Destination: Iran

Remove all ads!

Now that Iraq appears to be heading in the right direction (I know that because nobody's started threads about it here in a while ), do we take out this nutcase before or after he gets nukes?

discuss...

 

Wow, somebody actually competing to be stupider than Bush; wouldn't have believed it. I say we should get the two of them into a debate so we can at least laugh our a$$es off before the war starts.

 

I say lets let the jews take care of their own problems.

 

Oh, great! Next thing you know we'll be invading Iran because this A$$ in a deep dungy pit is just begging our Bushy tailed pres for trouble.

 

One could argue that one of the reasons Iraq was such a mistake is because it ties our hands, preventing us from being able to afford to go after people who are actually a threat...like this yutz. Now that we've already wasted our "pre-emptive strike" card and blown all credibility, I don't see it happening for a while. But who knows...

 

He does have a point about "so, to make up for crimes Germany committed against the Jews, you're going to give them a nation...in Palestine?"

Of course, the time to hash that out was over fifty years ago. Crying over spilt milk, at this point.

 

After WWII, I believe that the Jews did have some input over where they wanted their homeland to be, and that is where they chose it to be. They believe ti to be the Holy Land, and they wanted it. Because Europe and the Americans had a say in it, they got it. Anyone objecting has to object not only to Israel, but to all the nations that supported the Jews into Israel. If they want to fight, I doubt that you'd have to twist George W.'s arm too hard, and Europe would likely step into this one...

 

Because Iran has an ******* for a president (they are not the only ones!), more civillians have to die?

 

It's not that he an ******* (or whatever the asterisks mean), it's that he's openly called for destruction of Israel. He's the one calling for the deaths of civilians. So to answer your question - no they don't have to die, but if this guy gets his way, they will.

 

Its hardly unique for a country such as Iran to call for the destruction of Isreal. Many Republicans (Irish not US) have called for the destruction of England, and somehow I don't think this will happen.

How many times have certain people here called for the destruction of the entire middle east? They are just empty threats. It is a horrible thing to say, but at the end of the day, its just a threat, not a promise.

 

Were any of these people Presidents at the time? My neighbor (when I still lived in Texas) claimed he wanted to turn the entire middle east into a glass factory, if he had his way. But he wasn't in control of an army or a burgeoning nuclear arsenal, so he can say whatever he wants. Even if he were a politician, it would be considered controversial, yes - but he wouldn't have the power to act on that extreme viewpoint.

When it comes from the President of a country - especially one elected in a landslide because of a platform of such extremist views - I think it's something that should be taken pretty damn seriously. It ceases to become an empty threat when you actually have the power to do what you propose, or provoke a pre-emptive self defense strike to stop it - which I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Israel did, really. Some would argue they would be justified in doing so after such a threat.

edit - spelling.

[ December 15, 2005, 10:41: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

I think its more of a way to rally support. Would he be the first leader to call for the destruction of another country, and not actually intend to go through with it?

If you really think about it, Bush is a mad man with his 'Axis of Evil' labels for certain countries (and his constant threats), but its a good way for him to gain support for his people.

Bush and Ahmadinejad are in league with each other.

As for your neighbour - does he think this way because of 11th September?

 

Good lord...I'm about to defend George W. Bush...lord forgive me...

Comparing what Bush has said to what Ahmadinejad is saying is silly. They aren't even in the same ball park. Bush has never called for a country and it's every living inhabitant to be wiped of the face of the planet. He has stated that these governments should be toppled and replaced, not that the country be destroyed. What Bush has said is not even CLOSE to the same thing as the rhetoric of Ahmadinejad. What's more - Ahmadinejad wants Israel destroyed first and formost because the Isralis are Jews, not because they are any kind of a threat to Iran. As for Bush being a madman - no, I don't think he is. A dumbass, yes. An incompetant, certainly - but not a madman.

*shudder* That was painful.

As for my neighbor - he was a redneck who disliked "camel-jockies" well before September 11 - all it did was solidify his feelings.

 

Good points DR, but Ahmadinejad would have no chance against Israel. He knows this of course, but he is letting his hormones, and bitter past influence his speeches.

If he does attack Isreal (not likely) than by all means get rid of that idiot, but don't let innocent Iranians, suffer because of empty threats.

 

Crazy. As if Iran wasnt already in a 'delicate' situation prior to this scandal. But once one is in the defensive...

Although I wonder why this gets such a coverage while, for example, Turkey's denial of the Armenian genocide is swept under the carpet most of the time.
The intricacies of power politics, no doubt.

 

I wouldn't be too sure. At the moment, it's true - a direct conflict between Iran and Israel would have Israel coming out on top. But that's right now. As I'm sure you're aware, Iran is on its way to procuring nuclear technology. That would give Iran a power at least on a par with Israel. But the real power comes from the fact that almost every other Muslim nation in the region wants a crack at Israel, too. Were he to get more nations to join him in such an attack...well, let's just say my neighbor would get his wish.

Also - we wouldn't attack Iran as a direct result of the threats alone. Diplomacy and saber-rattling would come first, of course. Any deaths of civilian Iranians will be laid squarely at the feet of Ahmadinejad if we or Israel (or anyone, at this point) were to attack him, because we would always give any nation we engage a chance to pipe down and play nice before calling down the fire. As far as I'm concerned, Ahmadinejad is the one putting innocent Iranians in danger by shooting his mouth off.

 

When Sadam was 'dethroned' it was his fault that Iraqi's continue to suffer?

So an Idiot in Iran cannot 'shoot his mouth off', or else his people will suffer, yet US citizens can give millions of $'s legally in the US for the sole purpose of purchasing guns and bomb making equipment (sometimes guns are directly sent over)?

 

I can't say I'm completely sure but I don't think the Iranian President is all that powerful. Was the last president not quite liberal? Doesn't the final power lie with the council of elders or something like that?

In any case I'm worried about Iranian nukes and most certainly would not want them getting any. However I think it's important to try every diplomatical possibility before using military force. Also, taking out Iran would be a lot more difficult than the operation in Iraq. In Iraq you had the support of Kurds and even parts of the Shiias. In Iran you have no such thing. You have to fight through a country that would be throughout hostile. There are democratic ambitions in parts of Iran sure, but they would also stand united against an outside invader killing their people. No matter how you twist it an invasion would be a bloodbath and the occupation a disaster, we're dealing with a country that has three times the population of Iraq here and that population would probably be hell of a lot more hostile. I just don't see the west succeeding in there.

What I would rather do is bomb the "alleged" nuclear facilities to oblivion, if it is required. If Iran then decides to start messing around then you just kick them back to their country until they get enough of bashing their heads to a brick wall.

 

His comments would certainly provide an excuse for the Israeli if they decide to take out his nuclear facilities.

I can't believe how dumb this is. You're supposed to shoot off your mouth after aquiring some bombs, not before.

 

**hands DR a mild sedative to aid in his "Near Bush" experience**

The power of the Iranian president is rather variable, depending on the degree of support he gets from the religious fundamentalist mullahs. This current president seems to enjoy a large amt. of support, as opposed to the previous one who was more progressive.

Bombing the nuclear facilities isn't too comfortable an option as Iran has already pledged to lauch missiles against Israel if the sites are attacked. Although they probably don't have nuclear warheads, there's no telling what might be on the tips of those missiles (Holy Neocon Batman, the missing Iraqi WMD!!!)

I don't think that the US will be in a pre-emptive mode on this issue, due to the struggles in Afganistan and Iraq and a likely swing toward a more liberal Executive branch in 2008. I have a feeling that dealing with the menace of Iran will be the greatest test (and likely failure) of the United Nations.