© 2008 Eric Margolis

Archives > May 08, 2006

IRAN IS NOT A THREAT

Moscow says the current efforts by the Bush Administration to impose sanctions on Iran constitute `the first steps to war.’ The Russians are right on the mark. We are indeed seeing the US preparing the world – and American voters -for a long-expected attack on Iran.

Last week, President George Bush again warned that Iran’s modest program of low-grade nuclear enrichment `is a danger to the entire world.’ Interestingly, he made no mention of Brazil’s announcement that it, too, had succeeded in enriching uranium.

Bush, and Vice President Dick Cheney, both reiterated their hostility towards Iran was being primarily motivated by their concern for Israel.

The uproar over Iran’s nuclear energy program, and Tehran’s angry defiance, certainly helped distract public attention from the Bush Administration’s mounting domestic and foreign policy woes.

It also showed how few people understand the Iranian nuclear question.

Everything Iran has so far done is legal under the Nuclear non-proliferation Treaty. Iran has the right to enrich uranium to 3% to produce nuclear fuel. UN inspectors have reported no evidence that Iran is working on nuclear weapons.

The war fever being whipped up by Dick Cheney and his neocon troops is not about what Iran is dong, but about what it might some day do. Like Iraq, Iran is being told to prove a negative: ie prove you are not secretly making nuclear weapons. If you cannot do this, you are guilty.

We are recalled Saddam’s plaintive words before the US invasion, `how can we prove to them we have no such weapons?’ Ironically, it was Bush who was lying about nuclear weapons and Saddam who told the truth.

Experts say Iran may be in a position to fabricate a crude nuclear weapon in 5-10 years (Israel claims in months), but all the current alarms about Iran ignore a basic reality of nuclear weapons.

A nuclear device is utterly useless unless it can be delivered with moderate accuracy over medium to long distances. One reason I was among the few voices insisting in 2002 that Iraq posed no threat was because it had no delivery systems for any weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s most advanced missile could fly only 130 km. None of its warplanes could carry nuclear weapons. Yet Bush, Colin Powell, and Condoleeza Rice claimed Iraq mortally threatened the US.

Even if Iran could fabricate, miniaturize and harden a nuclear warhead – a difficult technological achievement – and make warheads spin to prevent them tumbling in flight like Iraq’s primitive Scuds, maximum range of Iran’s most advanced missile, the highly inaccurate, unreliable Shahab-3, is only about 1,300 kms(780 miles). Iran has no nuclear-capable aircraft.

The only way Iran could pose the grave nuclear threat to the United States that Bush and his aides loudly claim, would be to send a nuclear device by freighter or `Fedex.’
Civilian aircraft must file flight plans and are monitored, so there is little chance Iran could send one of its 747SP airliners with a bomb aboard.

Each nuclear explosion has a distinctive signature. US monitoring devices would quickly identify the provenance of a nuclear explosion. The US would vaporize the attacking nation within hours.

CIA admits North Korea’s Taep’o-dong missile can today hit North America with a nuclear warhead. India’s developing ICBM’s and sea-launched missiles will also be able to do so in a few years.

But contrast Washington’s nonchalance about these real programs with the contrived hysteria over Iran.

Even if nuclear armed, Iran’s handful of Shahab missiles only have range to hit US bases in the Gulf, or Israel. But these US bases are so close to Iran, any nuclear strike there would blow back on Iran.

That leaves Israel, which has the world’s only effective, operational anti-missile system and an estimated 200 atomic and hydrogen warheads. Iran knows it would be totally destroyed by massive thermonuclear retaliation from Israel’s air, land and sea-based nuclear triad - Israel's nuclear forces could survive any surprise nuclear attack'. Israel currently has one or two new German-built submarines on station in the Arabian Sea off Iran.

If Iran is covertly developing nuclear weapons, it is for reasons of national prestige and self defense. Iran is surrounded by nuclear-armed powers: Israel, India, Russia, Pakistan – and US forces. The Cold War showed strategic nuclear weapons are useless as offensive arms, but effective in warding off attack, exhibit A being North Korea and Israel in 1973.

Yet while fulminating against Iran for developing nuclear power, the Bush Administration is considering using tactical nuclear weapons against deeply buried targets – particularly in the case of Iran.

But, as neocons clamor, what if Iran gives a nuclear weapon to terrorists, who might sneak it into the US? Iran has been at scimitar’s drawn with Sunni militant groups, notably al-Qaida and Taliban. How would Iran benefit by giving a bomb to fanatics that could be quickly traced back to Tehran? Seeing Baltimore blow up is not worth having Iran turned into a radioactive wasteland. It makes no sense.

The European Union’s opposition to Iran’s nuclear program does not come from fear of Iranian attack, but from concern a US-British attack on Iran will produce chaos and violence in its backyard, and enflame Muslim minorities across Europe. Europe, not the US, would likely be the primary victim of revenge-seeking Mideast militants.

Amidst the cries for war against Iran, no Bush Administration official has yet proposed creation of a Mideast nuclear-free zone. The sole nuclear power in the region refuses to consider this option. But, in the end, that is the option most likely to eliminate the nuclear threat.

Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2006



WRITER’S NOTEBOOK

*A recent poll shows 85% of US troops in Iraq actually believe that nation was behind the 9/11 attacks. Thank you Pentagon propaganda. The professional army has become dumbed down since the days of conscription (when I served) when people with intelligence and education served along with those who had none. Even so, I was stuck in a unit from the Deep South nearly all of whose members could barely read or write. That seems the norm in today’s `Army of One.’

*I just read `In the Belly of the Green Bird’ by Nir Rosen(Free Press New York). Unlike nearly all western `embedded’ (read in bed) journalists who do no more than parrot handouts from the military, the Arabic-speaking Rosen went into the field in Iraq and met the resistance forces. He paints a grim view and shows how the US remains a bull in a china shop in Iraq, alienating its people and creating a new host of problems. Anyone who really wants to get a feel of what’s happening in Iraq should read this book. Though not an easy read at times, it conveys truths that we do not hear from other western sources.

*Serbia says it can’t find major war criminals Rato Mladic and Radovan Karadizic. Because it is hiding them. Why do civilized nations continue to put up with such lies? Why have the Arab oil sheiks not put a price of $25 million each on their heads, as the US has done with its Muslim foes? Simple way to motivate Serbia to hand them over: cut off its oil and freeze its foreign bank deposits until it does.

*When George Bush preaches `democracy’ you never hear him mention his ally, Singapore. This rich little island state held `elections’ in which the forever-ruling party won 82 out of 84 seats – the same as the last `election.’ Singapore remains a one-party state with bogus, window- dressing elections.

*Just also finished `The Mitrokhin Archive II’- based on KGB files purloined by archivist Vasili Mitrokhin (Penguin New York/London). A dense compendium of spycraft and Cold War intelligence information. Volume I was more interesting as it dealt with the west. Vol. II covers Latin America, the Third World, China, Japan and India. Mitrokhin’s files confirm that the sainted Chilean Marxist Salvador Allende and his regime were hand in glove with Cuban intelligence and financed by KGB. And reconfirms the fact that Fidel Castro urged the Soviet Union to launch nuclear attacks on the US - even from Cuban soil. The KGB found it could not begin to afford to buy all the Indian politicians and officials who were falling over themselves to sell their nation’s secrets.

*The Bush Administration’s neocons are determined to bring all intelligence under their control to silence any dissenting voices. Hence Bush’s naming the former NSA chief, Gen. Michael Hayden, to head CIA. He’s the officer who disgracefully implemented spying on Americans. Former CIA boss, Porter Goss, was kicked out, among many reasons, because he was `not enough of a team player’ – meaning he occasionally would not provide fake evidence to support the White House party line. Naming Hayden is bad for US democracy and bad for national security. The Pentagon already controls around 80% of the $40 billion per annum US intelligence budget. Enough, already!
***

copyright Eric S. Margolis 2006

Posted by Eric Margolis on May 8, 2006 01:58 PM
Comments:

85% of troops beleive that Iraq was involved in 9/11… that’s amazing.

Lies become truth… if you repeat them enough. (and if you’re obedient)

Posted by D. Canuck at May 8, 2006 06:46 PM

I still can’t believe that Bush is more worried about Iran than North Korea. The Irani govt is rational within their situation, history, and belief system. The North Korean dear leader is freakin’ insane….and he can launch a survivable nuclear attack on the US right now. By “survivable” I mean for him…. he is happy to let millions of his people starve to death already, so I can’t believe he cares any more about them during a nuclear retaliation.

Posted by JonnyBoy0416 at May 9, 2006 09:42 AM

Iran has every right to develop nuclear-powered electricity. In fact it should. It is running down its gas reserves on generators, which is the least optimal use of a high quality fuel like natural gas (this applies everywhere). So the world should be onside with that aspect.

But, does it have the right to have nuclear bombs? I am for disarmament so any tendency to add weapons to the world’s arsenol disturbs me. And accumulating more weapons of any kind is a wasteful use of money and talent. Better for Iran to develop a vibrant economy than spend money feeding a macho ego. But, at the same time Iran has the right to defend itself; most of its neighbours have nuclear weapons and having some itself would act as a deterrent against others’ aggression as Eric notes. Personally, I don’t see the matter as black or white. But I am of the view that attacking this sovereign nation for what it might do in some unspecified future repugnant and beyond the pale.

Posted by ghawley at May 9, 2006 10:09 AM

I find the comparisons to Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the Nazis to be flawed in the extreme, and a perfect example of how we, as Americans, tend to see the enemy as ‘being ten feet tall.’ (F. Zakaria) The only simlarity is the official anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist sentiment that ran through both regimes. Historically and strategically, the situations in Iran and Nazi Germany over half a century ago could not be more different. Hitler’s regime had at it’s disposal the most competent and coordinated miltary force in the world. It in fact WAS ten feet tall, and it took almost six years and combined military resources of most of the world’s great powers to crush it. In the first year of the war, the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe conquered all of continental Europe except Russia, some Balkan states, and Scandinavia with fewer than 27,000 casualties! The US spent over 50% of it’s GDP on a war footing to defeat the threats of WWII. Further, German aggression was clear even before the war officially began. Hitler was actively annexing peaceful neighbors in the interest of acquiring ‘Lebensraum’ for the german ‘ubermensch.’ Appeasment applies to the allies turning a blind eye to Hitler’s clear unprovoked aggression, particularly in the Rhineland, Austria (where he was welcomed as a messiah), and Czechoslovoakia. Last I checked, Iran had no such imperial ambitions or any history of unprovoked aggression against it’s modenr neighbors. Given their history, it is quite rational to assume that any nuclear ambitions that Iran has outside of energy are largely as a bulwark against aggression by unfriendly or otherwise nuclear armed neighbors (Israel, the US occupation forces in Iraq, Pakistan, or even India’s strategic capabilities.

