle statement about the legitimacy of a Jewish state that came into existence at least partly as a result of the horrors of that time.

 

No one, absolutely no one, should entertain the idea that a war with Iran would go well. It will be a total disaster for the area and for the world. It would be very good if we can find a way to avoid it.

[mike777]

..."No one, absolutely no one, should entertain the idea that a war with Iran would go well. It will be a total disaster for the area and for the world. It would be very good if we can find a way to avoid it. "

 

 

 

 

I think at this point the issue may be can we avoid a war with Iran by letting them build whatever they want, whenever. Many believe that letting Iran have a nuke is not really that big a deal compared to war and the horrible effects it will have.

[hrothgar]

 

I think at this point the issue may be can we avoid a war with Iran by letting them build whatever they want, whenever. Many believe that letting Iran have a nuke is not really that big a deal compared to war and the horrible effects it will have.

 

 

I fall in that category...

[mike777]

In some ways this Israel/Iran Nuke thing feels like Cuba and the USA. I Mean is there any reason not to let Cuba have nukes.

[hrothgar]

In some ways this Israel/Iran Nuke thing feels like Cuba and the USA. I Mean is there any reason not to let Cuba have nukes.

 

As I recall, the Cuban missile crisis involved the Soviet Union transporting short range nuclear weapons to Cuba.

At the time, there were a handful of states capable of building nuclear / atomic weapons.

 

The situation today is VERY different... it's still very expensive to develop nukes, however, the cost has fallen sufficiently that mid-sized powers can afford to do so if so motivated.

 

The key question is whether or not an Israeli attack on Iran will deter the country from developing nukes...

 

Personally, I think that an Israeli attack will lead to a "rally around the flag" effect, solidifying internal support for the Iranian regime and demonstrating why said country very much needs to improve its deterrent capabilities.

 

You know, sort of like what happened on 9/11.

 

The attacks on the World Trade Center, etc. didn't cause the US to carefully re-evaluate its foreign policy.

Rather, we pledge allegiance to George W. Bush and mindlessly invaded Iraq....

[kenberg]

I regard it as foolish to bomb anyone unless you are prepared to go to total war with that someone. People get pissed when you drop bombs on them.

[mike777]

I regard it as foolish to bomb anyone unless you are prepared to go to total war with that someone. People get pissed when you drop bombs on them.

 

 

But again Iran has been doing just that for years as we have with Pakistan

 

to say the least Iran has gotten away with it, it may wonder just what more it can do...in this case build whatever it wants.

[hrothgar]

But again Iran has been doing just that for years as we have with Pakistan

 

I think what Mike MEANT to say is that elements of the Iranian government have provided military aid to Islamic militants who have then turned around and launched rocket attacks against Israel...

 

In much the same way, Israel has provide arms and logistics training to Christian Phalangist militias in Lebanon (Or, if you prefer a more recent example, arming Kurdish irradentist movements within Iran)

 

Your perpetual one sided view of history is really annoying

There is a hell of a lot of blame here that both sides need to share...

 

FWIW, I don't see either action as being equivalent to US drone strikes against Pakistan which directly involve the US military claiming responsibility for the attacks that are being launched.

[mike777]

Actually there is direct Iranian government direction in training and in fact telling people to bomb Israel.

 

 

I better example would be if I gave my neighbor a gun, training and told him to shoot his wife or at athe very least we knew he was going to use the gun to shoot is wife......they are not just supplying weapons to an ally. That is just plain misinformation.

 

 

Of course Israel did some of the same things in Lebanon and clearly we are bomb, bomb bomb Pakistan.

[kenberg]

I realize that my summary "Don't bomb someone unless you plan to go to total war" is a simplification, and that we and others regularly violate it. Still...

A surgical strike on Iran's nuclear sites is apt to be the type of surgery where the operation is successful but the patient dies.

 

I guess the death toll in WWII was around 40 million so it's hardly something to get nostalgic about but the the thing started a little after I was born and ended before I was six, and then we started rebuilding cities, economies and trust. We now seem to be stuck in a never ending conflict. I don't know that I am psychologically prepared for unending conflict and I am not sure I want to become prepared for it.

 

Which brings me to another view, also a simplification: Get out and stay out of the middle east. We need oil? I guess we do. But we rationed oil to win (yes, of course, to contribute to winning) WWII, so maybe we could take some strong actions to avoid getting involved in another war. Avoiding war, if possible, is better than wining wars, and much much better than losing wars or dragging out a war to an at best ambiguous conclusion. No I haven't been reading old Ron Paul speeches but pulling back from places where conflict seems eternal has an appeal. Really it is all God's fault. He told three different religious groups that the same piece of land belongs to them. Let them sort it out.

[mike777]

I understand it is very seductive to just do nothing or as you say pull back, and let someone else fill the void.

