Iran

[Aurielius]

Excerpt of sukeban's post

"As far as being anti-Israel myself, I do not feel that this is the case. I just do not view Israel as being anything particularly special. In other words, I am unsentimental (as I am about many other things) about that country. They are one country in a world of 186. The Holocaust was ~70 years ago. Horrific as it undeniably was, people need to let go of this and stop using it to justify their present-day behavior (again with Netanyahu and the Book of Esther). I suppose that I just find it rather unjust that the Arabs were made to pay for the crimes of Nazi Germany and their collaborating allies. If justice were really to be meted out against the offending parties, wouldn't a more logical course of action been to have given the Jewish people a part of Germany and consider that justice done?

 

That might be a shocking thing to read, but which is really more important in terms of the safety of the Jewish people (which we all want)--that they have a state to call their own or its precise location? Whatever the Mufti of Jerusalem may or may not have said or done back in the days, he did not plan, orchestrate, nor carry out the Holocaust.* So why were his people made to sacrifice their lands for the state of Israel? That is not justice. Germany was responsible for the crimes of the Holocaust, but was excused from paying penance. Nor do I look favorably at intersections of religion and state power, which is what the Zionist project is. If they really wanted a state, they could probably have had it just about anywhere. That they demanded it be in Palestine is a cultural and religious demand, not a matter of security. It is indeed the Jewish homeland, but it was also a tragically revanchist demand to make given that the Jewish people had not been a majority there for thousands of years. Think of all the displaced (or actually extinct) minorities that could make that same claim. What would the world look like then? It is a fact that Zionists were given special consideration given the aftermath of the Second World War. It is also a fact that the Taino Indians of the Caribbean (driven to extinction courtesy of Columbus) will never be extended this same sort of consideration, that they wouldn't even if they were still alive to tell the tale."

 

I take exception to your lack of historical perspective. The Mufti were Nazi clients, they supplied troops to the Waffen SS, harbored Nazi infiltrators in Palestine, the Grand Mufti was received by Hitler in the Reich chancellery during the war. British intelligence during and post war had evidence of collaboration to dispose of the 'Jewish Problem" post war if the Axis was victorious. In 1945, Yugoslavia sought to indict the Mufti as a war criminal for his role in recruiting 20,000 Muslim volunteers for the SS, who participated in the killing of Jews in Croatia and Hungary.

 

Next you assert that Germany escaped to consequences of the Holocaust, just what do you think the Nuremberg trials were? The country itself was partitioned for over 40 years by occupying forces, to a modern German they have had to live with that stain for crimes that were committed before they were born. The Soviet Union took 2,388,000 Germans and 1,097,000 combatants from other European nations as prisoners during and just after the war. More than a million of the German captives died. Even so the Germans have faced up to that horrendous portion of their history and have made it illegal to promote any form of Nazism today, no matter how trivial. It is usually the first act of revisionism to state that it was so long a ago that it bears no resemblance to facts today so why not just let it go, the next step is to deny that the causality figure are accurate and are over estimated and the final is to deny that it ever happened.

 

As for your verbal slight of hand of the using the Caribbean Indians as a red herring why not bring up the Carthaginian maltreatment at the hands of the Roman Republic, of which at that point in time there there had been a Jewish presence in Palestine for over a millennium (1209 BCE).

 

This is going to be my last post in this thread because it is going horribly off track and I do not want to contribute to that more than this refutation of what I consider misrepresentations of facts. If sukeban wants to defend his thesis on this then I suggest he create a thread specifically dealing with it. He may rest assured that I will attend

Edited April 2, 2012 by Aurielius

[Marxist ßastard]

Now as it happens I am at the moment focused on a period of history just under 2000 years ago, which makes it quite apparent that there were Jews in Israel then and had been for thousands of years before that, excepting the odd diaspora of course. IIRC, the Arabs didn't arrive there, as conquerors, until the 7th Century CE. So there's no wonder the Israeli Jews think it's theirs. Their ancestors got there first, if you want to start splitting hairs.

Let's split some hairs.

 

If you believe the Biblical narrative, then the Israelites moved in apropos of nothing and slaughtered the native Canaanites. They were foreign conquerers with no ancestral claim to the land whatsoever.

