"Wiping Israel off the Map"

[Johnny Canuck3]

To the OP:
Once again:
1. No, he never said what the West liked so much to make of it and repeats it endlessely, only demonstrating their complete ignorance and even more their stiunning intellectual lazyness. It is really a gift to make such things look like competence isn't it, but shouldn't we hold the also completely lazy ignorant media and public responsible for this too?
2. Yes, it was a citation of Khomeiny.
3. End of story.

salaam.

Unfortunately for those who would deny Mr. Ahmedinejad's anti semitism and holocaust denial, the man himself has reiterated those beliefs in his letter to Angela Merkel, cite given above.

 

[ZAMB]

Unfortunately for those who would deny Mr. Ahmedinejad's anti semitism and holocaust denial, the man himself has reiterated those beliefs in his letter to Angela Merkel, cite given above.

You must believe then that this is a genuine letter from him, and not a piece of propaganda to whip up anti-Iranian sentiment - as was done so effectively with Iraq prior to both gulf wars. I prefer to listen to what the man actually says - translated by his own translator - which is very different.
Did you watch his interview on '60 minutes' - watch the full interview - not the one that was aired where bits were switched about and pre-packaged for a US audience - but the full interview. You can watch it at
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14547.htm

A lot of the interview was Mike Wallace accusing Ahmadinejad of saying things, like that 'drive into the sea' comment, or of doing things, and then not allowing him to finish explaining what he actually did say or do, or to put things into historical context. At least half of the phone-in audience of Americans were disgusted that Mike Wallace would treat the president of another country that way, with the hand gestures, cutting off his answers, and speaking loudly and disrespectfully to him. Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, did not raise his voice, and was exceptionally polite and did his best to finish his answers, even when he was interrupted with yet another accusation.

The message that he put across was that he wanted genuine dialogue with other countries, and that he has no interest in building atomic bombs - I think that it is important for the US and UK to actually listen to him - rather than trying to find made-up excuses to attack his country. I would have thought that after all the lies that preceded the Iraq war, people would be much more wary of believing government propaganda spread by the media
about another country

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You must believe then that this is a genuine letter from him, and not a piece of propaganda to whip up anti-Iranian sentiment - as was done so effectively with Iraq prior to both gulf wars.

How do you get around the fact that the letter in the cite above is from the Iranian News Agency, FARS?

 

[ZAMB]

Here is a breakdown of the letter you cite - which shows its meaning more clearly, I think, than the exerpt you chose to post.

Western headlines have chosen to report Ahmadinejine's recent letter to Chancellor Merkel as Holocaust denial. Yet he acknowledges over and over in his letter that the Holocaust happened. Is it not propaganda to take one word out of 2849 and defining it in a highly questionable manner to make a headline that clearly misrepresents the content and spirit of the letter?

full text: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8506060558

Below are excerpts wherein he acknowledges the Holocaust:

...The propaganda machinery after World War II has been so colossal that has caused some people to believe that they are the guilty party by historical accounts and must pay the penalty fort the wrongs committed by their forefathers for successive generations and for indefinite period of time.

...In addition to the people of Germany, the peoples of the Middle East have also borne the brunt of the Holocaust. By raising the necessity of settling the survivors of the Holocaust in the land of Palestine, they have created a permanent threat in the Middle East in order to rob the people of the region of the opportunities to achieve progress.

...The question is why did the victors of the war, especially England that had apparently such a strong sense of responsibility toward the survivors of the Holocaust not allow them to settle in their territory. Why did they force them to migrate to other people's land by launching a wave of anti-Semitism? Using the excuse for the settlement of the survivors of the Holocaust, they encouraged the Jews worldwide to migrate and today a large part of the inhabitants of the occupied territories are non-European Jews. If tyranny and killing is condemned in one part of the world, can we acquiesce and go along with tyranny, killing, occupation and assassinations in another part of the world simply in order to redress the past wrongs?

We need to ask ourselves that for what purposes the millions of dollars that the Zionists receive from the treasury of some Western countries are spent for. Are they used for the promotion of peace and the well-being of the people? Or are they used for waging war against Palestinians and the neighboring countries. Are the nuclear arsenals of Israel intended to be used in defense of the survivors of the Holocaust or as a permanent thereat against nations of the region and as an instrument of coercion, and possibly to defend the interests of certain circles of power in the Western countries.