To argue that the current Iran debacle is, or ever will be, even remotely similar to the strategic and political conundrum of Nazi Germany not only represents a very poor understanding of the historical background of the latter situation, but also insults the sacrifice of the millions of Russians, French, British, and American soldiers who gave their lives to defeat the very real global threat of Nazi Germany.

Posted by chatman at May 9, 2006 02:47 PM

Chatman, Chatman, Chatman… tsk… tsk… tsk…

There you go, applying logic and facts when only optics permissible are through blind fear and proud ignorance. Iranians are responsible for the hole in the ozone layer, depleted Cod fish stocks and my neighbour’s relentless flatulence.

Only once the Iranian Evildoers are punished will the Cod rebound, will we be able to lay in the Sun all day long and will my neighbour change his diet.

F%$#@%$# Iranians.

Posted by D. Canuck at May 9, 2006 04:33 PM

First of all, Eric’s spellings are perfect when he writes for DAWN (Pakistan’s oldest english language paper….http://epaper.dawn.com). This, however is his website and he probably half-rolls out of bed to his computer to send us his piece.. and his feet haven’t even touched the ground yet.

Actually thats how I check my email….

Anyway… I had many Iranian buddies in school here in Karachi (they escaped the Ayatollahs) and every last one of them… was an IDIOT. I mean, they’re good guys, but all they could think of was party party party. I have never known an Iranian who didn’t want to party. Totally useless.

Just wanted to tell you something about the Iranian people that you might not have known.

I doubt they’re going to blow up anyone.

Posted by Rampart at May 9, 2006 05:00 PM

Terry: Indeed we all want peace. So can you please stop telling your white trash to stop electing stupid presidents like G. W. Bush. Additionally, you may want to pull the plug a bit on the $30B+ America donates to Israel annually (even Gulf states don’t put half of that into Palestine).

Regarding 911 and the gloves off, I don’t see any the white crackers and their fellow cowboys making any punches yet! In fact, I only see americans getting beating up in Iraq as they were in Vietnam. It seems to me the US is the great bulley but with no muscles.

I can’t rememer ever americans have won any real war since WW-II (and even WW-II is disputable if it wasn’t for the Russian)

Canuck: Any relation to canuckistani ? I say F#$% Canucks , how about that ? I think the world would be better off without anything named Canuck (these evil doers).

Rampart: Anymore news from Pakistan ? How is AQ Khan doing ?

Posted by Tiamo at May 9, 2006 06:09 PM

I agree with Chatman.
Considering the US’ vast deployments of troops worldwide, in this case, the middle east, it is almost a matter of time before most countries in the region, if not everywhere, develop nuclear weapons. This is primarily out of fear of American attack if they do not follow the American line.
Why doesn’t the US attack North Korea?….They HAVE nukes, plus their military is a bit more ..”robust” than say Iraq or Iran. Is North Korea giving nukes to terrorists…no, if they were to, the N Koreans know the US would blow them to high hell.
“Allowing” Israel to have nukes, although the US never speaks of this, and not letting other nations in the region to have them is hippocritical.
I do understand that if Iran were to have nukes….it would be a bad thing….for Israel.
If Israel were to think that their national security was at stake, then fine. Let them attack Iran and face all the consequences that would follow. Will they? Probably not. They will lobby the US to do it for them. Then we will see even more instability in the region and more profits for the oil regime (aka Bush).
A mideast policy of merit would be good right about now.

Cheers

Posted by fwright at May 9, 2006 06:33 PM

THe US dOesn’t do anY tHink about North Koreaa because they have What Iran does not…friends.
As long as China protects them, the US can’t touch NK. Iran on the other hand used to have a friend in Russia, but even that’s strained now that Russia has so much western oil & gas investment. The first job before going to war is to isolate your enemy. As long a China holds the majority of American government debt, the Yanks can’t do a thing. By the way, how did you like my proof-reading? Get a life.

Posted by doppleganger at May 9, 2006 08:11 PM

Rampart Said:

Terry: Indeed we all want peace. So can you please stop telling your white trash to stop electing stupid presidents like G. W. Bush. Additionally, you may want to pull the plug a bit on the $30B+ America donates to Israel annually (even Gulf states don’t put half of that into Palestine).

=============================================

I’ve cut you off here as I don’t like quoting base ignorance and bigotry.

Do you have any clue what country I’m from?

Well apparently you assumed I was American, you’re wrong.

You disagree with me fine, but refrain from ad hominem arguements, and racist remarks. If you’re Canadian you make me quite ill.

Posted by Terry McCracken at May 10, 2006 12:14 AM

Terry:

What is this “Rampart said”??? I say lots of things but I never said THAT.

Out of coffee?

Posted by Rampart at May 10, 2006 01:15 AM

Tiamo:

A reporter dude from an Urdu-language newspaper found himself taking a walk near AQ.Khan’s home. On a whim he walked towards his house (AQ’s house) and found AQ himself walking in his garden. As AQ was surrounded by his minders he couldn’t jump over the fence and get too near to say hi, so he just shouted out, “howwww arrre yuooooo?”.

AQ replied with a hand gesture that said “fine..OK..” And he smiled and yelled back, “tell everyone I’m doing great…”

(reported in the Jang newspaper).

Posted by Rampart at May 10, 2006 01:28 AM

I don’t think that China is really a strong ally of the mad dog Kim Jong-Il. The real reason why the US is wary of attacking North Korea is because anti-Americanism is rife in South Korea, and if the North Korean mad dogs were overthrown, South Korea wouldn’t need American troops any more. Reunited Korea would probably drift into the Chinese sphere (its traditional historical role), possibly alarming Japan into rearmament in competition with China.

Posted by George Carty at May 10, 2006 06:09 AM

Tiamo: There’s no relation between the other Canuck and myself. BTW, what is it with you and the word “cracker?” It’s pretty lame. And if the US has “no muscles” I don’t suppose they’d be occupying Iraq in the first place, would they? Nor would they be out-killing the local forces by a hefty margin.

“I can’t rememer ever americans have won any real war since WW-II”

Desert Storm ring a bell? They took on the Iraqi army that fought the Iranians to an 8-year stalemate and tore it apart in a few weeks. Don’t kid yourself: the US military is led by power-hungry fools but it isn’t weak. Or if it’s weak then please explain to me who’s “strong” in your view.

Rampart:

I concur when it comes to Iranians. The population is very young and generally has no appetite for war. That’s why the regime has backed off on many Islamic restrictions over the last few years. Iranian friends of mine who’ve been back recently say it’s nothing like it was 10-15 years ago. The regime fears an internal uprising as much as it fears US bombing.

As for the Iranian desire to party, it’s far from “totally useless.” If more Muslims allowed themselves to have a little fun and let off steam instead of mindlessly devoting their life to god then maybe the Muslim world would be in a little better shape than it is. Europe was the same way at one point. We call that period the DARK AGES.

Posted by Canuckistani at May 10, 2006 09:45 AM

Since the Jews discovered E=MC2, and most other related theories which spawned nuclear energy, Israel is the only country with a ‘right’ to have nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union, US etc. built their nuclear foundations on the back of kidnapped or emigrated Jewish scientists..Hilter, like the Arabs, was finally an IDIOT.

Regarding, Iranians- their women rock. The Iranian men of course are so insecure about having such beautiful women, that they have to spend a lifetime ( and devise a political system)figuring out how to cover them, and deny the rest of the world the most heavenly of beauties. They will rot in hell for covering them up.Stupid guys. I am sure their nukes/missiles won’t work.

Posted by KaraSwart at May 10, 2006 09:47 AM

Canuckistani:

Please don’t be stupid. My Iranian friends were idiots to party all the time while ignoring their school work.

Pakistanis are Asians and if I didn’t do my homework (and some more) and get good grades, I’d get smacked. (fly swatter)

Get it? Iranian values are not compatible with Asian values. I was making no reference to religion and it was a bit silly of you to assume so.

People who party party party and ignore school, are idiots by any definition of the word.

Confusion cleared?

Posted by Rampart at May 10, 2006 09:55 AM

Karaswart:

Just because they are mentally unbalanced and cover up their women doesn’t mean their missiles won’t work. LOL

I mean, I think you are right… it might very well be useless, but how can you link it to them covering up their women?

And don’t you get to see enough women wherever you’re at? (India?) Why the lusting after Iranian women? I’ve known quite a few and I’ve never been attracted to one.

Posted by Rampart at May 10, 2006 10:03 AM

I think the comments are turning weird.

First, some guy didn’t like Eric’s spellings… then same guy thought I said something which I never did.

Then Canuckistani came up with the bright idea that if you get failing grades in school all the time because you’re out partying all the time, you must be given a medal, LOL.

Canuckistani, here’s one for you (from the top of my head)… find me an Iranian who can solve a quadratic equation….LOL.

And then we have Karaswart, who is horny.

Whats happening here???

Posted by Rampart at May 10, 2006 10:11 AM

If you are horny and you say “I bet their missile doesn’t work”, it means one is victim of “penis envy”.

There! Now I have made a weird post.

Posted by Rampart at May 10, 2006 10:15 AM

For crying out loud, nobody is a victim of Iranian oenis envy. ( Plenty have penis envy vis-a-vis the blacks).

I do envy Iranians their beautiful women. How does that make me horny??

Saddam, Iranians are all masters of bluster. Stolen technology can be switched off..The poor Argentinians learnt that lesson during the Falklands war..

Posted by KaraSwart at May 10, 2006 10:57 AM

Rampart:

Covering women always increases the lust factor. Which I thought the purpose of covering women was anyway. Remember the Bikini Effect? What you see is good, but what is covered is terrific!!

Posted by KaraSwart at May 10, 2006 11:00 AM

Sorry Rampart, my mistake, it should have read,
Tiamo Said:

This isn’t a well put together forum, I’ll have to read who said what to whom more carefully.

Terry

Posted by Terry McCracken at May 10, 2006 11:31 AM

Yo Tiamo…

Nope, I’m not related to Canuckistani or anyone else on this site. In case you mjissed it, my remark about Iranians was supposed to be satirical…blaming them for my neighbour’s flatulence should’ve tipped you off.

But your point is valid… the world could use less Canucks and no one would notice. I saw on Jay Leno’s ‘Headlines’ a few weeks ago, an ad for a peace group in the Los Angeles area, and the ad said “No Canucks” and Jay was laughing and wondering ‘Why?’…

I’ll tell you why, because we’re a bunch of pusillanimous wankers; lots of talk but no substance, no action, and no importance.

We’re the know-it-all uncle that evveryone wishes would just shut-the-f#ck-up and get a real job.

There, I feel better.

Posted by D. Canuck at May 10, 2006 04:03 PM

KaraSwart:

What do you think they are covering up? All women come with boobs… in fact, did you know boobs are so common that there are twice as many boobs on this earth as there are women?…. so Iranian boobs are nothing to get excited about. Or do you expect to see a third boob under all those clothes?