 

If you throw out the Biblical narrative and look just at archaeological evidence, it's clear that the Israelites were Canaanites, and they only formed a unique national identity after the Babylonian exile, circa 500 BCE. And Israel was under autonomous Jewish rule only during the Hasmonean Dynasty, from 110 BCE to 60 BCE. Egypt, Assyria, the Neo-Babylonian Empire, the Persian Empire, the Seleucid Empire, and the Roman Empire each ruled Israel for longer, and in most cases earlier. So modern Israelis only have a claim to the land on the basis that they are descended from Canaanites. But modern Palestinians are much more closely related to the Canaanites than are modern Israelis, so they have a stronger claim.

 

It's also worth asking: Why is this a point of discussion at all? Does anyone have an automatic right to settle on land and displace the native population if they claim to have a handful of distant ancestors who lived there 2400 years ago? I'm ethnically Scots-Irish – does that mean I have a legitimate claim to land in Scots-Ireland?

[Nintii]

Yes Sukeban, I agree everyone can make claims to some piece of land somewhere.

 

But as per my story ... the Jews NEVER left Israel because they WANTED TO ... they were taken into captivity ... If I came along and took your car or your truck or

even your house against your wishes and now a couple of years went by and you still clung desperately to the hope of getting it back ... should I hate you for wanting

your stuff back ?

And then when somone comes along and gives you a mere shadow of what you once owned should I now want to kill you and everyone in your family and all your

relatives because you've taken even the little shadow ?

 

How about I still felt that I could dictate to you what you should and shouldn't and could and couldn't do with your own stuff ?

That my dear friends is a picture of Israel ... plain and simple and Iran wants nothing more than to come along like a spiteful bully and take what isn't theirs.

No, in this instance, I don't care about treaties and lines drawn in the sand, I only see what is right and what is wrong.

 

That guy with the dinner jacket is not interested in developing their nuclear program for medical reasons only ... if he was then it's a different story ... if they were a

peaceful nation then yes, why the heck not let them have progress with their programs.

I'd completely agree with HeyYou end of discussion no need to take it further ... but sometimes we need a prefect on the school grounds to tell the boys to go and

play on the otherside of the field and leave the girls alone ... even though the boys have a right to be there ... because it's quite obvious what's going to happen if they

stay.

This isn't about legal issues, this is about the obvious, it's common sense.

 

I have quite a video library of excellent resources - it's a bit of a hobby of mine - and one of the DVD's I have is about Saddam Hussein and the Third Reich ... I'll go and watch

it again because I'm pretty sure that I remember seeing something about nazi philosophy having been adopted by those in Iran (yes, I know I said the DVD was called -

Saddam Hussein and the third Reich - just in case you want to point out that I could possibly be getting mixed up with Iran and Iraq.

Perhaps this would strengthen my case against Iran and their current anti-Semetic philosophy in regards to their true goal for having nuclear weaponry.

 

UPDATE: ok, so i didn't see Aurelius post above when I started with this post (because it wasn't there when I began with mine) ... I just saw it now as I was reviewing mine and getting ready to sign out. ... gee whizz I suddenly feel so clever LOL :biggrin:

Edited April 2, 2012 by Nintii

[Lisnpuppy]

You are right, Aurielius...this is very off track. This thread is supposed to be about Iran and their Nuclear Weapons development and the UN and the World response to this.

 

All debates on the Right of the Jewish State please form a line to the left.

 

Thank you and have a nice evening.~Lisnpuppy

[sukeban]

Tracking back to the question of Iran's nuclear ambitious, does anybody have anything to say regarding my previous comments--that Iran has a (rational) right to a nuclear weapon just the same as Israel or the United States do. Also, any comments regarding their nuclear doctrine vis-a-vis a conventional war and that doctrine's implications for American foreign policy? Furthermore, why is everybody giving a free pass to Israel for its shady efforts at nuclear proliferation, the same efforts that we are presently condemning Iran for?