Why, after all these references to the Holocaust do the Western press and so many posters on DU choose to focus on one sentence:

I have no intention of arguing about the Holocaust. But, does it not stand to reason that some victorious countries of World War II intended to create an alibi on the basis of which they could continue keeping the defeated nations of World War II indebted to them.

So what does he mean by 'alibi'? In other speeches, people focus on his use of the word 'myth', maintaining that that single word indicates holocaust denial. Imagine, out of a 2850 word speech, they are so desperate to hear the words 'holocaust denial' they focus on a single word - alibi - ignoring the overwhelming context of his acknowledging the holocaust.

When I read his speeches, I understand him to be using 'alibi' and 'myth' in their most common meanings:

myth: a story dealing with the ideas and beliefs of how something originated.
alibi: formal statement of evidence

He talks of the Holocaust being used to justify oppression. I have trouble seeing this as denial.

But I understand that powerful forces desperately need to demonize him to justify war. So this is all we see in the headlines. Instead of defining alibi as 'reason' or 'basis', they choose to change it to 'invented' and 'made up'.

This is from his speech:

But, does it not stand to reason that some victorious countries of World War II intended to create an alibi on the basis of which they could continue keeping the defeated nations of World War II indebted to them.

Now this is how it's changed:

1. Deutsche-Welle: Ahmadinejad Claims Holocaust Invented to Embarass Germany
"Is it not a reasonable possibility that some countries that had won the war made up this excuse to constantly embarrass the defeated people ... to bar their progress," Ahmadinejad said in the letter.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2149241,00.htm...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

2. Bloomberg: Ahmadinejad Calls Holocaust `Excuse' to Keep Germans `Ashamed'
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=ats...

3. Jerusalem Post: Ahmandinejad claims allies invented the Holocaust
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=115452596002...

4. AFP: Ahmadinejad says Holocaust 'made up to embarrass Germany'
http://www.ejpress.org/article/news/germany/10506

A final quotation from his letter to Merkel:
In all divine religions and before all awakened conscience and pure nature of mankind and the sense of right and wrong, the life, property and honor of people, regardless of their religious persuasion and ethnic background, must be respected at all times and all places.

But we won't read this in Western reports of his letter.

http://boston.craigslist.org/gbs/pol/200178714.html

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I posted excerpts, but also the link to the complete letter.

People can read the whole thing, and judge for themselves.

I know that Merkel seems to agree with my interpretation of it, saying that she wouldn't respond to a letter so full of inaccuracies etc.

You can 'break it down' all you want. The letter, cited on the Iranian news agency site, is a damning document against Ahmedinejad.

 

[London_Calling]

Well, if it was released by the Iranian news agency, it must be the official version.

Right, of course it "must" be the "official" version - what version anyway, do you mean what you link to must be a Government sanctioned translation becasue it's from a news agency ?!

Also, I assume that he didn't send a letter to Merkel written in Arabic.

What's Arabic got to do with anything

 

[London_Calling]

Unfortunately for those who would deny Mr. Ahmedinejad's anti semitism and holocaust denial, the man himself has reiterated those beliefs in his letter to Angela Merkel, cite given above.

He did ?

 

[TomUS]

Here is a breakdown of the letter you cite - which shows its meaning more clearly, I think, than the exerpt you chose to post.
http://boston.craigslist.org/gbs/pol/200178714.html

Here are quotes from Aljazeera. Do they mistranslate him also?

"They have fabricated a legend under the name 'Massacre of the Jews', and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves"

"Israel must be wiped off the map ... The Islamic world will not let its historic enemy live in its heartland."

"Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces ... Although we don't accept this claim..."
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/39AF3EA0-C8E9-456A-99D3-438045D4431F.htm

The president suggested that the international outrage caused by previous comments, in which he said that Holocaust denial was a matter for "scientific debate", was because he had touched a raw nerve.