Posted by Rampart at May 10, 2006 04:51 PM

Rampart:

you told us a story about your slacker Iranian friends who wanted to party all the time and then followed it up with: “Just wanted to tell you something about the Iranian people that you might not have known.”

Sure sounded like a generalization of Iranians to me - one that makes them “useless.”

Even if that wasn’t your point I still agree with it. Iranian youth especially are more western and relaxed than their counterparts in the Arab world or Pakistan.

Posted by Canuckistani at May 10, 2006 05:07 PM

BTW, in case the above wasn’t clear, I agree with the generalization of Iranians being more party-happy, not the “useless” part.

Posted by Canuckistani at May 10, 2006 05:09 PM

Canuckistani:

Quit being a whiny officious little prick.

Useless:
1.Dullard.
2.Failed in final exam or got a very low grade.
3.No respect for the education their parents were paying good money for.
4.Constantly goofing off.

Nothing more and nothing less. Period.

It was amazing. I knew over 2 dozen Iranians in school. ALL kept getting low grades (english language education) in science subjects (physics and maths, A’levels). What other opinion should I have about them?

Posted by Rampart at May 10, 2006 05:41 PM

If you share and admire the same values as the Iranians I knew, then you’re probably a doofus too. Perhaps even a school drop-out.

Thing is…. in recent events, have the Iranians given ANY hint that they are smart?

“We will wipe Isreal off the map”. LOL. Real smart huh?

My generalizations are pretty perceptive, I say.

Posted by Rampart at May 10, 2006 05:56 PM

Rampart, the question here is whether you are applying the label “useless” to ALL Iranians just because your pals were.

That’s what I’m trying to clear up with you.

Is Iran’s leadership made up of idiots? Yup. Were your friends useless? Sure sounds like it.

Most Iranians, meanwhile (esp. the young), are hard-working, intelligent, modern people who don’t want to live in the Middle Ages. That makes them pretty smart in my books - especially compared to the rest of the neighbourhood.

Posted by Canuckistani at May 10, 2006 07:30 PM

Terry: I’m reaslly sorry i’ve offended, my sincere apologize. I definitely don’t want to be labeled as racist or an idiot or a “base ignorance” such as G.W. Bush and probably 60% of the american population including yourself! Maybe you should apply for a green card here, i’m sure will fit you just fine.

My problem with you that you made the most stupid argument “we all want peace in this world, but some countries do not” and that was your excuse for invading Iran. Why not look at it the other way, your beloved US have been toppling regimes in the name of democracy for the past 50 years and they wrecked nothing buy havoc in this world. Iran could be a threat (eventually), but the US in my opinion is a bigger threat not only on the World but also on itself (e.g. failing social, huge debts and bully like foreign policies).

On the subject of Iranians:

- Their women are mostly hot and I have to agree on that one too.
- Most Iranians appear to be quite proud of their Iranian nationality but anything beyond that is questionable (e.g. their royalty to religion..etc)
- Lastly, while I haven’t met many successful Iranians, I do look at history and history have shown that Persians/Iranians are extremely strong fighters. Latest example would be the Iraq/Iran war. Iraq had all the advantage to run over the Iranian army, but nevertheless the Iranian made a strong come back which I credit to their strong determination and warrior like spirit.
- Are the Iranians smart ? I doubt it really, they could be strong but not much brains in there and latest example is their latest president who couldn’t keep his mouth shut and play the diplomacy game!

Rampart: Thanks for the update :-)

Posted by Tiamo at May 10, 2006 08:54 PM

Canuckistani:

—-Most Iranians, meanwhile (esp. the young), are hard-working, intelligent, modern people who don’t want to live in the Middle Ages. That makes them pretty smart in my books - especially compared to the rest of the neighbourhood.———

What a snide little comment…. LOL. (your bigoted slip is showing)

You keep saying, despite all evidence to the contrary, how Iranians want change and and how they are somehow better than the rest of us. Really? Howcome they elected Ahmedinejad… a guy who hates everything modern (including the internet) except when it comes to weapons of mass destruction?

Well the fact is, compared to Pakistan and the rest of their neighbors, Iran is the one living in the Middle Ages with no hope of change except by violence. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to step into that suffocating country.

Go to Dubai and then go to Iran. No comparison. More than a third of Pakistan’s elected lawmakers are women. Iran? Not in a million years. A woman walks out without a headscarf? She risks jail.

So they have “western” values, huh? LOL

What planet are you living on?

Posted by Rampart at May 10, 2006 11:59 PM

Canuckistani:

Who is generalizing now? LOL

Posted by Rampart at May 11, 2006 12:01 AM

Tiamo:

Now and then, he also gets fake heart problems and manages to make himself faint in front of important people, creating a scene. Then the Govt. gives him whatever he wants and he becomes fine again. But its OK… we all love him.

Posted by Rampart at May 11, 2006 12:16 AM

Or maybe his health problems were for real.. what do I know, I’m no doctor.

Anyway, he seems to be fine these days.

Posted by Rampart at May 11, 2006 12:21 AM

About 2 years ago, a pal of mine who works for an automobile interiors parts making company (seats, roofs linings, dashboards, inside door panels, etc.) went to Iran to get cheap aluminum molds made of the inside roof of cars like Civics, Corollas and Suzukis.

He told me quite a lot about Iran.

They are not hard working at all. In fact my pal was constantly told (in not so many words), “why? what is the hurry? we’ll get it done”. A job that takes no more than a few days, took many trips and more than 6 months. Now they’ve given up and are making all these molds themselves. The Iranians were USELESS to deal with. He was, in fact, asked by his Iranians friend, “Why are you people always in a hurry? It is bad for your health. I’ve been to Pakistan, and all your bosses keep putting pressure on the people who work for you…. we don’t do that here.”

WOW. What an idiot. With THAT attitude…… yeah, sure.

So this is “westernized” huh? If I ever try to be “westernized” someone shoot me. hahahahahaha

Posted by Rampart at May 11, 2006 12:34 AM

An Iranian (in Dubai) told me that the revolution taught them a great lesson- the power of religion to divide and destroy. Religion is an unnecessary middleman between man & God. The omnipotent, omnipresent & omniscient does not need a middleman. Once religion pervades a society it is destroyed..Look at India/Pak. One country divided for the most stupid of reasons- religion!! ( India has more muslims than Pakistan so I don’t understand what the division was all about!!)

Posted by KaraSwart at May 11, 2006 04:31 AM

KaraSwart:

The division wasn’t exactly because of religious differenes. It could be argued that Hindu/Muslim division played a part, but it only played a part indirectly.

The real reason was that Nehru and Congress had a socialistic setup in mind and Jinnah and the Muslim League feared that their constituents will not be represented in fair numbers in the central Govt. Since Nehru was a socialist and Jinnah was something of a Capitalist, Jinnah feared this would tranlate into economic sidelining.

Gandhi tried his best to resolve the differences between the two sides… but he couldn’t seeing all the trouble that took place in the streets.

Many people claim, the British created Pakistan as a conspiracy to keep tabs on India. So that the sub-continent as a whole never becomes too strong. Sometimes I think, maybe they’re right. It was their way to divide and conquer.

Anyway, it wasn’t quite about religion. The reasons were economic and political.

Posted by Rampart at May 11, 2006 07:21 AM

KaraSwart:

It sez in the Koran that the people whose business is religion… the middlemen, as you say… priests, the pope, rabbis, mullahs, the ayatollahs, etc…. most of them will end up in Hell.

So I’m quite sure, since I believe in the Koran, that the people who run Iran really are going to rot in Hell. Dubya and his Southern Baptists are heading there too. Problem is, how much trouble will they make for others before they pop off?

Posted by Rampart at May 11, 2006 07:26 AM

Representation in a democracy is a function of majority. Bangladesh seperated from the Pakistani union for the same reason. These issues could easily have been sorted but for some massive egos i.e. of Jinnah & Nehru. Now that they are not there, why not reunification??

Posted by KaraSwart at May 11, 2006 08:09 AM

It wasn’t about massive egos… It was about Bihar. Thats where all the street trouble started from. After that, I would say, Jinnah and Nehru got swept away.

Re-unification? Whatever for? The US will kill itself before that happens. LOL

Posted by Rampart at May 11, 2006 09:20 AM

I can also say with some confidence that most Pakistanis will not want to take back Bangladesh, even if it is offered to us on a plate. Pakistan is better off without those perpetually starving people. And thanks to global warming they’re going to lose over 50% of their prime farming area to flooding.

The reason for Bangaladesh seperating was something we failed to do (and India did do) long time ago. Nehru got rid of all these Nawabs and Maharajas etc. We, however, didn’t… not realizing that these feudals are like a cancer.

And that was the reason for Bangladesh, actually…. a feudal called Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.

Posted by Rampart at May 11, 2006 09:28 AM

I mean, you are correct… I am telling you the reason behind the reason.

Posted by Rampart at May 11, 2006 09:29 AM

Rampart:

I believe that God is the ultimate bandwidth. So no need for holy books too. Each person will be individually enlightened.

Re hell & heaven- both are here. If you are ‘realised’ you are in heaven, if you are ‘ignorant’ you are in hell. No further goodies required.

Heaven is the sum total of all realised people on Earth.

Posted by KaraSwart at May 11, 2006 09:57 AM

Tiamo:

Terry: I’m reaslly sorry i’ve offended, my sincere apologize. I definitely don’t want to be labeled as racist or an idiot or a “base ignorance” such as G.W. Bush and probably 60% of the american population including yourself! Maybe you should apply for a green card here, i’m sure will fit you just fine.
============================================
Tiamo, you persist in your ad hominem attack;Do you think being an insipid, crass, troll will win you points?

Even someone as emotional as yourself, should realize by now I’m not American. But if I were I’d take this with a grain of salt, understanding you’re a cretinous misanthrope.
===========================================
My problem with you that you made the most stupid argument “we all want peace in this world, but some countries do not” and that was your excuse for invading Iran. Why not look at it the other way, your beloved US have been toppling regimes in the name of democracy for the past 50 years and they wrecked nothing buy havoc in this world. Iran could be a threat (eventually), but the US in my opinion is a bigger threat not only on the World but also on itself (e.g. failing social, huge debts and bully like foreign policies).
============================================
This in no way explains your behaviour. Nor does it illuminate what my intent was or is.

I never once said we should invade Iran or implied that we should. I made it clear that Iran can’t have nuclear capability. This wouldn’t necessitate an invasion, but it would entail a heavy, sustained air assaut, to neutralize Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

I’ll submit a quote, which albiet is out of context, serves the purpose to explain how dangerous it would be to allow Iran the Bomb.