 

Personally, I do not support any nation having nuclear weapons. I would favor complete global disarmament. That said, I do support a game theory approach toward nuclear weapons and deterrence and do believe that Iran is a rational actor. Also, the leader of Iran's last name is Ahmadinejad--is that really so hard to type out. Intentionally misrepresenting or mocking his name is yet another example of people implicitly denying the legitimacy of Iran's actions on the world stage. In truth, Ahmadinejad can say whatever it is that he darn well pleases--he is not the one calling the shots within Iran. He is a spokesman, a puppet figure, a ceremonial necessity, and that means that not everything that he says is official Iranian state policy. People should remember the "good cop, bad cop" routine that Nixon and Kissinger played when they were negotiating the treaty in Vietnam. The truth is, one of them (happened to be Nixon) was lying. He had no intention of using an atomic weapon on Vietnam, but Kissinger let on that if things continued to go on there... he just might. Translated to another audience, you have this same game (IMO) designed for domestic (Iranian) consumption. Ahmadinejad says foolhardy, anti-Semitic things to rouse (one segment of) the Iranian people and (hopefully) bolster (flagging) support for the regime. On the other hand, you have the people who are actually ruling the country, the Ayatollahs, that do not wish to perish in a nuclear war.

 

Also, please do not let us forget that it was the SHAH OF IRAN, an American client, that first authorized Iran's nuclear program. This WAS NOT the brainchild of "genocidal" Ayatollahs. Furthermore, the nuclear program is a source of national pride and is widely supported by the Iranian population. This aspect of the pursuit of nuclear weapons seems to be lost or inconsequential on many a commentator here. Why did France desire a nuclear weapon, even when they knew that they were covered by the American nuclear umbrella? National pride (anger regarding their failure at the Suez Canal). Why did Britain? Same answer. These states desired the prestige that a nuclear weapon conferred, they knew that they would have to be taken seriously again on the world stage even as their colonial empires crumbled and their conventional military forces appeared as toys next to the might of the Soviet Union and United States. And yes, perhaps they feared abandonment by the United States as well, though in 1945 that outcome would have seemed... unlikely.

 

The nuclear program has been used in a similar way in India and Pakistan, so much so that Adbul Qadeer Khan, the father of the Pakistani atomic bomb, is revered as a national hero, even after his shady proliferation network was discovered. I would speculate that the same would have been true for Brazil when they were briefly developing an atomic weapon (or because they actually believed that Uruguay or Belize were existential threats *rolls eyes*). If we knew anything about the insides of North Korea, I would speculate that their nuclear program is a source of much pride and programming as well. Truth is, nuclear programs can and have been used by unpopular regimes as a source of national pride, bolstering the regime. I would say that the Iranian nuclear program is influenced both by the very real and very existential threat (posed by us, the United States) to their nation (well, regime), as well as for propaganda (national pride) purposes desired by the regime.

 

Merely saying "ZOMG dinnerjacket is crayzeeeee" is a valid opinion. But it is also not very nuanced. In 1946 everybody thought that the Soviet Union was "crayzeeeee" as well, until--you know--it turned out that they weren't. Just as Ahmadinejad has demonized the United states and Israel, we have demonized him and Iran right back. Demonization is just a shorthand way of saying "I don't really want to think about this anymore" and arrive at an easy and comfortable answer. Literally crazy (irrational) people by and large do not end up in possession of entire states, let alone manage to hang onto them for 25+ years. Iran wants nuclear weapons because it wants Persia to take its rightful place on the world stage yet again, after literally centuries of colonial manipulation (Russia, Britain, USA) and conquest. They also want it because they see American guns trained on them the same way they were trained on Iraq before we took down Saddam.

 

Iran having a nuclear weapon will mean that we cannot invade them any longer (well actually, we probably could because they would not want to invite a nuclear counter-attack), it would mean that we could no longer hold an axe over their head and attempt to push them around. It would mean they would have a deterrent for themselves and for their regime. That would mean that regime change could only happen from within. This was likely to be the case anyway. In the short term it curbs our influence over them, but in the long term they will succumb to the quintessential nuclear paradox. That they are the most powerful weapons that will never be used.

Edited April 2, 2012 by sukeban

[Harbringe]

Here's some people who talk some sanity on the whole Iran Issue.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TtIpiXle98 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjmLhUufoMA

 

 

I found it interesting in the Martin Dempsey interview when asked is Iran being rational in regards to their nuclear program and if you were to look at their nuclear development over the years they've not only taken a rational approach , they've been downright pedantic.