Ahmadinejad, an ultra-conservative whose election victory in June took many observers by surprise, has previously labelled the Jewish state as a "tumour" that should be "wiped off the map" or moved out of the Middle East, perhaps to Alaska.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/374EC486-CA69-43C0-9313-C1057E17BDC2.htm

 

[camouflage]

I posted excerpts, but also the link to the complete letter.

People can read the whole thing, and judge for themselves.

I know that Merkel seems to agree with my interpretation of it, saying that she wouldn't respond to a letter so full of inaccuracies etc.

You can 'break it down' all you want. The letter, cited on the Iranian news agency site, is a damning document against Ahmedinejad.

Translation:

People will read the whole thing and judge in my favour.

I know Germany supports me fully, condeming the lies of those who oppose me.

You can tear down civilisation all you want, the letter proves that the Islamic world and its evil ruler Ahmedinejad is a force of evil.

 

[kyser_soze]

Can I just point out that quite clearly Ahmedinejad is quite happy to have his words 'misrepresented' in the foreign press. I mean, for all the apologists here saying 'Well he didn't say this, or that or the other' Iran certainly hasn't gone out of it's way to correct this grievous mistranslation have they?

So either Ahmedinejad wants to be seen as a raving anti-semite, or all this 'Well that's not what he meant' business is bollocks. Or is he playing a very long, dangerous game here to actually precipitate conflict?

What I love about this board, and many of these discussions, is the polarisation you see - USUK=evil and obviously can't be trusted, Iran=misunderstood people, peace loving, not interested in building nukes...well as an Iranian who is opposed to the civilian nuke programme said - 'We sit on huge oil deposits - why do we NEED to build nuclear power stations?'...

 

[nino_savatte]

Well, if it was released by the Iranian news agency, it must be the official version.

Also, I assume that he didn't send a letter to Merkel written in Arabic.

It tells you that it is an "Iranian news agency" but do you always accept such things without so much as a question of your own?

There are many Iranian exiles, all of them supportive of the US and its foreign policy objectives. Interestingly enough the "About Us" link isn't working on that page. Funny that.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Can I just point out that quite clearly Ahmedinejad is quite happy to have his words 'misrepresented' in the foreign press. I mean, for all the apologists here saying 'Well he didn't say this, or that or the other' Iran certainly hasn't gone out of it's way to correct this grievous mistranslation have they?

So either Ahmedinejad wants to be seen as a raving anti-semite, or all this 'Well that's not what he meant' business is bollocks. Or is he playing a very long, dangerous game here to actually precipitate conflict?<snip>

My guess is that he's playing the game of 'superpower baiting' in order to build global prestige. He knows the US is fucked if it tries to occupy Iran and he knows that if they do to Iran what the Israelis just did to Lebanon, then the almost inevitable result will be to strengthen the Iranian hard-liners. If they don't do anything, then he's successfully defied them. In almost all scenarios, from his point of view 'superpower baiting' leaves him and his friends the winners.

 

[kyser_soze]

My guess is that he's playing the game of 'superpower baiting' in order to build global prestige. He knows the US is fucked if it tries to occupy Iran and he knows that if they do to Iran what the Israelis just did to Lebanon, then the almost inevitable result will be to strengthen the Iranian hard-liners. If they don't do anything, then he's successfully defied them. In almost all scenarios, from his point of view 'superpower baiting' leaves him and his friends the winners.

My thinking as well on this - despite all the outcry's about 'mistranslation' the Iranians have had ages to correct this error and haven't, so there must be a reason behind it.

 

[camouflage]

Can I just point out that quite clearly Ahmedinejad is quite happy to have his words 'misrepresented' in the foreign press. I mean, for all the apologists here saying 'Well he didn't say this, or that or the other' Iran certainly hasn't gone out of it's way to correct this grievous mistranslation have they?

So either Ahmedinejad wants to be seen as a raving anti-semite, or all this 'Well that's not what he meant' business is bollocks. Or is he playing a very long, dangerous game here to actually precipitate conflict?

What I love about this board, and many of these discussions, is the polarisation you see - USUK=evil and obviously can't be trusted, Iran=misunderstood people, peace loving, not interested in building nukes...well as an Iranian who is opposed to the civilian nuke programme said - 'We sit on huge oil deposits - why do we NEED to build nuclear power stations?'...