This quote is taken from another forum, the author is Amir Ban from Israel, and author of the Chess Program Deep Junior.
=============================================
“As an aside, I don’t think you’ve given much thought to the possibilities and consequences of Iran having nukes. I’m afraid there is little chance that they won’t use them if they get them, but it won’t happen right away, and then probably not immediately against the US or Israel. There are endless blackmail possibilities, especially against neighboring Arabs and against Europe. Once they get around to using nukes (and they will), starting off easy and safe makes sense.”

Amir
============================================

I hope I’ve finally conveyed my message to you and this board.

Terry

Posted by Terry McCracken at May 11, 2006 03:49 PM

The reason for Iranians’ lackadaisical approach to work is not that Iranians are lazy. It is that they are underemployed and so stretch activities to fill in the time. If they worked in as efficient a manner as workers in the developed world, they would have lots of time on their hands — too much — and be bored. This is a common situation in many developing countries.

Posted by ghawley at May 11, 2006 04:33 PM

Eric says: Simple way to motivate Serbia to hand them over: cut off its oil and freeze its foreign bank deposits until it does.

He keeps forgetting that Russia is a major oil exporter!! Serbia doesn’t depend on the Arabs for oil.

Posted by KaraSwart at May 12, 2006 03:43 AM

Quite right.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/330589.stm

Ghawley:

There was a very successful Amreekan businessman/investor who was known to have a knack for making extra profitable investments on the stock market. When asked his secret once, he said, there isn’t a secret. Its only common sense. Whatever company you want to target for buying stock in, try out the product or service for yourself. For example he invested huge in a tiny (at that time) hotel chain because he stayed there and loved the service.

Small things do matter in the end. Look out for the small signs.

Similarly people do have a “national character”. It might not be politically correct to say so, but it is true.

You may be right… it might only be underemployment.. it certainly would be a factor. But a major factor? I don’t know. I know these guys. I know guys who know these guys. My family and friends have had low level business contacts with Iran on and off since last 40 years. If the proof of the pudding is in the tasting, I’ve tasted this pudding and it doesn’t taste so good.

But, as Wooster once told his butler Jeeves (who served him breakfast), “Jeeves, this omelette tastes HORRIBLE..!”

Jeeves replied, “I assure you sir, parts of it are quite excellent.” LOL

No, they aren’t a total loss (great culture and literature) and have much to offer. They would have even more to offer if they weren’t so laid-back.

Posted by Rampart at May 12, 2006 04:41 AM

I have very recently joined this board. It is quite surprising really. Eric’s writing is poorly researched, biased and generally puerile. But I have seen some of the cast of characters on this board are pretty damn good. At least EM has served his purpose as a ‘loss leader’!!!

Posted by KaraSwart at May 12, 2006 06:26 AM

KaraSwart: you echoed a sentiment I inserted in an earlier edition, namely thanks to the contributors this is one of the most educational political sites.
As for your derogatory remark about Eric’s research, Eric is a path breaker of truth rather than parroter of official party lines. Most of what he deduces is confirmed by later events and experts. His sources comprise calendestine talks with CIA, military and other foreign service personnel, and his own travels. He reads the tea leaves and his track record is practically impeccable. That being said, no one is perfect and he is called out on this blog for mistakes ranging from typos to facts such as Serbia’s oil being supplied by Russia so LOL getting an embargo.

On balance, and very much on the whole, he offers great reading value and he demonstrates courage where many fear to tread. Hope you come to appreciate him for that over time. Regards.

Posted by ghawley at May 12, 2006 02:20 PM

Thank. i have read Eric in the Dawn. He sounds like an apologist for the Islamists- and his writing is extremely biased. Besides, his book the one about the war on the mountains is full of inaccuracies. I used to read this guy for his sheer audacity!!

Having said that, he has managed some good chaps on this board. So he is irrelevant, excpet for making the connection with you guys.

Posted by KaraSwart at May 12, 2006 03:28 PM

Question: Is this chap i.e. EM a fresh convert to Islam or something? I don’t know. He has the xeal of a fresh convert to anything!!

Posted by KaraSwart at May 12, 2006 03:31 PM

Karaswat: not sure why you think Eric is a zealous Islam booster. Presenting another’s point of view, as he almost uniquely does, doesn’t mean he is a sympathizer. Doing so fosters understanding and perhaps sympathy. Nothing wrong with that if its appropriate. Indeed, understanding Muslim frustrations and ambitions and yearnings is sorely needed by those of us in the West. If frustrations are caused by greed, stupidity, malevolent intentions, and Christian-Jewish religious animosity and corporate imperialism, as they often are, then even you might feel some sympathy for them. This is not to give a blank cheque - there are cultural aspects of Islam that suck. Compassion, KS, is an important human and spiritual value and how else to get it without qwalking in someone else’s sandles? You can thank Eric for that.

I need you to get more specific about your allegations as they appear gratuitous and intended to damage his erputation and integrity. I ask you to henceforth support your allegations and innuendos by adding evidence for consideration by those who read and particpate in this forum.

Posted by ghawley at May 12, 2006 05:43 PM

I second that.

Please be specific. Give an example or two (quotations) when he wrote something in DAWN which you think is anti-India. I, for one, have never noticed.

Posted by Rampart at May 12, 2006 11:28 PM

Also, even though the Serbs might get their oil from non-Arab sources, there is nothing stopping the rich oily Arabs to put a bounty on the Serb criminals. $50 million for their heads. Eric is right, you know.

Posted by Rampart at May 12, 2006 11:30 PM

Terry,

While you have made eminently clear your opinion that Iran should not be allowed to develop a nuclear capability, you have completely failed to rationalize why this should be so. Taking a quote from another board posted by an Israeli (the current Mideast nuclear monopoly state) adds little support to your claim. How do you and Amir know the Iranians would use such weapons if they had them? Given what we know of Iran as a nation, I think the odds are very much against a pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons. If, however, US forces were belligerent enough to launch another ‘preventative war’ to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, the Iranians may indeed have pretext to retaliate using nuclear, conventional, diplomatic, or economic means.

Much has been made of Ahmadinejad’s absurd comments denying the Holocaust and threatening Israel’s sovereignty. Some here think that’s just Iranian stupidity. I think it’s an example of winning political points among your constituencies by uniting them against foreigners. Such behavior is nothing new. US politicians are guilty of the same childish antics (Dubai Ports, 9/11 fearmongering, Iraq), as are many other governments. Regardless of Iran’s tough talk, they have little incentive or capability to carry out their threats. Do you seriously think that a government that is partially elected, and serves over 60 million people in an oil-rich nation, would make good on these threats? Ahmadinejad has a responsibility to his constituents and his party; the promise of prosperity and greater influence in the Central Asia cannot be fulfilled by the use of nuclear weapons. By contrast, simply wielding and retaining an MSD (minimum sufficient deterrence) arsenal suitable to prevent unilateral military adventurism by the Israelis and Americans gives the Iranians a lot more bargaining power and security. And if they use nuclear weapons to intimidate or bargain for greater regional influence, how does that make them more or less diabolical than any other nuclear power?

Rest assured, the Americans are not going to take military action against Iranian nuclear assets. I can think of no single action that would be more dangerous to US occupation forces in Afghanistan and Iraq than angering the most powerful regional player in the Middle East. The US military is facing a slowly escalating civil war in Iraq, increasing tribal banditry in the Afghan mountains, manpower and equipment deficits, low morale, and decreasing public support of it’s civilian leadership. A poorly conceived attack against Iran would create the perfect storm to wash away the few, if any, successes American overseas imperialism has enjoyed so far,

Posted by chatman at May 13, 2006 03:47 AM

Rampart: This bit about India targetting North America!! He dares suggest that a communist country like China can have nukes but not the world’s largest democracy!! India never signed the NPT because it did not like nuclear apartheid. Pakistan took cover under India’s action and did not sign too.

Thankfully, the good part of living in a democracy is no politician dares sign off India’s rights.

India is estimated to have some 100 nuclear devices and ample capability to deliver them by air and short-to- intermediate range missiles.

No mention was made by Washington or the gushing US media about India’s rapid development of intercontinental-range ballistic missiles under cover of civilian space research, capable of reaching North America. Or India’s new nuclear submarines that are to carry missiles with nuclear warheads capable of hitting North America. So enthralled has America become at the prospect of rich new markets in India and a new ally against the Muslim World that India’s strategic developments have been totally ignored.

Posted by KaraSwart at May 13, 2006 04:51 AM

Rampart:

The world would be better served if the Arab leaders put a bounty on their own heads rather than on the Serbs. There is a NATO bounty on them already. Hats off to the Serbs for not falling for it, inspite of their poverty.

War criminals should be brought to justice. But not thru the wild west methods that this chap suggests.

Posted by KaraSwart at May 13, 2006 04:54 AM

Rampart:

Finally his thesis about a nuclear war between India & Pakistan. India does not have a first use policy. No muslim leader in Pakistan would want to sanction a nuclear attack on Indian cities and go down in history as the biggest killer of muslims. India is the second largest muslim country after Indonesia..

Posted by KaraSwart at May 13, 2006 04:58 AM

Rampart: This bit about India targetting North America!! He dares suggest that a communist country like China can have nukes but not the world’s largest democracy!! India never signed the NPT because it did not like nuclear apartheid. Pakistan took cover under India’s action and did not sign too.

Thankfully, the good part of living in a democracy is no politician dares sign off India’s rights.

Eric M writes:

India is estimated to have some 100 nuclear devices and ample capability to deliver them by air and short-to- intermediate range missiles.

No mention was made by Washington or the gushing US media about India’s rapid development of intercontinental-range ballistic missiles under cover of civilian space research, capable of reaching North America. Or India’s new nuclear submarines that are to carry missiles with nuclear warheads capable of hitting North America. So enthralled has America become at the prospect of rich new markets in India and a new ally against the Muslim World that India’s strategic developments have been totally ignored

Posted by KaraSwart at May 13, 2006 05:18 AM

Thats it? Thats it???

Really, you shouldn’t be so sensitive. This was nothing.

You should know, EM, as you call him, is quite anti-Mushi. I totally respect the President and think he’s great for the country. When EM sez something negative about Mushi (and there have been plenty of times), not only do I take that as being anti-Mushi, I also take it as anti-Pakistan, because the implication is that we should go back to the elected swine we had before … Baldy and The Bitch. But then I don’t expect non-Pakistanis to understand how rotten the previous people were. So I recognize the fact that it isn’t out of spite or anything.

Read the archives. You’ll find plenty of such stuff.

And you ought to feel proud India is, or will be, in a position to blow Amreeka to the moon (not that India or Pakistan wants to do that). I know I am, about Pakistan’s firepower. And anyway, he is only talking about the potential for damage… he never said someone was going to press the button. Strategic thinking is done by measuring potentials and extrapolating data into the future. EM is a military historian and strategist and I’ve learnt a lot by reading his stuff over the years.

