Iran?

[2 minutes of hate]

Yeah' date=' like that makes a lot of sense?[/quote']

You need to lay off the coffee man. I really wasnt trying to make sense of anything, its what i like to call humour.

We don't really have a say in what happens so i think we are all free to shout out our own solutions. Be it inane tramp talk or a mighty speech from a highhorse.

I still think we can still take em

[Neil]

As for bitterness' date=' I guess that comes from the fact that Israel has outmaneuvered them not only in a military aspect, but also a political aspect and it's simply an issue of sour grapes.[/quote']

o_O

I'm sorry, but that comment suggests to me you have little understanding of the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and it's complexities. I suggest you read up on the history on the conflict before making ignorant comments like the above.

Here is a good starting point:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/default.stm

[EchelonDivision]

You need to lay off the coffee man. I really wasnt trying to make sense of anything' date=' its what i like to call humour.

We don't really have a say in what happens so i think we are all free to shout out our own solutions. Be it inane tramp talk or a mighty speech from a highhorse.

I still think we can still take em[/quote']

Sorry man. I've been attacked from everyone else, so I thought you were having a go too. Thanks for your comments.

You're totally right, we have no say. I suppose myself and others take politics and foreign policy too seriously. It's easy to get into an arguement with people who have different opinions (eh, yeah... that's what an arguement is!?!).

Happy New Year!

[EchelonDivision]

o_O

I'm sorry' date=' but that comment suggests to me you have little understanding of the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and it's complexities. I suggest you read up on the history on the conflict before making ignorant comments like the above.

Here is a good starting point:

[url']http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/default.stm

Actually man, he was talking about the Israel/Iran problem, not Palestine... But he's totally wrong anyway

[Stripey]

Disclaimer : I'm not the most knowledgable about Middle East affairs

I thought this was a useful quote. To be honest, I don't think Cloud is particularly "knowledgable" (*grin*) about most of the topics he attempts to stick his oar into.

[Neil]

Actually man' date=' he was talking about the Israel/Iran problem, not Palestine... But he's totally wrong anyway[/quote']

Whoops. That'll teach me to dive into threads without fully reading them. Cloud, I do apologise. :O

[Cloud]

Whoops. That'll teach me to dive into threads without fully reading them. Cloud' date=' I do apologise. :O[/quote']

no worries I should've clarified myself better, though.

No' date=' the bitterness comes from the fact that Israel has been armed and funded by the US.[/quote']

Why does it matter who funds who? The US funds them to maintain a presence in that part of the world, which could prove to be useful at some point in the future. Nothing wrong with that, it's called strategic planning. Of course, do you know who provided Israel with nuclear technology? Here's a hint : it wasn't the US.

That and the fact that they are Jews.

So they're anti-semitic then? So let's see...Iran hates Israel because they're Jewish (of course, there's a significant Arab Israeli minority too). Do you really blame the Israelis for wanting to be armed to the teeth in case someone tries to wipe them out again? Have you forgotten about the Holocaust? Think about their mentality, of course they're going to do what it takes to make sure no-one gets near them again. Considering their position as a Western country in the Middle East, it's no surprise that they have a seige mentality.

Iran hasn't attacked another country in 190 years.

You know as well as I know that in modern warfare, it's probably far more effective for Iran to subsidise terrorist groups than it is for them to attack Israel in a military sense.

The US and Israel would be defeated if it invaded Iran.

They wouldn't need to invade, a swift bombing of Iranian nuclear interests would render the whole thing over.

[Hog]

Whoops. That'll teach me to dive into threads without fully reading them. Cloud' date=' I do apologise. :O[/quote']

*Banned* hehe:up: Just kidding.

Anyway, I originally posted this thread a while back and now the shit seems to of hit the fan regarding Iran. Will the US go in full bore? The news last night interview the UN then the USA.

[Moshulu Rob]

I still think we can still take em

Considering the US spend about as much on their military as the rest of the world combined does, it would probably be a fairly fair fight....