 

After ten years or more of constant war and body bags and wounded and as much if not more of the world hating or at the least distrusting us well.............

 

 

The debate as always is are the US interests, whatever they are or should be, better served by doing nothing or close to nothing.

 

 

As many said when I was younger, I will fight the vietcong or the commies when they come over my back fence.

[kenberg]

I am not really suggesting isolationism in the manner suggested by the "over my back fence" quote. More, it is that we have to recognize a hopeless case. I was sort of joking about it being God's fault (of course I was sort of joking) but maybe only in the formulation. There are quite a few people there whose religious convictions set them on a pretty non-negotiable path. Compare with here: I heard this morning that in Tennessee teachers will now be free to teach non-evolution in science class. These folks never give up . Teaching evolution in science class mostly brings chuckles, maybe a few exasperated groans. Two people thinking that God has promised them the same spot of ground brings war.

 

Then there are cultural gaps. There is the old joke about the kid showing up at a boy scout meeting all battered and bruised. He tried to help an old lady cross the street. She didn't want to go. My guess is that if we told the typical Afghan we could help him become more like an American he would run in the opposite direction. That's if he was feeling kindly toward us.

 

So I favor staying involved in the world. But not everywhere.

[mgoetze]

I think what Mike MEANT to say is that elements of the Iranian government have provided military aid to Islamic militants who have then turned around and launched rocket attacks against Israel...

Kind of like the USA provided military aid to Islamic militants in Afghanistan who then launched rocket attacks against Soviet helicopters? What were they called again... oh yes, the Taliban.

[mike777]

Of course over the years the USA/CIA have supplied weapons, training and to various degrees battle/leadership.

 

We basically did everthing but pull the trigger. Of course everyone does that....I think the Brits armed the Indians against young America.

 

I did not mean to suggest Iran is doing something new.

 

Only that many around the world feel that war is worse than letting Iran build whatever/whenever.

Many others feel there are worse things than war.

Many in America at this time are just tired of the many US body bags and tens of thousands of wounded young men and women for what seems at best confusing or as Ken said hopeless goals.

 

I think one of the really great things about the USA is that elections do matter and that there are many outlets for dissent of those elections.

[blackshoe]

The Brits armed the Indians against the French long before the American Revolution. And the French did the same thing, although with different Indians.

[Cthulhu D]

Tp add a little to Blackie's comment:

 

Roughly speaking, Iran

a. Is pursuing nuclear material capability

b. Has repeatedly called for teh destruction of Israel

 

Now I understand that politicians everywhere say all sorts of stupid things so one should not take all their utterances as gospel.But at what point is a nation allowed to act in self-defense based on clear indications of future intent?That is, where a nation announces its intent and carries out preparations to act on announced intentions. Does a country always have to allow the other side the first blow? We managed to survive the balance of terror with the Soviet Union. I wouldn't trust that things will always work out that way.

 

I'm not sure why people think that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statements mean anything. It's like suggesting that Dmitry Medvedev's statements on any topic are 100% reflective of Russia's policy on that topic.

 

The guy is about as relevant as Nikolay Shvernik in 1950.

[kenberg]

I'm not sure why people think that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statements mean anything. It's like suggesting that Dmitry Medvedev's statements on any topic are 100% reflective of Russia's policy on that topic.

 

The guy is about as relevant as Nikolay Shvernik in 1950.

 

One can say that his statements mean nothing, one can say that he was mis-translated, one can say that he is just bluffing, etc. As of now, he is listed as the President of Iran and, for example, he makes speeches on behalf of Iran at the UN.

 

If the Supreme Leader, and other less supreme leaders, think that Ahmadinejad in no way speaks even a little bit for Iran, now would be a good time to make that clear. I think all of these "Oh what's the big deal" arguments are wishful thinking, and certainly such arguments will fall on deaf ears with those most directly affected. It is not too late to avoid calamity, but claiming that what Ahmadinejad says is irrelevant is not likely to be a productive approach. Those who have influence with Iran's leadership, whoever the leadership is and if anyone does have influence, could help here.

 

In short, words have consequences. If Ahmadinejad's words are irrelevant to Iranian intentions, those whose words are relevant need to say so, very soon and very clearly. They could toss him out of office, perhaps, if he is seriously misrepresenting Iranian policy.

 

 

[Cthulhu D]

One can say that his statements mean nothing, one can say that he was mis-translated, one can say that he is just bluffing, etc. As of now, he is listed as the President of Iran and, for example, he makes speeches on behalf of Iran at the UN.

 

If the Supreme Leader, and other less supreme leaders, think that Ahmadinejad in no way speaks even a little bit for Iran, now would be a good time to make that clear. I think all of these "Oh what's the big deal" arguments are wishful thinking, and certainly such arguments will fall on deaf ears with those most directly affected. It is not too late to avoid calamity, but claiming that what Ahmadinejad says is irrelevant is not likely to be a productive approach. Those who have influence with Iran's leadership, whoever the leadership is and if anyone does have influence, could help here.