Posted by Rampart at May 13, 2006 03:27 PM

The NPT is a piece of shit. The paper it is written on can only be used as toilet paper. I’m glad Pakistan wasn’t stupid enough to sign this nonsense.

——No muslim leader in Pakistan would want to sanction a nuclear attack on Indian cities and go down in history as the biggest killer of muslims.——-

Well… don’t be surprised… if you are surprised. LOL

Posted by Rampart at May 13, 2006 03:46 PM

Rampart;

America is an idea. I quite like the idea. Indians in general like the US. Among all the countries in the world US had the best positive response from India.

EM is no strategist. He has an audience in the Muslim countries which he panders to by writing virulently Anti American articles- damn the logic!! Much like a British MP…

Posted by KaraSwart at May 13, 2006 05:13 PM

KaraSwart, you come across as a red neck neocon. Equating EM’s revealing Bush and his gang for the thugs they are is not anti-American, it is actually pro-American. Eric actually cares enough to speak the truth. The truth seems to offend your patriotic sensibilities - reminiscent of the Love It or Leave it attitude of your red neck ancestors during the Vietnam er. So open your mind and your hearts to others, or stay with the cosy sites where the blind lead the blind. Again, you are calling him names, making innuendo, with no substantiation. So put up or shut up. Else you just come across as an ignoramus.

Posted by ghawley at May 13, 2006 05:55 PM

KaraSwart:

Your thinking about Amreeka is naive. You can be their “ally” but never their “friend”.

We learnt that the hard way over a period of 50 years. Now its your turn. Good luck. LOL

Posted by Rampart at May 14, 2006 02:41 AM

Rampart:

There are no permanent friends or enemies-only permanent interests. We had no problem managing this relationship with the US or balancing US versus the Soviets for the last 50 years.

Posted by KaraSwart at May 14, 2006 03:10 AM

Well… as long as you understand what you’re getting yourself into…

Posted by Rampart at May 14, 2006 03:20 AM

Absolutely. US is never managed from outside. It is managed from inside. Key thing is for your people to control from within inside- especially the key sectors…Then your interests conflate..Re friends as Gordon Geko said ‘get yourself a dog.’

Posted by KaraSwart at May 14, 2006 04:36 AM

ghawley:

There are no such things as cons or neocons. These are simplistic labels. The world is changing, new powers are emerging and there will be stresses and strains in the world order.

Any references to religious groupings is puerile- for an educated analysis I suggest you read Amartya Sen’s very recent work: ’ Identity & Violence: The illusion of Destiny’. Once you get accustomed to aome good writing you will probably begin to distinguish low level tripe.

Posted by KaraSwart at May 14, 2006 06:08 AM

India is a boiling pot that will explode one day and Pakistan will have to bear all the flying shit. Don’t look at the stable democracy in India; India is the world most unstable country.

Posted by Peace at May 14, 2006 09:40 AM

KaraSwart: I am still pissed at your ongoing unsubstantiated put downs of EM. The accused has a right to hear the evidence. A favorite technique of the Right is, instead of using logic to refute an unconfortable message, they shoot the messenger by sullying his or her reputation. Definitely bush.

As for sayings using words like con or neocon is simple labelling (and in uninforming), I think that opinion is a simple way to deflect the spotlight from what is happening in the US today. The latter term in particular is helpful in describing a movement that has seized control of the USA uder questionable circumstances. Tell the recently converted Francis Fukoyama, who just wrote “America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy”, that neocon is a simplistic label. Sure there is more going on than any one word can capture, but such labels are useful in situating a probelm and hence (we hope) solution.

The Christian fundamentalist religious links to the White House and the implications are scoped out in: ” American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21stCentury” by Kevin Phillips. Worth a read.

These folks would, I submit, parlay well with EM.

Cheers, and happy mothers’ day to all the moms reading this.

Posted by ghawley at May 14, 2006 11:44 AM

Ghawley:

I’m nobody’s mother but happy mother’s day to you too.

Karaswart:

You really have a very thin skin. Very easy to bait.

If you don’t control yourself, it’ll only get worse. People here pick up on such things in a second.

Peace:

Man… I was doing so well with this Indian dude… did you have to go and do that? LOL

Posted by Rampart at May 14, 2006 02:16 PM

Peace:

However KaraSwart’s reaction to your post has demonstrated why India is such a soft and easy target. One poke in the bum and….

So I guess you made your point quite well plus the point that whatever he is accusing Eric of is just so much blather.

Posted by Rampart at May 14, 2006 02:25 PM

Terry,

While you have made eminently clear your opinion that Iran should not be allowed to develop a nuclear capability, you have completely failed to rationalize why this should be so. Taking a quote from another board posted by an Israeli (the current Mideast nuclear monopoly state) adds little support to your claim. How do you and Amir know the Iranians would use such weapons if they had them? Given what we know of Iran as a nation, I think the odds are very much against a pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons. If, however, US forces were belligerent enough to launch another ‘preventative war’ to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, the Iranians may indeed have pretext to retaliate using nuclear, conventional, diplomatic, or economic means.

What’s your point, by saying “Israel is a Nuclear Monopoly”?

I’ve no doubt, knowing Iran’s history they are very very dangerous country if the obtain nuclear
weapons. They are run at present by Hard-Liners, it wouldn’t take much to send them into a frenzy!

Even if left alone, they would no doubt at the very least supply terrorists with the materials to make a nuclear weapon and use it against the United States or Israel.

Here’s an unusual article.

http://www.abqtrib.com/albq/nw_world/article/0,2564,ALBQ_19864_4696857,00.html

Much has been made of Ahmadinejad’s absurd comments denying the Holocaust and threatening Israel’s sovereignty. Some here think that’s just Iranian stupidity. I think it’s an example of winning political points among your constituencies by uniting them against foreigners. Such behavior is nothing new. US politicians are guilty of the same childish antics (Dubai Ports, 9/11 fearmongering, Iraq), as are many other governments. Regardless of Iran’s tough talk, they have little incentive or capability to carry out their threats. Do you seriously think that a government that is partially elected, and serves over 60 million people in an oil-rich nation, would make good on these threats? Ahmadinejad has a responsibility to his constituents and his party; the promise of prosperity and greater influence in the Central Asia cannot be fulfilled by the use of nuclear weapons. By contrast, simply wielding and retaining an MSD (minimum sufficient deterrence) arsenal suitable to prevent unilateral military adventurism by the Israelis and Americans gives the Iranians a lot more bargaining power and security. And if they use nuclear weapons to intimidate or bargain for greater regional influence, how does that make them more or less diabolical than any other nuclear power?

You’ve got to be kidding? So you feel it’s okay for an unstable country to have nuclear weapons and the ability to launch them thanks to North Korea, who threaten the US and Israel??

Rest assured, the Americans are not going to take military action against Iranian nuclear assets. I can think of no single action that would be more dangerous to US occupation forces in Afghanistan and Iraq than angering the most powerful regional player in the Middle East. The US military is facing a slowly escalating civil war in Iraq, increasing tribal banditry in the Afghan mountains, manpower and equipment deficits, low morale, and decreasing public support of it’s civilian leadership. A poorly conceived attack against Iran would create the perfect storm to wash away the few, if any, successes American overseas imperialism has enjoyed so far,

Well I think I know where you stand, and quite frankly you can go to hell.

You overstate the situation against the US, and for all intents and purposes are saying they lost the war. You should write for some communist, or better yet some Arab propaganda machine!

Mark my Words, The United States Will Attack Iran’s Nuclear Facilities! The question isn’t IF it’s WHEN!

Posted by chatman at May 13, 2006 03:47 AM

Posted by Terry McCracken at May 14, 2006 02:36 PM

Peace, Rampart:

My dear Paki friends. I have nothing against acknowledging fissiparious tendencies in the Indian Union. The good bit of a democracy is that the pressure has outlets- unlike a China or dare I say Pakistan.

Having said that, I am not looking for any more division but reunification. After all we are one people. I can understand Baluchistan or NWFP seceding from Pakistan, but why is Punjab divided and why does Sindh want to seperate? We were divided for the most stupid of reasons- religion. We have everything in the holy land, no need to look towards the Middle East!! Overseas Pakistani’s generally agree that partition was stupid. Doesn’t matter, we will get together soon.

Posted by KaraSwart at May 14, 2006 04:38 PM

ghawley: Let’s do a simple high school exercise. Forget this chaps other writing- which I quoted before ( especially those gems about Inida targetting North America, Arabs putting a bounty on Serbian heads etc) and look at this current article (including additional comments). Ask a reasonably intelligent high school student to analyse this article for utter contradictions ( eg.first he says Iran is not developing nukes, then he says Iran is developing nukes because of nukes in the neighbourhood etc. etc) and other inconsistentcies and you realise why I say that the writing is merely written to pander to the ‘Arab Street’. I agree it is a good niche segment for making a living, so maybe I shouldn’t complain!!

Posted by KaraSwart at May 14, 2006 04:46 PM

KaraSwart: I hear you. I have often thought Eric should have a second pair of eyes scan his work for typos and such logical inconsistencies. I fill in some blanks myself, for example, since I believe Iran should have access to nuclear energy, but for peacenik would rather it didn’t have the bomb, I squared those inconsisitencies by differentiating between energy and nukes. Probably should not have to do that, which is your point. Thanks for being precise. Chaio,

Posted by ghawley at May 14, 2006 05:34 PM

ghawley: Thanks. The chap needs more grey matter & definitely more objectivity if he has to avoid being the subject of ridicule. (Unless of he course he has taken a concsious decision not be objective- like the religious lunatics). An extra pair of eyes will not help.

In any case, the guys here are good at unpeeling the onion. Thanks to EM’s crap we can discuss issues better even if it turns a little angtsy. Everybody serves a purpose I guess..

Posted by KaraSwart at May 14, 2006 05:58 PM

KS - I sided with you on the grammar and some of the inconsistent logic, but I do not buy into your “Arab side of the street”. Quite th eoposite - I think th eman is spot on most of the time. He is no apologist for anyone or regime and, think about this, wuold you have the guts to reveal the rational for attacking Iraq as a pack of lies months beofre it happened in the post-9/11 our Prez can do no wrong hysteria? Stick around and open your mind and heart and see polictcs from the non-Fox side. Stick around to debate the issues, but your subtle slanders have got to go.

Posted by ghawley at May 14, 2006 08:17 PM

Terry,

Telling me that I can ‘go to hell,’ or pre-supposing that my opinions are those of a ‘communist’ or are suitable for ‘an Arab propaganda machine’ unfortunately do little to support any of your assertions. Repeating the same unsupported assumptions doesn’t make them any more compelling, though your amateur psychoanalysis of my political ideology and spiritual destiny do make a compelling argument against your ability to cogently argue a point of view. It’s too bad telling someone to go to hell doesn’t help you win an argument!

