Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Warin

The Middle East part 2

Recommended Posts

Doubtless they feel much the same about you.

Israel consistently threatens all it's neighbours with nuclear destruction.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Iran keeps calling for the end of the Jewish state. You can interpret that as a promise of nuclear annihilation if you like, or you could interpret that as a desire for regime change in Jersalem. you could also interpret that as "we wish to drink the blood of the jews" or whatever.

You can call Hamas a death cult if you like. Like the Thugees in Indiana Jones presumably.

That's up to you.

Don't expect anyone to take you all that seriously if you do though.

Your enemies fight for the exact same principles and reasons as you do. You should respect them. If your situations were reversed you would do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iran keeps calling for the end of the Jewish state. You can interpret that as a promise of nuclear annihilation if you like, or you could interpret that as a desire for regime change in Jersalem.

Why not use the translation originally released by MEMRI before it was mutated into the famous "wiped off the map" propaganda that people like Nemesis love to throw around?

Quote[/b] ]" 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' "  -- MEMRI

In fact, it sounds little different from what Bush was calling for in Baghdad a few years ago.   whistle.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahmadinejad also said the following - Marg bar Izrail!

That's hard to interpret in more than one way. By the way, I know calling Hamas, the Palestinian government, etc, death cults seems zealous, but they have summer camps where they train their children to use guns, for Christ sake! And when the children are not in summercamp, they're taught jihadist poetry. They're a society that largely evolves around death, evil, and malice. As if those cosy Friday sermons with Sheikh Ibrahim Mudayris aren't enough. A little Broadly spoken, they're a sick society that celebrates violent death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Nemesis, but I can't translate that, and given all you have said so far I'd prefer to see any Ahmedinejad quotes in the context they are reported in.

Don't you train your children to use guns and teach them war poetry then? War poetry is on our national curriculem. Everyone here is taught it as a child. Seigfried Sassoon, Wilfred Owen or the Charge of the Light Brigade. Wouldn't be much of a childhood or even a decent literary education without war poetry, now would it?

I don't exactly live in a country known for it's gun culture or for being a warzone, but I certainly had shooting classes at school. I also attended those little weekly military cadet meetings from the age of 11 and I have had my own gun since childhood.

I was singing nationalist Christian battle songs by the age of 7 along with everyone else who is raised here.

Weren't you?

Onward Christian Soldiers springs to mind, can't really get any more fanatically religiously extreme than that little number. British Grenadiers is another favourite.

All societies celebrate violent death. Hard to believe that yours does not. To die in battle is amongst our highest honours. The Queen gives out little shiney medals. All the ex and current soldiers get together and pay their respects, all the church goers too. 2 minutes silence across the country and everyone wears a poppy as a mark of respect.

All totally normal behaviour.

We build great big monuments with the names of the dead engraved and stautes of our heroes. We write books and songs about them, plays and films too.

The only thing that is surprising me is that your culture doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]" 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' "  -- MEMRI

In fact, it sounds little different from what Bush was calling for in Baghdad a few years ago.   whistle.gif

Bush's, Blair's, Bin Ladens and Ahmenjad's speechs all sound the same to me. A right load of cranks that lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny thing is that the failed iraq campaign and the mishandling of the situation now puts the US in need of Syria and Iran to get Iraq stabilized anytime soon. The US are forced to accept certain things if they want to have Iran in the boat to stabilze Iraq.

In the longrun the failure in Iraq will be one of the reasons why Iran will have nukes. Thank you G.W. Mission accomplished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...A little Broadly spoken, they're a sick society that celebrates violent death.

But, look who was celebrating horrible death just a few hours earlier:

...Praise be that the horrible people who manage to carry these attacks out die a horrible death.

Indeed, it's quite sick when some guy in Denmark celebrates the violent deaths of desperate refugees from half a world away. crazy_o.gif

Ahmadinejad also said the following - Marg bar Izrail!

Prove it!!  nener.gif

According to MEMRI's translated excerpt, Ahmadinejad merely referred to the possibility of others saying it:

Quote[/b] ]Prior to his statement, Ahmadinejad said that if you plan to chant the slogan 'Death to Israel,' say it in the right and complete way.  -- MEMRI

MEMRI probably didn't consider the rest of his statement inflamatory enough to translate.   icon_rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The funny thing is that the failed iraq campaign and the mishandling of the situation now puts the US in need of Syria and Iran to get Iraq stabilized anytime soon. The US are forced to accept certain things if they want to have Iran in the boat to stabilze Iraq.