Are you sure they haven't gone out of their way to correct these 'mistranslations'? Or is it that our media doesn't bother to report that sort of thing, like they didn't bother to report Irans clarification on it's Palistine position (one-state solution) or the rallies held in the country to grieve for the victims of 9/11, or the previous 'moderate' president who was up for normalising relations with the West, etc etc. Anything off-message un-exists in our media, at least when it relates to a nation our leaders have decided to go after.

I don't mind being an apologist for Iranian international policy (if that's what you call being opposed to lies, misinformation and war-mongery) because Iran hasn't actually started any wars, invaded any nations or bombed any cities from above as far as I remember. I'd be more ashamed of myself to be a USUK Apologist quite frankly, as this particular axis of evil has proved it's lies and barbarity several times in this young centuary alone.

Furthermore, anyone who thinks Iran should be invaded or bombed for seeking energy diversification is a shit-starting fuckwit who needs immediate psychomedical attention in my humble opinion.

I'm a rabid athiest, most of Iran would not like what I have to say about religion, a theocracy would certainly not count me a s a friend, and niether would a bunch of lying hypocritical terror-bombing arrogant war-starting supremacist bastards.

 

[kyser_soze]

or the previous 'moderate' president who was up for normalising relations with the West

Umm...he got tons of positive coverage in Western press.

And Iran just violently represses it's own people, so obviously it's a regime to be respected and trusted.

 

[camouflage]

Umm...he got tons of positive coverage in Western press.

And Iran just violently represses it's own people, so obviously it's a regime to be respected and trusted.

What's the problem, Iran violently repressing it's own people was perfectly acceptable when the Shah and SAVAK ran things, so was an Iranian nuclear program for that matter, why suddenly get all shrill and invadey now?

I think we've just caught a glimpse of Reason 2, after the invasion, once no nuclear weapons programme has been discovered in Iran, it'll turn out we nuked em to save the Iranian people from being oppressed.

Obviously it won't get that far anyway, the Chimp and his poodle will throw a few nuclear bunker-busters around (in attempt to save the world from nuclear weapons) the price of oil will match that for a barrel of liquid silver or something, a big mess will be had all round, the troops collateral-damaging Iraq will find themselves in a real war (not just the ugly and psycotic business that is 'Counter Insurgency'), and USUK Apologists like you will be coming out with "Yes, okay it is all a big fucking mess, but now we're in the shit, why not think of something constructive to say instead of just playing the blame game" or some other stupid twattery like that.

I know this, because I've seen it before.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I wonder though. If the US does attack Iran, the mess they create may just be so fucking awful that it marks the high-tide of US imperialism. It seems to me that the economic fall-out of some of the nastier scenarios could well be bad enough to fuck the US as an imperial power, at least in the longer term.

It's much easier to start a war with Iran than to finish one. In fact, short of dropping nukes I don't see how the US *can* finish that war once they've started it.

 

[camouflage]

I wonder though. If the US does attack Iran, the mess they create may just be so fucking awful that it marks the high-tide of US imperialism. It seems to me that the economic fall-out of some of the nastier scenarios could well be bad enough to fuck the US as an imperial power, at least in the longer term.

It's much easier to start a war with Iran than to finish one. In fact, short of dropping nukes I don't see how the US *can* finish that war once they've started it.

Well, they do seem to be into the whole eternal war thing, maybe it's what they want.

 

[kyser_soze]

will throw a few nuclear bunker-busters around

The nuclear bunker busters that DON'T EXIST would that be?

And I'm not a USUK apologist - I just don't split the world neatly into 'good guys' and 'bad guys' and I not blind enough to think that only Western powers have long term strategic aims for resources, or that no one else in the world wants to develop nukes simply because it fits my worldview.

Nor have I ever advocated invading Iran at any stage. So could you revisit what you've written for accuracy and building strawmen and misrepresenting people?

BG - I think the US is already past the high water mark of it's imperial abilities; I think it happened some time ago in fact, and Bush and his buddies are merely trying to implement ideas and plans they formulated during the 1970s but could never act on while the US was in it's post-Vietnam malaise. What's happening now is the last gasp of a dying imperial power that in many respects is in internal discord as to what it actually is as a nation.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Well, they do seem to be into the whole eternal war thing, maybe it's what they want.