I won’t discuss your personal attacks beyond stating that they are both unproductive and do nothing to strengthen your views. Some pillars of your argument, however, are at least worthy of some analysis…

First off, the link you provided leads to a blank page. Maybe you could paraphrase the article for us? I’ll answer some of our questions and points as I see them…

“What’s your point, by saying “Israel is a Nuclear Monopoly”?”
Because Israel has a nuclear monopoly in a historically hostile neighborhood, the people and government of Israel are inclined to bias in their characterization of a nuclear-armed Muslim nation. As such, the objectivity of any patriotic Israeli in discussing this real threat value of a nuclear armed to the world is questionable. I have to wonder how it is that he can credibly state that what threatens Israel threatens the world, or his ability to even accurately differentiate between the rhetoric and the political and strategic reality in Iran. Remember, the Indian and Pakistani governments had been talking of obliterating each other in nuclear fires for some time after 1998. Today, they are engaged in multi-level peace talks to prevent just such a possibility.

“I’ve no doubt, knowing Iran’s history they are very very dangerous country if the obtain nuclear
weapons. They are run at present by Hard-Liners, it wouldn’t take much to send them into a frenzy!”
Would you care to share some of that history with us? I seem to remember reading that most Iranian wars were defensive in nature?
“Even if left alone, they would no doubt at the very least supply terrorists with the materials to make a nuclear weapon and use it against the United States or Israel.”
That is a policy that would lead to the assured destruction of the Iranian nation, something that I assure you even the hard-liners in Iran are not so interested in. I’d be interested to see if you have substantial evidence to prove otherwise.

“You’ve got to be kidding? So you feel it’s okay for an unstable country to have nuclear weapons and the ability to launch them thanks to North Korea, who threaten the US and Israel??”

Once again, you have provided no evidence that Iran’s government is at all unstable in the way you describe. You implicitly assume that Iran’s government is committed to a course of action that would reduce its people and institutions to dust! I beg to differ… Ahmadinejad was elected in an election by ordinary Iranians, which means he has some measure of accountability to his constituents and party allies. From a foreign policy standpoint, this is inherently stabilizing, since it limits truly extreme courses of action. After all, pursuing a foreign policy that reduces all of Iran’s flourishing cities and towns into radioactive piles of rubble probably won’t do well for his party’s re-election efforts, or for the popularity of the Ayatollahs that run the show behind the Iranian parliament.

“You overstate the situation against the US, and for all intents and purposes are saying they lost the war. “

And you would call Iraq a victory? What political objectives that were originally set out by the Bush administration have actually been achieved in Iraq? Is Iraq financing its own reconstruction? Is there a liberal, individual-rights oriented democracy in place? Are there secular institutions? Are Iraqis able to take charge of their own security and seal their borders against the infiltration of foreign fighters? Are Americans safer today than they were 5 years ago as a consequence of the war in Iraq? Even the Bush administration itself would answer no to most of these questions, except perhaps the last.

I would argue that the Americans are a long way to go from winning the war politically; much work remains to be done, and inflaming the most powerful regional player in politically restive area is sure to make the Iraq problem a lot harder to solve. Bush knows this, which is why his administration is so scrupulously adhering to diplomatic, rather than military solutions. Any military strike against Iranian nuclear installations would create valid pretext for Iranian counterstrikes against nearby Americans in areas that are already dangerous. Do you think that the US does not recognize the ability of the Iranians to significantly disrupt American military and political ambitions in the middle east?

The two current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost the US government $6 billion a month in money that the US does not have. Those wars are being waged against low-tech guerrilla fighters and primitive Islamic tribesmen. How much more would a broader war against a nation that could actually defend itself (Iran) cost in lives, money, and political capital?

Posted by chatman at May 15, 2006 05:01 AM

ghawley:

I don’t condone the Iraq invasion at all. It was downright stupid, and any journalist worth his salt could see the pitfalls. In fact I quite admired the Baath movement and Saddam did a lot for his people before absolute power made him absolutely stupid. A secular leader, however, should have been coopted rather than confronted. For all his sins he was miles better than the dissolute sheiks.

My grouse with this chap is happily writes about certain topics without either properly researching or thinking. He also shows very obvious biases ( like an anti Indian bias or an anti Israeli bias) which seems designed to attarct his niche audience rather than depend on facts. Your comments apply to him, not to me!!

Posted by KaraSwart at May 15, 2006 05:15 AM

KaraSwart:

Happy?

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2006/May/subcontinent_May545.xml&section=subcontinent

As for EM and his “niche audience”… I’ve seen him on FOX news, of all places. I wouldn’t call that a niche audience.

Posted by Rampart at May 15, 2006 06:43 AM

Rampart: Totally. We need cross border, cross pollination. I have done my bit. You have great women too..Reunification full steam ahead!!!

Posted by KaraSwart at May 15, 2006 07:59 AM

I saw an interview with Madeleine Albright yesterday (she was flogging her most recent book - on the Colbert Report I think), and she proposed that by invading Iraq, Bush was telling the other two members of the “evil triangle” (Iran and N. Korea) that the only way to prevent US invasion was with nuclear weapons…. hence Iran’s recent drive to produce one. The only question is if Iran’s “nuclear program” is for real.

Posted by JonnyBoy0416 at May 15, 2006 09:39 AM

Rampart: It doesn’t matter if they saw each other- they were working on the assumption that all prospective candidates were within 3sigma limits of the mean.

Regarding the name let us really go back to our very original roots- Sindhu or Mohenjo would work nicely..

Posted by KaraSwart at May 15, 2006 10:21 AM

Rampart: South India is India’s winning card..these guys are the ones who help us survive the cowbelt characters…

Posted by KaraSwart at May 15, 2006 01:33 PM

I spent two valublehours replying to you Chatman and this DAMNED sever lost every word I wrote you answering your bloody questions!

This forum is usless!!!

Posted by Terry McCracken at May 15, 2006 03:45 PM

Terry,

Telling me that I can ‘go to hell,’ or pre-supposing that my opinions are those of a ‘communist’ or are suitable for ‘an Arab propaganda machine’ unfortunately do little to support any of your assertions. Repeating the same unsupported assumptions doesn’t make them any more compelling, though your amateur psychoanalysis of my political ideology and spiritual destiny do make a compelling argument against your ability to cogently argue a point of view. It’s too bad telling someone to go to hell doesn’t help you win an argument!

I won’t discuss your personal attacks beyond stating that they are both unproductive and do nothing to strengthen your views.

Chatman,

Your verbose, smug, affectatious attitude, cloaking your personal attacks with psedo-intellectualism combined with a long-winded diatribe doesn’t lend any more credence to your POV either.

Some pillars of your argument, however, are at least worthy of some analysis…

First off, the link you provided leads to a blank page. Maybe you could paraphrase the article for us? I’ll answer some of our questions and points as I see them…

Indeed, you will guide, control this debate, don’t be so condescending! As for my link it works, you just didn’t wait for the page to load.

I’ll post the article here.
==============================================
Iran uses Israel as hostage
By Associated Press
May 13, 2006

Pakistan’s former army chief says Iranian officials came to him for advice on heading off an attack on their nuclear facilities. He in effect advised them to take a hostage - Israel.

Retired Gen. Mirza Aslam Beg said he suggested their government “make it clear that if anything happens to Iran, if anyone attacks it - it doesn’t matter who it is or how it is attacked - that Iran’s answer will be to hit Israel; the only target will be Israel.”

Mohammad Ebrahim Dehghani, an Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander, was quoted last week as saying that if “America does make any mischief, the first place we target will be Israel.”

Meanwhile, U.N. inspectors have found traces of highly enriched uranium on equipment from an Iranian research center linked to the military, diplomats said Friday - a revelation likely to strengthen U.S. arguments that Tehran wants to develop nuclear arms.

The diplomats, who demanded anonymity in exchange for divulging the confidential information, cautioned that confirmation still had to come through other laboratory tests.

Initially, they said the density of enrichment appeared to be close to or above the level used to make nuclear warheads. But later a diplomat accredited to the International Atomic Energy Agency said it was below that, although higher than the low-enriched material used to generate power and heading toward weapons-grade level.

But Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the IAEA, said Friday the world should be more worried about nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists than about Iran’s nuclear program.

He said there is no military solution to the standoff with Iran over its determination to continue its uranium enrichment program.

ElBaradei, who spoke Thursday with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said he was “for the first time somewhat optimistic” that the Iran standoff can be resolved.

Today, Iran’s nuclear ambitions overshadowed trade talks among Muslim leaders, with the country’s hard-line president drumming up support for the right to develop alternative energy sources.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and heads of state from Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Turkey and Malaysia met behind closed doors to discuss ways to boost economic and political cooperation, alleviate poverty and restructure debt.
==============================================

“What’s your point, by saying “Israel is a Nuclear Monopoly”?”
Because Israel has a nuclear monopoly in a historically hostile neighborhood, the people and government of Israel are inclined to bias in their characterization of a nuclear-armed Muslim nation. As such, the objectivity of any patriotic Israeli in discussing this real threat value of a nuclear armed to the world is questionable.

Let me stop you right there. Yes indeed, there is bias, regardless, they understand their situation better than any of us, as they live in the midst of conflict every day. They understand Muslim nations far better than you or I. Iran is a mortal enemy who truley wishes for the nonexistance of Israel! They, like most Arab nations, would like to push Israel into the sea, to wipe her out entirely! Iran isn’t a country that should have a nuclear arsenal, period!

I have to wonder how it is that he can credibly state that what threatens Israel threatens the world, or his ability to even accurately differentiate between the rhetoric and the political and strategic reality in Iran.

Again, you didn’t put any thought into this at all! You are making assumptions and drawing conclusions about a man I know something about and you do not, other than he’s an Israeli, worse you failed to realize that this is a very rational man, as I pointed out he’s the author of Deep Junior a famous chess program. I’d expect you
would be at least familar with the name of the program Deep Junior, regardless whether you had an interest in chess or not.

Again, his name is Amir Ban, author of the program Deep Junior, and is co-authored by Shay Bushinsky. Chess programming is tedious and complex, it takes a very logical, methodical, rational mind to engineer something like Deep Junior. So I wouldn’t dismiss the man so easily or take him so lightly. I also know he’s very interested in politcal history as well as current events.

Remember, the Indian and Pakistani governments had been talking of obliterating each other in nuclear fires for some time after 1998. Today, they are engaged in multi-level peace talks to prevent just such a possibility.

This is a specious analogy.

There really is no comparison with India and Pakistan, as there is a comparison between the United States and the Soviet Union during the “Cold War”, outside the fact they both had and have nuclear weapons and were enemies. Of course we came perilously close to destroying ourselves in Oct. 1962, the “Cuban Missile Crisis”. If we came that close to all out nuclear war, how much more dangerous is it to have a country like Iran to “hold the cards” in nuclear brinkmanship in a Middle East crisis?

It’s a nightmare, and one I wouldn’t want to face, nor would you or any of us.