In the longrun the failure in Iraq will be one of the reasons why Iran will have nukes. Thank you G.W. Mission accomplished.

I wouldn't be expecting Syria and Iran to help out anytime soon.

That's what's known as clutching at straws.

All the anti war brigade would love to see that. Just for the face slapping it would give Mr. Bush.

But there is zero chance. Even if they could do anything about it, they won't. It just isn't in their intrests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Israel has long asserted that it fully respects Palestinian private property in the West Bank and only takes land there legally or, for security reasons, temporarily.

I wonder what they consider "legal" then...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]But there is zero chance.

Cough:

US and Iran ready for Iraq talks

Quote[/b] ]The US says it has authorised its envoy in Baghdad to hold talks with Iranian officials about the situation in Iraq.

It would be the first public dialogue since the 1979 hostage crisis, after which the nations broke off ties.

Earlier, Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said Tehran had agreed to hold talks with the US following an appeal from a prominent Iraqi Shia politician.

The White House says Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad can talk about Iraq, but not about Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Mr Khalilzad's talks with Iranian officials will be to "express our concerns... about their involvement inside Iraq," White House spokesman Scott McLellan said.

"Those are concerns that we have expressed publicly and those are concerns that we are willing to express to them as well if they want to discuss the matter."

The question of Iran's nuclear programme, over which Tehran is facing increasing international pressure, was a "separate issue" to be dealt with at the UN, he went on.

The BBC's diplomatic correspondent, Jonathan Marcus, says that while the nations' fundamental interests differ, they may have some short-term goals in common.

The increasing violence and disorder in Iraq is making neighbouring Iran just as worried as Washington, he says.

Accusations

Ali Larijani said Tehran had turned down previous requests by Washington for talks over Iraq, but had accepted the proposal to start a dialogue.

"To resolve Iraqi issues, and to help the establishment of an independent and free government in Iraq, we agree to [talks with the US]," he told reporters.

On Wednesday, an influential Iraqi Shia leader had urged "clear dialogue" between the US and Iran on Iraq.

"It is in the interests of the Iraqi people that such dialogue is opened," Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim said.

Zalmay Khalilzad told the BBC that Iran's role in Iraq was "mixed".

He said that although Iran said it backed Iraqi rebuilding, "it is also pursuing a complicated strategy with some extremist groups, facilitating the activities of those forces that are opposed to the system".

In the past, the US has accused Iran of backing insurgents in Iraq.

Last week the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), reported Iran to the Security Council over its controversial nuclear programme.

The Security Council starts talks this week and has the power to impose sanctions.

Iran has vowed to resist international pressure, saying that it has the right to peaceful nuclear technology.

It denies US and EU accusations that it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

American foes step into the Iraq fray

Quote[/b] ]CAIRO - This week,

Iraq has drawn decisively closer to the two countries the US alleges are the greatest threats to peace and stability in the Middle East.

Tuesday,

Syria restored diplomatic ties with Iraq that were broken by

Saddam Hussein in 1980 back when Iraq was fighting

Iran. Also Tuesday, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani's office said he would travel to Tehran this weekend to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to talk about restoring order to Iraq.

The US has repeatedly accused Iran and Syria of stirring up violence inside Iraq, but recently the notion of isolating them as punishment has lost favor in Washington. A growing number

President Bush's advisers are urging direct dialogue with both nations. They argue that engagement could convince Syria to do more to prevent foreign fighters from entering Iraq; Iran could exert more influence on Iraq's dominant Shiite political parties (and their militias) to compromise more.

"It could make a difference, but not a critical difference,'' says Anthony Cordesman, former director of intelligence assessment to the US Secretary of Defense and now a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington.

Iran has been accused of being deeply involved in training, funding, and arming the two major Shiite militias in Iraq, where Tehran has historic ties to the current Shiite political leadership. Many Iraqi Shiites spent years in Iranian exile during Mr. Hussein's decades in power in Baghdad. One militia, the Badr Brigade, was trained in Iran by the Revolutionary Guard.