Maybe, but I suspect they still haven't really grasped that it's possible to overcook it. What I mean is, suppose the US elites really do want endless war? Up to a point, this is highly profitable, especially for defence industries and so on. The assumption here would be that they don't particularly mind a mess like Iraq, because although their counter-insurgency practices don't really solve anything, they can handle that level of hassle almost indefinitely. Serious disruption to global oil supplies is quite another matter though. Some companies would profit but a lot would be seriously struggling if that happened, so you'd no longer get a consensus in political circles. For some corporations and other key players, it might then become a matter of survival to change US policies to less disruptive ones.

 

[camouflage]

The nuclear bunker busters that DON'T EXIST would that be?

And I'm not a USUK apologist - I just don't split the world neatly into 'good guys' and 'bad guys' and I not blind enough to think that only Western powers have long term strategic aims for resources, or that no one else in the world wants to develop nukes simply because it fits my worldview.

Personally I think Iran is well within its rights to develop Nuclear Weapons, but as I said before, I don't think they want them. But what do I know about that, about the same as you and the US president anyway. I don't spilt the world neatly into good guys vs bad guys, but some regimes are pretty predictable in their malignant intentions. If a shark wants to swim in the childrens paddling pool, you're pretty safe to assume it's not because the shark wants to teach your kids to swim, crap analogy but it'll suffice I think.

Nor have I ever advocated invading Iran at any stage. So could you revisit what you've written for accuracy and building strawmen and misrepresenting people?

I'm sorry, have I mis-interpreted you? That's really low of me, I'm terribly sorry. Anyway it doesn't matter, you support invading Iran, you want to nuke them, you are probably persuing nuclear weapons this very minute to wipe Iran from the map.

Or does it actually matter now what you actually say, regardless of how I might choose to mis-translate you?

 

[kyser_soze]

Or does it actually matter now what you actually say, regardless of how I might choose to mis-translate you?

Is this some kind of obscure reference to the thread theme of inaccurately translated words perchance? And you haven't 'mistranslated' me at all - misrepresented what I said, and I've promptly pulled you up on it, something your little buddies in Iran conspicuously failed to do, even on friendly media channels like Al-Jazz.

I think any country has a right to develop nukes - I'd rather they didn't because unlike the superpower nuke standoff, having one or two is far more likely to lead to an exchange since in theory such an exchange can be 'won' by one side - MAD was crazy, but a strategic balance of mutual destruction where almost all deployment strategies called for massive and overwhelming use of nukes. A nuke stand-off between Iran and Israel would be a far nastier and have more potential to explode (apologies for the pun) then Russia and the US (for example, can you really see them opting for the 'red phone' method of direct communications between the two leaders that the US and Russia installed after Cuba?).

 

[ZAMB]

Are you sure they haven't gone out of their way to correct these 'mistranslations'? Or is it that our media doesn't bother to report that sort of thing, like they didn't bother to report Irans clarification on it's Palistine position (one-state solution) or the rallies held in the country to grieve for the victims of 9/11, or the previous 'moderate' president who was up for normalising relations with the West, etc etc. Anything off-message un-exists in our media, at least when it relates to a nation our leaders have decided to go after.

On that '60 minutes' programme, the Iranian president tried his best to explain what he did mean - as well as denying things that he was reported as having said, but didn't know about until he read about them in the papers, but, as I've said before, his answers were sneered at, interupted, and generally treated with contempt. I would prefer to believe what I have actually heard people say to what is reported in the press - the press being so 'accurate' and all.
As you say, the Iranian president's solution to the holocaust is a one state solution with free elections for all the people. As far as I can see, his position on the holocaust is that it was something that happened in Europe, done by Europeans to Europeans, but, after the war, other Europeans decided that the people of Palestine, who played no part in the holocaust, should pay the price of their guilty feelings for allowing it to happen.