“I’ve no doubt, knowing Iran’s history they are very very dangerous country if the obtain nuclear
weapons. They are run at present by Hard-Liners, it wouldn’t take much to send them into a frenzy!”
Would you care to share some of that history with us? I seem to remember reading that most Iranian wars were defensive in nature?

You’re trying to obfuscate the issue. If you know their history, and their history with the US etc. you know that you’re now dealing with a nation that is striving to become the dominent power in the Middle East.

“Even if left alone, they would no doubt at the very least supply terrorists with the materials to make a nuclear weapon and use it against the United States or Israel.”

That is a policy that would lead to the assured destruction of the Iranian nation, something that I assure you even the hard-liners in Iran are not so interested in. I’d be interested to see if you have substantial evidence to prove otherwise.

The evidence is out there if you look, if you know their culture. Their politics is mixed directly with their religious ideology, fundametal
Islam, which has no compassion for humanity.
Indeed, we’re infidels in their eyes and we deserve death, nothing less!
You may not accept this, but due to their belief systems it makes them highly volitile, and a risk
we can’t afford to take. If I’m right, and you’re wrong, we’ll ALL pay, but if I’m wrong only a minority will pay the price for a mistake.

However, I’m not mistaken, and I know what Iran wants and what many of the Arab nations want. POWER, the same thing our nations want but with a twist. They want to control and dictate foreign policy and religion to the whole world. They want to conquer the West, they want us to convert to Islam or die. They preach this in their mosques, their clerics run their politics and this is a Deadly Combination!

“You’ve got to be kidding? So you feel it’s okay for an unstable country to have nuclear weapons and the ability to launch them thanks to North Korea, who threaten the US and Israel??”

Once again, you have provided no evidence that Iran’s government is at all unstable in the way you describe. You implicitly assume that Iran’s government is committed to a course of action that would reduce its people and institutions to dust! I beg to differ… Ahmadinejad was elected in an election by ordinary Iranians, which means he has some measure of accountability to his constituents and party allies. From a foreign policy standpoint, this is inherently stabilizing, since it limits truly extreme courses of action. After all, pursuing a foreign policy that reduces all of Iran’s flourishing cities and towns into radioactive piles of rubble probably won’t do well for his party’s re-election efforts, or for the popularity of the Ayatollahs that run the show behind the Iranian parliament.

Again, I reiterate, they don’t value human life, they send children into mine feilds to clean up knowing full well these children will die! They fund terrorism and many from Iran have joined the al-Qeada to fight us in Iraq. They are the enemy and we’re at war with them as I type this.

“You overstate the situation against the US, and for all intents and purposes are saying they lost the war. “

And you would call Iraq a victory? What political objectives that were originally set out by the Bush administration have actually been achieved in Iraq? Is Iraq financing its own reconstruction? Is there a liberal, individual-rights oriented democracy in place? Are there secular institutions? Are Iraqis able to take charge of their own security and seal their borders against the infiltration of foreign fighters? Are Americans safer today than they were 5 years ago as a consequence of the war in Iraq? Even the Bush administration itself would answer no to most of these questions, except perhaps the last.

Saddam Hussein is gone, his sons dead, since the invasion of Iraq, the brutal executions of roughly 100,000 Iraqis per year has ended. Between 1998-2003 over 500,000 Iraqis perished under the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein!
His rein of tyranny is over. Democracy has taken root, even in the face of civil war, it can’t easily be destroyed. Schools and hospitals have opened, their infrastructure is being rebuilt, they are evolving to a state of freedom, no matter
how hard the terrorists, try to prevent this, they are losing and know it!

Yes there much to be done and a long road ahead for Iraq before we can say we’ve won the peace, that Iraq is a completly free nation. Freedom comes with a high price tag, it always has.

I would argue that the Americans are a long way to go from winning the war politically; much work remains to be done, and inflaming the most powerful regional player in politically restive area is sure to make the Iraq problem a lot harder to solve. Bush knows this, which is why his administration is so scrupulously adhering to diplomatic, rather than military solutions. Any military strike against Iranian nuclear installations would create valid pretext for Iranian counterstrikes against nearby Americans in areas that are already dangerous. Do you think that the US does not recognize the ability of the Iranians to significantly disrupt American military and political ambitions in the middle east?

Of course they do, and in fact the Iranians are making it difficult for the US and Briton right now, and of course Iran will do everything it can to hurt Americans and Britons abroad, if we strike them, but the US and Britian are already preparing for this event, and military excercises have been going on along Iran’s border for some time now. The pentagon already has a battle plan for attacking Iran, and it is continuing it’s efforts. Diplomacy with Iran to give up it’s nuclear program will fail, sorry, but that’s the way it is. At some point a military solution will be the only solution, believe what you want, I already know this is how it’s going to go down.

The two current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost the US government $6 billion a month in money that the US does not have. Those wars are being waged against low-tech guerrilla fighters and primitive Islamic tribesmen. How much more would a broader war against a nation that could actually defend itself (Iran) cost in lives, money, and political capital?

Actually it is far easier to take out geniune military targets and personel than it is to fight
“low-tech guerrilla fighters”.

Iran can’t resist the might of the US and they are foolish enough to engage them, in fact they are taunting and goading the West to take action.
Damn, that’s not very rational thinking on Iran’s part is it?

Iran doesn’t know it but it’s a “sitting duck”, and it won’t take long for Stealth Bombers Cruise Missles et al, to turn their military into rubble along with their nuclear program.

Terry

Posted by Terry McCracken at May 15, 2006 07:42 PM

Terry,

Thanks for taking the time to re-write that. I really don’t want to dwell on personal issues in a political debate, but please remember who it was that told whom to go to hell, and why. You did as much to provoke condescension as I did to provide it. In any event, I’m going to try to keep the rest of my comments focused on your analysis…

You are making assumptions and drawing conclusions about a man I know something about and you do not, other than he’s an Israeli, worse you failed to realize that this is a very rational man, as I pointed out he’s the author of Deep Junior a famous chess program. I’d expect you
would be at least familar with the name of the program Deep Junior, regardless whether you had an interest in chess or not.

No, I knew that about him too, since you mentioned it before. Unlike you, however, I don’t think that his background gives him a privileged perspective on this issue. I know engineering and chess, considering I’ve studied both; they are complex, but fundamentally based on fixed rules and testable scenarios (within limits). This situation goes far beyond the scope of both analytic methods, and is far more difficult to model.

“This is a specious analogy.
There really is no comparison with India and Pakistan, as there is a comparison between the United States and the Soviet Union during the “Cold War”, outside the fact they both had and have nuclear weapons and were enemies. Of course we came perilously close to destroying ourselves in Oct. 1962, the “Cuban Missile Crisis”. If we came that close to all out nuclear war, how much more dangerous is it to have a country like Iran to “hold the cards” in nuclear brinkmanship in a Middle East crisis?

It’s not at all specious, as it illustrates very clearly the point I am trying to make, and that you and I most substantially differ on. I am arguing that there is a significant gulf between what politicians say and what they do.

When you have to unite your constituencies behind an idea or issue, a foreign enemy is a good rallying point. Almost all governments are guilty of using that ploy. But not all governments are guilty of acting on their rhetoric, as the Indo-Pak tensions and the end of the Cold War between the superpowers shows. That is because governments understand the notion of mutually assured destruction, and I don’t think Iran is any different in this regard. However, in the current crisis, Iran is taking a gamble. What we are seeing is not mindless fanaticism, but a calculated risk aimed at increasing the flagging popularity of the state.

The key difference between your perception of Iran’s rhetoric and mine is that I believe that the Iranian leadership is essentially a rational actor looking to preserve Iranian sovereignty, and their own power, using a risky strategy. You think that they are brainless fanatics who are giving a verbal preview of what they plan to do with their soon-to-be armed nuclear mayhem. For a state seeking to acquire nuclear technology and broaden their influence in the middle east, the latter assumption doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Ahmadinejad is directly accountable to his people, and enjoys being in power. Iran is a very resource rich country, and heavily populated. To govern such a nation is both prestigious and profitable. Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs know that using a nuclear weapon pre-emptively would cost Iranian leaders their positions and entitlements, and most probably their lives. That’s why they won’t even admit to be pursuing nuclear weapons technology!

Martyrdom may not be a huge problem for low tier non-state actors like the 9/11 hijackers or a Palestinian suicide bomber, but it creates significant concerns for heads of state entities. Heads of state are ambitious people who have achieved their positions through careful political manipulation, and typically don’t fit the suicide bomber profile.

Ahmadinejad understands that Iranians have little interest in getting involved in new wars, but that they also want their nation to be strong, and not subject to idle bullying. Rightly or wrongly, Iranians on the street perceive Israel and the US as bullies. Against that backdrop, a politician who takes a rhetorical stand against such hegemonic foreign powers can quickly raise his popularity. Hence, in an effort to maintain power and support, it is somewhat rational for the leadership to pick an enemy and go after it in speech after fiery speech. He is gambling on the fact that the Americans are too bogged down in their regional occupations to exert any military muscle against him… and he’s basically right.

In spite of the Iranians’ tough talk, you will notice that Iran’s leaders have never explicitly stated that they are pursuing nuclear weapons technology, or that they would use such technology against Israel. Those are threats they are unwilling to make, because they are unwilling to ever be forced to act on them, either by the US or their own political obligations. It would bring ruin to their nation, their office, and to their people. Iran’s youth surely remember the carnage of the Iraq war, and are not going to repeat it fighting an offensive war.

“Would you care to share some of that history with us? I seem to remember reading that most Iranian wars were defensive in nature?”

“You’re trying to obfuscate the issue. If you know their history, and their history with the US etc. you know that you’re now dealing with a nation that is striving to become the dominent power in the Middle East.”

Nonsense. You state that Iran is inclined to use nuclear weapons offensively if they acquired them, and that their history shows this. I ask you to show me that history, and you accuse me of obfuscation? The history you refuse to provide is the pillar of your whole argument! You need to prove that Iran has acted irrationally in the past in starting wars, and that there’s a pattern of such behavior. Only then can a pre-emptive war be justified. Unfortunately, you still have not provided this crucial evidence.

“Again, I reiterate, they don’t value human life, they send children into mine feilds to clean up knowing full well these children will die!”

The Iran-Iraq war with its oft-publicized child brigades, was a defensive conflict against Iraq’s more modern army, backed by the financial and military might of the US. Against that, the Iranians did what they had to do. If you look back at America’s history in the Civil War, you’ll find even more shocking disregard for human life in the name of preserving the Union.

Wars suck, but defensive wars lead people to do the most terrible of things to try and save a nation that is about to perish. And really, that’s the history you should be looking carefully at. How many of Iran’s recent conflicts were started by Iran? When you look at that history, you begin to see why Iran is so interested in taking greater control of its political and strategic destiny. Any negotiating strategy with Iran is doomed to failure unless it recognizes the fact that Iran has been an unwilling participant in all the wars it has fought in recent, and even ancient, history!