"While of course it's worth talking to them, even if they complied with all our wishes, what they could do probably would not be decisive,'' says Wayne White, former head of the Middle East desk at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

"The situation is so bad now in Iraq," he says, "you can't expect any magic over there. And even if you could get the Iranians and Syrians to accomplish things you wanted, what would you have to cough up in return?"

Former US Secretary of State James Baker, who served under President Bush's father and is now the leader of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) advising the president on new directions for his Iraq policy, has been quietly meeting with Syrian officials in the US, according to an interview with the Syrian ambassador to the US reported by The New York Times. He also met with Iran's ambassador to the

United Nations.

British Prime Minister

Tony Blair has publicly called for more direct engagement, and members of the ISG have been quietly urging more direct ties with Iran, as well.

Outgoing US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, a hard-liner on Syria and Iran, was ousted this month in favor of former

CIA chief Robert Gates, who as a member of the ISG had also been urging direct engagement with Iran over the problems in Iraq.

Though Mr. Blair praised the Syrian visit to Iraq, saying it may see that "Syria becomes of help to Iraq in its process of progress ... rather than a hindrance," the closer ties between Iraq and Syria could quickly become a strain on the US and Iraqi relationship.

Meanwhile, Iran's meeting with the Iraqi president this weekend is seen by some analysts as evidence of its increasingly muscular role in the Middle East, where it already has established deep influence in Syria and Lebanon.

Lebanon is yet another nation where various internal and external political forces are vying for power. On Tuesday, a leading anti-Syrian Lebanese politician, Pierre Gemayel, was assassinated in Beirut. An ally of his, parliament leader Saad Hariri, immediately claimed that Syria was behind the murder.

Mr. Hariri's father, Rafik, a former prime minister, was assassinated last February, and the US and anti-Syrian Lebanese politicians have blamed Syria for that murder as well, which they allege was designed to bolster the pro-Syrian, Iran-backed Hizbullah inside the country.

Mr. Cordesman says events like the Gemayel assassination in Lebanon underscore the likelihood that neither Iran nor Syria will become very cooperative on issues that the US cares about - withdrawing support from Hizbullah in Syria's case, or abandoning its nuclear program in Iran's case - any time soon.

"What everyone needs to understand is that cooperation from Syria and Iran is likely to be very limited, particularly in the short-term,'' he says.

"Syria is certainly backing the Hizbullah in its efforts to achieve a new level of political influence in Lebanon and it has the feeling that it's less vulnerable to any kind of US action now, ... and when Iran goes out and carries out the most provocative military exercise in recent history, this may not be a symbol of compromise." He was referring to recent Iranian military exercises in the Gulf.

The State Department reacted with skepticism about Iran's intentions in Iraq, but said it was up to Iraq to decide whether to attend. "It's their call; it's their decision," deputy spokesman Tom Casey said in Washington.

Zero chance sounds a bit different imo smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zero chance is taking it a bit far, but I wouldn't be suprised if Iran & Syria won't help too much...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What have they got to talk about?

The U.S. needs Iraq quiet so that it can get on and curb Iran.

Iran needs the U.S. busy so that it can get on and finish it's nukes so that the U.S. will never again be in a position to intervene with them.

Neither has room to compromise.

Their regional goals are opposed.

There is zero chance.

The only thing the U.S, has to bargain with is Irans nuclear ambitions and they won't put it on the table. If they do, they lose more than if they don't.  

With Syria, the only thing the U.S. has to bargain with is support for Isreal/Lebanon, and that's not on the table either.

Zero chance.

Never going to happen.

Not to mention that Iran and Iraq are traditional enemies and Iranian intervention has never yet provided anything but instability in Iraq. The same is true of Syria.

The mighty U.S. can't stabilse Iraq, but little old Iran can? Utter fantasy.

Sorry chaps but there is no solution to Iraqs problems here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Zero chance.

Never going to happen.

Right now the US and the coalition of the willing are running out of options.

Just wait and see and remember my words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they (or rather we, since I'm British) have any options at all, that isn't one of them.

Watching the whole place go to shit and everyone in the world blame us for it for the next 50 years is my bet.

(But we'll get the oil contracts and garrison a few nifty airbases). We might even be able to team up with you guys for a joint airstrike on Irans nuclear facilities if we are really, really lucky. Although I wouldn't put any money on that last bit yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We might even be able to team up with you guys for a joint airstrike on Irans nuclear facilities if we are really, really lucky.