Although they have no universal healthcare for their citizens, a massive public debt, and are busily cutting back on any and all social programs like education and social security.

Gotta love the military-industrial complex.

[EchelonDivision]

I thought this was a useful quote. To be honest' date=' I don't think Cloud is particularly "knowledgable" (*grin*) about most of the topics he attempts to stick his oar into.[/quote']

I think he just makes the shit up to be honest.

[Cloud]

I think he just makes the shit up to be honest.

Why not try and prove me wrong rather than resorting to mindless retorts?

Or is it the case that you can't?

[Cloud]

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/4609626.stm

Denying Iran their rightful place in the World Cup just because the goverment has decided to restart their nuclear program is ridiculous - what good would it do, apart from possibly make them persue a similar path to North Korea as far as being isolationist and dangerous goes?

Leave the politics at the turnstiles.

[GraemeC]

I think I have a solution,

Eliminate all organised religion

Eliminate all nuclear weapons

Problem solved, it will cause a bit of unemployment though....

[Hog]

Problem solved' date=' it will cause a bit of unemployment though....[/quote']

Clearing all those radioactive bodies could be a bit of a chore:up:

[EchelonDivision]

Why not try and prove me wrong rather than resorting to mindless retorts?

Or is it the case that you can't?

Ahmadinejads remarks:

"If you committed this big crime, then why should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay? This is our proposal: If you committed the crime, then give part of your land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to them so that the Jews can establish their own country." (New York Times, December 15, 2005)

"Why do you want to force Israel on the holy land of Palestine by killing Muslims? Give a piece of your land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska so the Jews can create their own state." (Los Angeles Times, December 15, 2005)

"Is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler, the reason for their (the Europeans) support to the occupiers of Jerusalem? If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe like in Germany, Austria or other countries to the Zionists, and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe, and we will support it." (Washington Post, December 9, 2005)

It is a standard practice, going back to at least WWI, if not earlier, to select an individual on whom all the fear and hatred whipped up by a deliberate program of pro-war propaganda can be focused. Where plans to pry open the Iranian economy are concerned, Ahmadinejad is that person, as Hugo Chavez (now described by the US as anti-democratic, though popularly elected (New York Times, January 14, 2006)) is in Venezuela, Fidel Castro is in Cuba, Alexander Lukashenko is in Belarus, Robert Mugabe is in Zimbabwe and Kim Jong Il is in the DPRK. Since the Second World War, it has been common practice to try to equate such individuals to Hitler, a fairly easy task in Ahmadinejads case, not because hes anti-Semitic, but because his hostility to the expulsion of Palestinians as the basis of Israeli can be readily twisted into an apparent anti-Semitism, while his opposition to the idea of a Jewish state in historic Palestine, featuring a single dominant ethnic group by design and intention, can be distorted demagogically to create the appearance hes committed to a second Holocaust.

The hostility of Western powers to Iran, then, has little to do with the ideas of Irans leadership, especially as they pertain to Israel, for those ideas, as presented by pro-interventionists, are distortions deliberately twisted to build a case for economic strangulation, at the very least, and war, quite probably. Instead, the hostility is rooted in Irans economy, and the countrys assertion of economic sovereignty. It would, however, be wrong to say that Irans hostility to the idea of Israel as an ethnically-defined state, founded on a gross injustice perpetrated against Palestinians, is entirely insignificant to US foreign policy, for insofar as it signals an opposition to Israel, it strikes at part of the apparatus the US relies on to enforce its domination of the Middle East. But domination, to what end?

Why Iran? (1) To stifle the countrys economic development by depriving it of nuclear power; (2) To prevent it from acquiring a nuclear deterrent to Western aggression; (3) To keep it from becoming powerful enough to challenge the US attack dog in the region, Israel; and the reason to which the preceding three are subordinate: (4) To put an end to Irans assertion of economic sovereignty, which conflicts with the profit-making interests of US investors and trans-nationals.