As for 'holocaust denial', Norman Finkelstein said something interesting about that last night on Democracy now. He refused to go into the question of what the Iranian president said or didn't say but he said this about holocaust denial

Anyone who's a critic of Israel becomes an anti-Semite. And the truth of the matter is, the real anti-Semites, they don't really care about -- or the real Holocaust deniers, which is their other favorite epithet to hurl at people or expectorate at people who are critical of Israel --

So you take the case, you know, now there's a lot of discussion about the Iranian president's statements denying the Nazi Holocaust. Whether he actually did or not literally, I’m not going to get into now. It's not so important. For argument's sake, let's say he did do it. He denied the Nazi Holocaust. Now, you heard Mr. Weiner. He's very fond of Abbas. He says Abbas has nothing to do with the PLO. Now, you take Abbas. Abbas is an authentic Holocaust denier. He wrote his doctoral dissertation denying the Nazi Holocaust. He published it as a book in 1982. He said less than a million Jews were killed during World War II. He denied the Nazi gas chambers. Now there you have a real Holocaust denier. You don't have to really probe the meaning of his words. It's pretty straightforward. Well, he's the American favorite now. Everybody loves Mr. Abbas, because he does the American bidding. So they don't care that he's a Holocaust denier.

Let me just give another pretty indicative example. Take the case of Ronald Reagan. Nowadays many people are fond of Reagan. You listen to rightwing radio, which I listen to all the time, and you listen -- everyone loves Reagan. Everybody forgets Reagan was the one who went to Bitburg, gave the speech saying that the Nazi soldiers, including the Nazi -- the Waffen-SS, were victims, just like the Jews in the concentration camps. That was his famous statement at Bitburg. The ADL, which claims to be so vigilant about Holocaust denial, the ADL gave him their Torch of Liberty Award.

Then, just this past -- two years ago, Berlusconi, the president of Italy --

AMY GOODMAN: Former.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Former president of Italy, gave this speech praising Mussolini and saying all the charges against Mussolini were false, he was basically a good guy. Three weeks -- three weeks after he gave his speech -- and remember, Mussolini passed the Anti-Semitic Laws, at the end of his regime, sent Jews to their death. Three weeks after he gave his speech, the ADL, Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, who is now accusing Amnesty of borderline anti-Semitism, they gave him the distinguished Statesman of the Year Award, had a big gala for him, and even fairly conservative economists like Robert Solow, Paul Samuelson, Modigliani -- okay, they're not conservative by conventional standards -- mainstream economists. They wrote a very irate letter to the New York Times: Why is the ADL giving this guy an award? Well, the answer was simple. Because at that point, he was the only European leader who was very pro -- he was very pro-Israel. They don't care about Holocaust denial. They have no interest in it.
Let me give you one example, just --

AMY GOODMAN: Ten seconds.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Yeah, one example, just from what you were airing a moment ago. You heard the speech by Rumsfeld, where he says that Iraq is like the Nazis in the 1930s. Now, remember, the tenet of the Holocaust industry is, never compare the Holocaust to anything else. Never compare, and if you compare, they say you’re a Holocaust denier. But that side is always comparing. The Mufti of Jerusalem was Hitler. Nasser was Hitler. Saddam Hussein was Hitler. Hezbollah is now Hitler. Iran is Hitler. Hamas is Hitler. Iraq is Hitler. They're the worst Holocaust deniers in the world, by their own definition. They're always comparing.

You can read the whole interview in context at http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/30/1418200

I don't mind being an apologist for Iranian international policy (if that's what you call being opposed to lies, misinformation and war-mongery) because Iran hasn't actually started any wars, invaded any nations or bombed any cities from above as far as I remember. I'd be more ashamed of myself to be a USUK Apologist quite frankly, as this particular axis of evil has proved it's lies and barbarity several times in this young centuary alone.

Furthermore, anyone who thinks Iran should be invaded or bombed for seeking energy diversification is a shit-starting fuckwit who needs immediate psychomedical attention in my humble opinion.

I'm a rabid athiest, most of Iran would not like what I have to say about religion, a theocracy would certainly not count me a s a friend, and niether would a bunch of lying hypocritical terror-bombing arrogant war-starting supremacist bastards.

I totally agree with foreigner on this. The question is not whether we would feel comfortable with the Iranian regime - as a Buddhist, I am also by definition an atheist, and doubt very much if I would fit in there.