 

In short, words have consequences. If Ahmadinejad's words are irrelevant to Iranian intentions, those whose words are relevant need to say so, very soon and very clearly. They could toss him out of office, perhaps, if he is seriously misrepresenting Iranian policy.

 

 

You do not understand the role of the President. Ahmadinejad's job is to appeal to the audience at home and shift the blame for, say, high petrol prices onto the US and Israel.

 

They are not going to stop him making outrageous statements because his job is to make outrageous statements and pander to the base at home. It's like how the GOP hasn't disowned Santorum for making insane comments about pink bowling balls. His job is to pander to the Christian right, and he does that just fine.

[PassedOut]

You do not understand the role of the President. Ahmadinejad's job is to appeal to the audience at home and shift the blame for, say, high petrol prices onto the US and Israel.

 

They are not going to stop him making outrageous statements because his job is to make outrageous statements and pander to the base at home. It's like how the GOP hasn't disowned Santorum for making insane comments about pink bowling balls. His job is to pander to the Christian right, and he does that just fine.

But Santorum doesn't think his positions are insane, and I'm relieved that he won't be president.

[Winstonm]

The Brits armed the Indians against the French long before the American Revolution. And the French did the same thing, although with different Indians.

 

Same tribe - just different indians - and different guns, of course.

[BunnyGo]

The debate is whether

 

1. The commonly quoted translation bears any relationship to the original Farsi

2. The expression in question referred to the current inhabitants of the land or the Israeli government

3. Whether the statement is a call-to-action or a (belated) wish

 

Simply put there is an enormous difference between

 

1. Let's go nuke Tel Aviv!

 

and

 

2. Live would be a lot nicer if the Netanhayu government went away...

 

FWIW, I consider it a rather extreme position to suggest that the Iranian statements really meant item 2. At the same time, I think that its ridiculous that there meant item 1.

 

Dude, seriously I've met you...you're too smart to not look up your own undoctored media out of Iran. They have taken the time to translate their own quotes (the "they" being the regime) and put English language banners on missiles in parades saying "Israel should be wiped off the face of the world." This is not a "misunderstanding" or "mistranslation" it is repeated and often...quite frankly, I'd like to say the benefit of the doubt is that you don't bother reading about Iran--but you seem equally loud and misinformed about whether North Korea's influence is contained:

 

North Korea is the main nuclear arms dealer to the world's least stable and trusted regimes: Syria, Iran, Pakistan. Thank you North Korea for helping them build plants to produce weapons. I'm sure this will lead to no extra issues if/when the governments fall, if/when the governments sell their weapons to extranational groups, if/when they just decide, "***** it--MAD doesn't apply to us."

 

North Korea's regime also makes most of their money in the counterfitting, arms dealing, and other wholesome international criminal activities genre. They are less a self-contained country, and more a mafia organization that also happens to control a country. The fact that so many supposedly well informed people have posted to the contrary in this thread is disturbing.

[Cthulhu D]

Dude, seriously I've met you...you're too smart to not look up your own undoctored media out of Iran. They have taken the time to translate their own quotes (the "they" being the regime) and put English language banners on missiles in parades saying "Israel should be wiped off the face of the world." This is not a "misunderstanding" or "mistranslation" it is repeated and often...quite frankly, I'd like to say the benefit of the doubt is that you don't bother reading about Iran--but you seem equally loud and misinformed about whether North Korea's influence is contained:

 

Iran's messaging is no accident, but I would bet a large sum of money against the primary motivation for the banners being externally looking. Iran has serious internal problems, and they follow the established playbook - blame a external party for all your problems to distract the population. Government's total failure to invest in infrastructure, resulting in petrol shortages in a large oil producing country? Peg it on a Jewish conspiracy rather than a failure of a corrupt government.

 

As the Government is literally pre-selected by the Supreme Leader and his minions, any failing would be his failing and call the very structure of government into question. Those questions are bad because they feed directly into the student activist movements and social unrest, so mobilising the anger against some one else is critical.

 

Of course when Israel actual is running a covert assassination campaign in Iran, it becomes much more believable to boot.

 

There is a risk with this sort of brinkmanship is that it can all go horribly wrong, and it has at-least once in the last decade.

[luke warm]

You do not understand the role of the President. Ahmadinejad's job is to appeal to the audience at home and shift the blame for, say, high petrol prices onto the US and Israel. They are not going to stop him making outrageous statements because his job is to make outrageous statements and pander to the base at home.

how many in iran, and the rest of that part of the world, share your opinion? do you think, for example, the average person in say saudia arabia feels as you do about him?