Yeah, like that's really gonna convince the Iranians that they don't need a nuclear deterent.  banghead.gif

Besides, nobody truly believes that they've built their most important facilities within reach of an airstrike.

Meanwhile... >>>      whistle.gif    <<<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They do need one.

They saw what happened to Iraq.

Trouble is, what they need, and what I need aren't mutually compatable.

.

They are within aisrstrike range, given the right airforce. Have a look at the map. They are totally surrounded by coalition airbases. toghetherWe can put a lot of airpower in that space simultaneously. Overwhelming force.

It's still just a third world country with a 30 year old airforce in need of refit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trouble is, what they need, and what I need aren't mutually compatable.

Oh really?  What need do you, in Britain, have that is incompatable with Iran's need for security?  Their oil, maybe? huh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Besides, nobody truly believes that they've built their most important facilities within reach of an airstrike.

If it´s a joint operation with israeli planes there´s a way to do it, would include carrier forces, inair refuelling and some other stuff but the risk is high that Iran will close the seaway and cut off ships (oil) and traderoutes for the whole region and europe.

Apart from that aggression on Iran could backslap into Iraq taking the conflict to a new dimension.

Quote[/b] ]Watching the whole place go to shit and everyone in the world blame us for it for the next 50 years is my bet.

That had to be expected, don´t you agree ?

Quote[/b] ]But we'll get the oil contracts and garrison a few nifty airbases

No.

Oil contracts are already reviewed as most of them were pretty single sided and not negotiated in an appropriate manner. First the Us will have to pay back money to the Iraqui people they have stolen from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, we are almost out of oil.

North sea oil kept us out of need for 30 or 40 years, but it's almost gone.

Traditionally Iraq has been our preferred external oil source for most of the 20th century, (although we will have to share that with the U.S. now, and the baby share at that). This is the third time we've invaded.

The only thing we need out of Iran is for them not to have the military capablity to blockade the Gulf, so we can get steady supplies from Suadi/Kuwait/Oman and Iraq. None of that regime change nonsense, no need to redirect their oil flow. Just deny them the capability to blockade our trade route.

It's not that they necessarily would, it's just that it's rather a big risk to be left to chance. And as I'm sure you understand we're not exactly best loved in those parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Watching the whole place go to shit and everyone in the world blame us for it for the next 50 years is my bet.

That had to be expected, don´t you agree ?

Quote[/b] ]But we'll get the oil contracts and garrison a few nifty airbases

No.

Oil contracts are already reviewed as most of them were pretty single sided and not negotiated in an appropriate manner. First the Us will have to pay back money to the Iraqui people they have stolen from them.

I do agree, Iraq just wasn't in anyone elses intrests but ours, and we stepped on a lot of toes.

Not least Turkeys, which is a very unpleasent price to pay strategically. We've got a lot of grovelling to do and concessions to make if we are going to find anyone with the mutual intrests and the political will to gang up with us on Iran.

It was however the path of least resistance and our options are limited. We haven't been the worlds greatest superpower for a long long time now.

Oil contracts are fine, no one minds paying back the Iraqi's. Business is better when everybody gains. The concern is keeping that trade route going our way and not to any of the other oil hungry nations.

What are our other choices? Invade Nigeria or rely on the Russians?

Build pipelines through multiple unstable countries that any local malcontent with a weedkiller bomb can destroy?

Iraq (and Iran) are less than a great idea, but the other options aren't fantastic either.

With regards to Iran closing the gulf, they have the equipment to do it, but not the defences to keep that equipment. Artillery, Silkworms and bombers can all be destroyed by sustained air attack, two subs and some fast attack boats won't last a week, and minefields can be swept.

We can do this now, but once they have a nuclear warhead on their missiles, that will all no longer be an option.

Israel is in ballistic missile range of Iran and nuclear capable. They aren't invited. Although if they took it upon themselves as they did with Iraq.....they would most certainly be rewarded.

There is no political will here for a close alliance with Israel. I think we would rather get in bed with the Russians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...there´s a way to do it, would include carrier forces, inair refuelling and some other stuff...

By "out of reach" I didn't mean out of range. Their facilities are buried deep.

It's not that they necessarily would, it's just that it's rather a big risk to be left to chance.