The question is 'Who are starting these wars and why?' Iran is not starting any wars, and, before the revolution, western countries were falling over themselves to give the Shah much more nuclear ability than they are condemning Iran for seeking now. The US ignores the nuclear power and weapons programmes of other countries who have never signed the NPT and are not subject to inspection, while ignoring their own obligations under the NPT to help Iran, as a co-signatory, to develop its nuclear power industry. If the US or Israel tries nuking Iran, do you think they can count on the protection of the nuclear weapons countries, including the UK, who signed an agreement with Iran to protect it if attacked by nukes? I don't think so, somehow. This shows the total contempt that the US, the UK and other countries have for treaties signed by their own governments.

 

[ZAMB]

The nuclear bunker busters that DON'T EXIST would that be?

Really? Don't exist?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060217&articleId=1988

If it were to be launched against Iran, it would result in radioactive contamination over a large part of the Middle East - Central Asian region, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths, including US troops stationed in Iraq:

"The use of any nuclear weapon capable of destroying a buried target that is otherwise immune to conventional attack will necessarily produce enormous numbers of civilian casualties. No earth-burrowing missile can penetrate deep enough into the earth to contain an explosion with a nuclear yield [of a low yield B61-11] even as small as 1 percent of the 15 kiloton Hiroshima weapon. The explosion simply blows out a massive crater of radioactive dirt, which rains down on the local region with an especially intense and deadly fallout."(Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons, by Robert W. Nelson, op cit )

At present, the B61-11 is slated for use in war theaters together with conventional weapons. (Congressional Report“ Bunker Busters”: Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Issues , Congressional Research Service March 2005). (Other versions of the B61, namely mod 3, 4, 7 and 10, which are part of the US arsenal, involve nuclear bunker buster bombs with a lower yield to that of B61-11).

(For further details see http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/B61.html )

 

[nino_savatte]

There's only one problem with this; Finkelstein refers to Berlusconi as the "[former] Italian president". Berlusconi has never been president, he was the PM.

<pedant mode off>

 

[kyser_soze]

The B61-11 is an EARTH penetrating bomb (i.e it can penetrate earth) that has had a tactical nuke warhead put in in place of a conventional bomb. It is NOT designed to penetrate any kind of hardened target or bunker:

The earth-penetrating capability of the B61-11 is fairly limited, however. Tests show it penetrates only 20 feet or so into dry earth when dropped from an altitude of 40,000 feet.

From http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm

These would not work as bunker busters, were not designed as bunker busters - they are simply a re-weaponing of a conventional earth penetrating bomb.

Global Research are quite clearly a bit free and easy with their language - earthworks are NOT bunkers - a bunker is a deep buried, hardened structure that in many cases are designed to withstand nuke strikes of up to 10MT.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Realistically, short of a negotiated agreement there is no way to stop a sovereign nation going nuclear if it has both the technology base and the inclination.

Part of the problem here is that the US does not recognise the concept of sovereignty unless it's convenient for them to do so. So they act as though it's a non-issue. It's a large issue to almost everyplace other than the US though, especially people who might find themselves on the wrong end of US power.

So that means Iran has a huge constituency of possible supporters because a great many other peoples see their interests in danger from the US's strong disinclination to embrace the concept of other nations having sovereignty.

 

[kyser_soze]

I wonder if there are any other similar parallels that can be drawn with previous 'end of Empire' periods? I'm thinking about Britain's attitude to sovreignty as it lost the Empire - were previous Empires in a similar position similar in outlook, or is the US unique in it's pick and choose approach? I suspect the former...

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think the big difference is that the US sees a conventional war (correctly) and indeed any other sort of conflict (incorrectly) as no contest for their military. In most other historical situations I can bring to mind, there were near-peer rivals around who would at least have had some chance in a war.

 

[kyser_soze]

I think the big difference is that the US sees a conventional war (correctly) and indeed any other sort of conflict (incorrectly) as no contest for their military. In most other historical situations I can bring to mind, there were near-peer rivals around who would at least have had some chance in a war.

MMM...it would be interesting to see how the US coped if it was going up against a well trained and armed force. While it doesn't have any immediate peers, I give Russia about 5-10 years and it will be in a similar position militarily...