Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Israel will bomb the Iranian nuclear sites.

Hark! Is that the sound of 4422 "coalition" graves and 42497 or many more Iraqi graves creaking open and disgorging their now-undead denizens, all muttering "thank you elbows"?

I guess that's why the west should not get involved in Zimbabwe. Even if it turns into another Rwanda we will only be able to stand on the sidelines and admit that taking out dictators isn't our business. Which it obviously isn't, despite our colonial impact.
 
I think Israeli politicians would like the US to bomb Iran's nuke facilities. If the US is not willing to do that and if the Israeli government thinks that Iran represents a real threat to Israel's existence, then of course Israel will try to do the job itself.

I do not know how near or far Iran is from having nukes, but if and when it gets close, I would certainly not trust the Islamist regime. Israel would be foolish to trust Iran not to use its nukes to wipe out Israel.

You can deter normal people. Can you deter Islamonuts or are they keen to turn many of their compatriots and co-religionists into shaheeds to destroy the wicked Zionist entity? They will try to discern the will of God... What will they decide it is?
 
Hark! Is that the sound of 4422 "coalition" graves and 42497 or many more Iraqi graves creaking open and disgorging their now-undead denizens, all muttering "thank you elbows"?

I was very strongly against the Iraq war, and I was talking about wider regional violence not happening. Within Iraq itself the horror speaks for itself.
 
I guess that's why the west should not get involved in Zimbabwe. Even if it turns into another Rwanda we will only be able to stand on the sidelines and admit that taking out dictators isn't our business. Which it obviously isn't, despite our colonial impact.

Well I find the question of whether to continue to strongly influence the events in countries that we once controlled directly, to be extremely difficult. We played a part in Mugabe getting into power in the first place.

The most palatable answer with the Zimbabwe situation is that some African nations would do something.

If Mugabe does not get removed in the near future, it sounds like all of Zimbabwe will suffer both from his regime, and from tougher sanctions imposed by us.
 
Well I find the question of whether to continue to strongly influence the events in countries that we once controlled directly, to be extremely difficult. We played a part in Mugabe getting into power in the first place.

As we did in Iraq. Idi Amin was one of ours, too. :eek:
 
Ahh when times were simpler, and we could just redraw the map eh. Seems like we favoured installing monarchies in the Middle East in the early part of last century. One of the early Kings of Iraq was killed when he drove his car into a lamp post!

Mind you we stil love dealing with monarchies, look at most of our bestest friends in the Middle East these days.
 
Plus Iran, even if it's not quite the right kind of Islamic state, is an Islamic state, Iraq wasn't, so I'd assume it'd garner more popular sympathy for that. From regional populations I mean, not governments.

To an extent yes, although the Sunni Shia stuff will come into play with populations as well as governments. Not too many countries have really large Shia populations.
 
I know :(

But there needs to be something done about the behaviour of the Iranian Govt. Calling for Israel to be wiped off the map is taking the matter beyond the pale.
If you're referring to the Ahmedinedjad speech where he quoted Khomeini, then you'd do well to get a Frasi-speaker to translate the actual text of the speech for you, and take the "wiped off the map" bit in context, rather than relying on the inaccurate translation that MEMRI put out to the world's media.
 
Iran flexing its muscles is the natural line off events considering that the US (and Britain to only a slightly lesser extent) are responsible for Irans position today. The US has a whole lot to answer for and bears the responsibility for everthing that has happened leading up to, including, and after the Islamic revolution in Iran.

But as far as "wiping Israel off the map", I don't think Iran is really commited to such an undertaking. Furthermore, I believe that both Iran and North Korea are merely bluffing for barter power. I certainly don't blame them either.
 
Funny how Iran gets stick for (in a a dodgy translation) supposedly talking about wiping someone off the map when the only state in the region to ACTUALLY wipe someone off the map is Israel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. And it still continues. With its continuing settlement and occupation (all illegal of course according to the UN) in the West Bank and its ghettoisation of Gaza the remaining Palestinian lands will be a memory in 50 years time.

Oh, and Israel has nukes.

The world is ass-backwards, it really is
 
Funny how Iran gets stick for (in a a dodgy translation) supposedly talking about wiping someone off the map when the only state in the region to ACTUALLY wipe someone off the map is Israel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. And it still continues. With its continuing settlement and occupation (all illegal of course according to the UN) in the West Bank and its ghettoisation of Gaza the remaining Palestinian lands will be a memory in 50 years time.

Oh, and Israel has nukes.

The world is ass-backwards, it really is

no, no no - driving people from their land, forcing them into an ever smaller area of land, taking their water resources, limiting their movement, bombing them, killing their representitives, invading what's left of their land.....that's different........its erm.......well it just IS!

Have you not heard of righteousness?! It's a recurrent theme of powerful states.

/sarcasm ends here
 
A quote from the this article published in yesterdays Guardian..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/25/iran.israelandthepalestinians

The Guardian said:
Israelis recall the words of the former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani, who in 2001 declared that "the use of a single atomic bomb has the power to destroy Israel completely, while it will only cause partial damage to the Islamic world". They took that to mean that Iran is big enough to withstand a nuke, while Israel is so small it would be wiped out with just one bomb. What's more, Israelis worry that a regime with a strong doctrinal belief in martyrdom might not fear national suicide the way that, say, the Soviet Union once did.

Also as mentioned to us "wiping Israel off the map" is just a metaphor, but to the state of Israel with its Holocaust complex its an explicit threat from a known enemy.

After reading the above I would not be suprised if Israel did not launch a limited strike against Iran's nuclear facilities as they did against Iraq in 1981 before 2010.
 
no. even if it were vaugely true.

Quite. I often wonder why so many seem to have bought the line that Iran is so dangerous and can't be trusted to have nuclear weapons.

Its not a particularly nice regime, especially domestically, but internationally its positively benign compared to many
 
Its not a particularly nice regime, especially domestically, but internationally its positively benign compared to many
Quite. It hasn't ethnically cleansed nearly 1m people, it hasn't launched wars against all its neighbours, it doesn't have 150-200 nuclear weapons and a secret reactor in the Negev Desert, it doesn't illegally occupy neighbouring territory, it doesn't unlawfully assassinate, imprison, harass, roadblock a population it is illegally occupying.

Only one country in the Middle East has done/is doing all these things.
 
Its more likely that Israel wants to remain the sole nuclear power in the middle east, than that they actually expect Iran to attack them with nukes. They dont want Iran to be able to make stalemate of their nuclear stuff, they dont want MAD in taht region.
 
Back
Top Bottom