How do you figure it's a "big" risk?  Do you honestly believe that nukes would give them some additional desire or ability to blockade other gulf nations.  Just look what happened back in 1973 when the entire region turned off the oil taps.  Would Arab or Iranian nukes have made any difference?  Of course not.  None of the Western oil consuming nations even came close to turning the taps back on by force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have the ability to blockade the Gulf already. What they don't have is the ability to blockade the Gulf without reprisal.

A nuclear deterent would give them that.

Since 1973, we've moved a lot of hardware out that way and our oil supplies have become more diverse. They need to sell their oil as much as we need to buy it. While this is a further and worrying complexity, it is not the one bombing Iran would be addressing. Bear in mind Irans Gulf neighbours Saudi, Kuwait, Oman and Iraq are unlikely to want to see Iran gain the ability to blockade their oil route either.

The deeper they build their bunkers, the bigger we build our bombs. Everything can be destroyed given the will to do so. Just as with Iraq, air domination is achieveable. We can hang around as long as we need to get the job done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They have the ability to blockade the Gulf already. What they don't have is the ability to blockade the Gulf without reprisal.  A nuclear deterent would give them that.

How does a nuke pose a threat to any nation that might be involved in such a reprisal?  ...Not to mention that nuke usage would be utter suicide.

The deeper they build their bunkers, the bigger we build our bombs. Everything can be destroyed given the will to do so.

Now you're just fantasizing.  Something tells me a well educated and oil rich nation is able to construct far more bomb-proof facilities than what the Taliban did in Tora Bora.  And just look how well airstrikes brought that place down.   whistle.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Tora Bora took a serious pasting. However a nuclear facility is somewhat of an easier target to destroy. It's great big industrial complex. Not a series of tiny caves storing bullets, a handful of men and some RPG's.

Total destruction isn't even necessary, just enough to shut it down. Getting spares and rebuilding is expensive and takes time, especially if you know we are just going to mash it up again straight after.

The Iraq reactor building, is still standing.

The Iraqi's didn't bother rebuilding after the Israeli strike. Once they know we have the capability and the will to stop it, they will be forced to do something else with their lives.

A nuke poses unacceptable risk. The risk of Iranian reprisal is too great. One nuke can destroy an entire fleet, an airforce or worse a city. Which allied city (or cities) in range are we willing to sacrifice? Answer: None.

All it takes is one madman, an angry General, a misunderstood phonecall, a country that feels cornered with no other way out.

Firing a nuclear missile is not just suicide for them. Firing one back would be suicide for us. If we launch, the Russians and Chinese would be foolish not to launch on us. Once those missiles are in the air everyone has to go for it. It's an unacceptable escalation. Far better we invade Nigeria.

It's just not worth it. As much as we want the oil, we don't want it that much.

Strategic success is also not our only constraint, there is also political will. Even if we could militarily get away with nuking Iran, there is no internal political will for genocide on that scale, and the rammifications with other nations, (such as our trading partner China whose own oil supplies come from Iran), prohibit us form devasting the place.

If my country forced an unecessary nuclear engagement, would you still trade with us? Holiday here? Allow us to holiday with you? We haven't exactly got so many friends left after Iraq. It's just not an option.

Any assault has to be surgical.

If Iran goes nuclear, they are free of us. We will never militarily interfere with them again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...A little Broadly spoken, they're a sick society that celebrates violent death.

But, look who was celebrating horrible death just a few hours earlier:

...Praise be that the horrible people who manage to carry these attacks out die a horrible death.

Indeed, it's quite sick when some guy in Denmark celebrates the violent deaths of desperate refugees from half a world away. crazy_o.gif

Ahmadinejad also said the following - Marg bar Izrail!

Prove it!! nener.gif

According to MEMRI's translated excerpt, Ahmadinejad merely referred to the possibility of others saying it:

Quote[/b] ]Prior to his statement, Ahmadinejad said that if you plan to chant the slogan 'Death to Israel,' say it in the right and complete way. -- MEMRI

MEMRI probably didn't consider the rest of his statement inflamatory enough to translate. icon_rolleyes.gif

I guess that's a paradoxal statement. People who carry out stuff like that deserve it.

"Desperate refugees"... I guess they're only "Desperate refugees" when they voluntarily live in refugee camps like rats with the help of their pathetic "government". How about insane death cult maniacs looking for pity among stupid Westerners and leftists?

About the clip - It exists. I've seen it myself. Oh, by the way, now that we're poking tongues at one another, you smell like butt! smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×