I’m not going to further address the Iraq war issues, since that’s not really in the scope of Eric’s article. I think what we can agree on about that is the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan are, at best, works in progress. Both are highly volatile regions where the Iranians wield considerable influence. While it may be possible to cut through Iran’s formal military defenses, I would not underestimate the ability of Iran’s 60 million people to create a lot of trouble for the 150,000 or so American soldiers already taxed in keeping the peace in the neighboring territories. Clearly, the Bush administration has not, which is why there has been hardly any talk of military action against Iran, aside from the empty threat of ‘leaving all options on the table.’

Posted by chatman at May 15, 2006 10:58 PM

Terry,

Thanks for taking the time to re-write that. I really don’t want to dwell on personal issues in a political debate, but please remember who it was that told whom to go to hell, and why.

Chatman,

I told you to go to hell due to your remarks about the United States et al, which were less than flattering, to keep this polite.

You did as much to provoke condescension as I did to provide it. In any event, I’m going to try to keep the rest of my comments focused on your analysis…

That is how you precieve it, and it’s pointless to argue who is more or less guilty in this matter.

It appears your analysis is what really matters, this is why I’m somewhat perturbed with you. You already know all there is to know.

I’m guilty as well, on one main point, the United States is going to attack Iran.

You are making assumptions and drawing conclusions about a man I know something about and you do not, other than he’s an Israeli, worse you failed to realize that this is a very rational man, as I pointed out he’s the author of Deep Junior a famous chess program. I’d expect you
would be at least familar with the name of the program Deep Junior, regardless whether you had an interest in chess or not.

No, I knew that about him too, since you mentioned it before. Unlike you, however, I don’t think that his background gives him a privileged perspective on this issue. I know engineering and chess, considering I’ve studied both; they are complex, but fundamentally based on fixed rules and testable scenarios (within limits). This situation goes far beyond the scope of both analytic methods, and is far more difficult to model.

What background must he have to have credibility, or be free from bias etcetra?

What type of engineer are you? Do you play chess, program chess, both?

“This is a specious analogy.
There really is no comparison with India and Pakistan, as there is a comparison between the United States and the Soviet Union during the “Cold War”, outside the fact they both had and have nuclear weapons and were enemies. Of course we came perilously close to destroying ourselves in Oct. 1962, the “Cuban Missile Crisis”. If we came that close to all out nuclear war, how much more dangerous is it to have a country like Iran to “hold the cards” in nuclear brinkmanship in a Middle East crisis?

It’s not at all specious, as it illustrates very clearly the point I am trying to make, and that you and I most substantially differ on. I am arguing that there is a significant gulf between what politicians say and what they do.

Maybe sane politicians, maybe ones that don’t think of Allah’s will at every fork in the road.

This makes a big difference, a very big difference.

Did you read the letter sent to the White House?

Here it Is…
Ahmadinejad wrote:
Mr George Bush, President of the United States of America

For some time now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena - which are being constantly debated, specially in political forums and among university students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might bring about an opportunity to redress them.

Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH) [praise be upon his name], the great Messenger of God, feel obliged to respect human rights, present liberalism as a civilization model, announce one’s opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs [weapons of mass destruction], make war and terror his slogan, and finally, work towards the establishment of a unified international community - a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern, but at the same time have countries attacked; the lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of the … of a … criminals in a village or city, or convoy, or for example the entire village, city or convoy, set ablaze.

Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around 100,000 people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps 50 years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and women - as occupation troops - put in harm’s way, taken away from family and loved ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that every day some commit suicide and those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of ailments; while some are killed and their bodies handed to their families.

On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to begin with.

Of course Saddam [Hussein] was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him, the announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was toppled along the way towards another goal, nevertheless the people of the region are happy about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the … war on Iran [in the 1980s], Saddam was supported by the West.

Mr President,

You might know that I am a teacher. My students ask me how can these actions be reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter and duty to the tradition of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the Messenger of peace and forgiveness.

There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation, their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows whether they are prisoners, POWs [prisoners of war], accused or criminals.

European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. I could not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the provisions of any judicial system. For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this letter, ie the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH), human rights and liberal values.

Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them. Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times.

Students are saying that 60 years ago such a country did not exist. The show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.

I tell them to study the history of World War I and II. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war, they claimed that 6 million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least 2 million families.

Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalized or explained?

Mr President,

I am sure you know how - and at what cost - Israel was established: Many thousands were killed in the process.

Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.

Hundred of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages were destroyed.

This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing for 60 years now.

A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique - or at the very least extremely rare - in recent memory.

Another big question asked by people is why is this regime being supported? Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH) or Moses (PBUH) or liberal values? Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands - inside and outside Palestine - whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jew, to determine their fate, runs contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets? If not, why is there so much opposition to a referendum?

The newly elected Palestinian administration recently took office. All independent observers have confirmed that this government represents the electorate. Unbelievingly, they have put the elected government under pressure and have advised it to recognize the Israeli regime, abandon the struggle and follow the programs of the previous government.

If the current Palestinian government had run on the above platform, would the Palestinian people have voted for it? Again, can such position taken in opposition to the Palestinian government be reconciled with the values outlined earlier? The people are also saying why are all UNSC [United Nations Security Council] resolutions in condemnation of Israel vetoed?

Mr President,

As you are well aware, I live among the people and am in constant contact with them - many people from around the Middle East manage to contact me as well. They do not have faith in these dubious policies either. There is evidence that the people of the region are becoming increasingly angry with such policies.

It is not my intention to pose too many questions, but I need to refer to other points as well.

Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East regions is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D [research and development] one of the basic rights of nations?

You are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other point in history has scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements being utilized for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc. must be opposed.

Lies were told in the Iraqi matter. What was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to.

Mr President,

Don’t Latin Americans have the right to ask, why their elected governments are being opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, why must they constantly be threatened and live in fear?

The people of Africa are hardworking, creative and talented. They can play an important and valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to its material and spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from happening. Don’t they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth – including minerals – is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others?

Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights?

The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including: the coup d’etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution [of 1979], transformation of an embassy into a headquarters supporting the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborates this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-a-vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and collaborating with their country’s progress), and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter.

Mr President,

September 11 was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies.

All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing of their citizens. Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection and intelligence systems - and even hunts its opponents abroad. September 11 was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren’t those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?

All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbors of world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9-11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people - who had been immensely traumatized by the attacks - some Western media only intensified the climates of fear and insecurity - some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic?

American citizens lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity?

Some believe that the hype paved the way - and was the justification - for an attack on Afghanistan. Again I need to refer to the role of media. In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of WMDs. This was repeated incessantly - for the public to, finally, believe - and the ground set for an attack on Iraq.

Will the truth not be lost in a contrive and deceptive climate? Again, if the truth is allowed to be lost, how can that be reconciled with the earlier mentioned values? Is the truth known to the Almighty lost as well?

Mr President,

In countries around the world, citizens provide for the expenses of governments so that their governments in turn are able to serve them.

The question here is what has the hundreds of billions of dollars, spent every year to pay for the Iraqi campaign, produced for the citizens?

As your excellency is aware, in some states of your country, people are living in poverty. Many thousands are homeless and unemployment is a huge problem. Of course these problems exist - to a larger or lesser extent - in other countries as well. With these conditions in mind, can the gargantuan expenses of the campaign - paid from the public treasury - be explained and be consistent with the aforementioned principles?

What has been said, are some of the grievances of the people around the world, in our region and in your country. But my main contention - which I am hoping you will agree to some of it - is: Those in power have specific time in office, and do not rule indefinitely, but their names will be recorded in history and will be constantly judged in the immediate and distant futures. The people will scrutinize our presidencies.

Did we manage to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or insecurity and unemployment? Did we intend to establish justice, or just supported especial interest groups, and by forcing many people to live in poverty and hardship, made a few people rich and powerful - thus trading the approval of the people and the Almighty with theirs’? Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them? Did we defend the rights of all people around the world or imposed wars on them, interfered illegally in their affairs, established hellish prisons and incarcerated some of them? Did we bring the world peace and security or raised the specter of intimidation and threats? Did we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or presented an inverted version of it? Were we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors? Did our administration set out to promote rational behavior, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress and respect for human dignity or the force of guns? Intimidation, insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the progress and excellence of other nations, and trample on people’s rights? And finally, they will judge us on whether we remained true to our oath of office - to serve the people, which is our main task, and the traditions of the prophets- or not?

Mr President,

How much longer can the world tolerate this situation? Where will this trend lead the world to? How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some rulers? How much longer will the specter of insecurity - raised from the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction - hunt the people of the world? How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be spilled on the streets, and people’s houses destroyed over their heads? Are you pleased with the current condition of the world? Do you think present policies can continue?

If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states and distinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts where would the world be today? Would not your government, and people be justifiably proud? Would not your administration’s political and economic standing have been stronger? And I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever increasing global hatred of the American governments?

Mr President, it is not my intention to distress anyone. If prophets Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph or Jesus Christ (PBUH) were with us today, how would they have judged such behavior? Will we be given a role to play in the promised world, where justice will become universal and Jesus Christ (PBUH) will be present? Will they even accept us?

My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world? Today there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Muslims and millions of people who follow the teachings of Moses (PBUH). All divine religions share and respect on word and that is monotheism or belief in a single God and no other in the world.

The holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on all followers of divine religions and says: (3.64) “O followers of the Book! Come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught. With Him and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah, but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims. (The Family of Imran).”

Mr President,

According to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of divine prophets. To worship a God which is above all powers in the world and can do all He pleases. The Lord which knows that which is hidden and visible, the past and the future, knows what goes on in the Hearts of His servants and records their deeds. The Lord who is the possessor of the heavens and the earth and all universe is His court planning for the universe is done by His hands, and gives His servants the glad tidings of mercy and forgiveness of sins. He is the companion of the oppressed and the enemy of oppressors. He is the Compassionate, the Merciful. He is the recourse of the faithful and guides them towards the light from darkness. He is witness to the actions of His servants, He calls on servants to be faithful and do good deeds, and asks them to stay on the path of righteousness and remain steadfast . Calls on servants to heed His prophets and He is a witness to their deeds. A bad ending belongs only to those who have chosen the life of this world and disobey Him and oppress His servants. And a good and eternal paradise belong to those servants who fear His majesty and do not follow their lascivious selves.

We believe a return to the teachings of the divine prophets is the only road leading to salvations. I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (PBUH), and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth.

We also believe that Jesus Christ (PBUH) was one of the great prophets of the Almighty. He has been repeatedly praised in the Koran. Jesus (PBUH) has been quoted in Koran as well; (19,36) “And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serves Him; this is the right path, Marium.”

Service to and obedience of the Almi