 

Think about this Israel has one nuclear reactor facility and has managed to produce somewhere between 100 - 200 thermonuclear weapons and a host of other fissionable weapons . Pakistan has three nuclear reactor facilities and is now building their fourth and they have managed to produce 80 - 100 thermonuclear weapons and a smaller amount of fissionable weapons .North Korea with three nuclear reactor facilities , though some say its more like 2 1/2 anyway they have managed to produce a handful of thermonuclear weapons and maybe some fissionable weapons . Yet Iran now having 8 nuclear reactor facilities has not produced a weapon of any sort .What does that tell you , it tells you that these other guys industrial focus was specifically for a bomb and theirs (Iran's) hasn't been. And yes I know there are other factors in building a bomb and I have taken them into account, but comparing the national assets of each its Iran with their oil wealth who was in a far better position to go for a bomb than these other guys .Yet somehow or another their the ones portrayed as making a mad dog rush towards getting a bomb.Hmmm really. BTW back in the early 70 's when the Shah was in power the question was asked of an official why don't they try for the making of a bomb , the response was we don't need to , we have the Straits of Hormuz.

 

The other interview is with Brzezinkski and for those who don't know who he is , he's the guy credited with coming up with plan to bring down the Soviet Union or at least the basis by which you would do it .He's one of those long term strategic type thinkers that doesn't allow ideologies such as capitalism or communism or any ism get in his way of seeing the issues clearly. There was another video I could of chosen but this one was more comprehensive .In the other video though there was a point where Fareed asked what do you think the US should do if Israel decides to launch an attack on Iran and his response was the US should deny them the airspace to carry such an attack , at which point Fareed got this surprised look on his face and said "What do you mean deny , you don't mean shoot them down" to which Zig replied "if necessary" That's how serious a cold war warrior views the possible ramifications of an Israeli attack on Iran.I've always thought of Ziggy as a cold calculating bastard but even I was taken aback by that.

 

Its odd that the Samson option doctrine would come up as that specifically was something that I studied at University , mind you it was part of a course that involved the nuclear doctrines of countries around the world at the time and this was in 1988 .The Samson option was widely being studied at the time because someone had defected from the Israeli's a few years earlier and had gotten some documents out that gave greater detail about the different variants that there were to the Samson option.Now I can't remember all the details of the doctrines I studied back then be they American or Russian or whoever but there was always one variant of the Samson option that has stuck with me and it was called the Muslim variant and it basically goes like this. In the event of a catastrophic military defeat nuclear weapons would be launched at every Muslim nation capitol in the world and every major city of Muslim population ,that would be including even those Muslim nations that had nothing to do with this catastrophic Israeli defeat. Now the class erupted into this oh this can't be real , your crazy kinda response , to which the Professor began handing out the first page of the doctrine , even then we couldn't believe what we were reading ,but turned out it really was real .So the next part was us students trying to come up with a rationale as to why anyone would think such as thing up .It turned out the reason for such a policy was that by completely destroying all religious ,political , economic , educational and financial centres it would give the best possible chance for the Jewish survivors of a catastrophic defeat to escape , relocate and start again. Now you can argue that in the event of such a thing it would be logical for those attacking Israel to suffer such a fate ,granted I can accept that. but it included even people who would have had nothing to do with attacking Israel , that's not rational , that's insane.

 

So putting aside the catastrophic event scenario what effect does the real world consequence of Israeli nuclear policy have in the region in an everyday sense.Basically it says that in the event of a dispute or conflict you had just better lay down and die because even if its one in which we attack you and you somehow manage to turn it around and begin to win , that still wont do you any good because then we will just nuke you into oblivion.That's not the policy of a rational player , that's the policy of a thug , a bully.and in the meantime just mind yourselves while we busy ourselves with the stealing of Palestinian land and homes and this legitimacy is derived from the fact that a man named Adolf Hitler 65+ years ago decided to try and exterminate them and the Palestinians who had nothing to do with it and who the vast majority of today were not even alive for it when it happened , are the ones being required to bear the heaviest burden because of it. Such absolute bulls***.

 

So when it comes to bulls*** and this idea that Iran is an existential threat , well Iran certainly knows they would be turned into a parking lot , so then your told well they have that whole apocalyptic Mahdi belief thing , well yes that would be true , what your not told by the Israeli's or even your media is that according to that belief thing , their not allowed to start it first , otherwise they would be walking on the wrong side of God ,that's something you never hear when you watch the so called left wing liberal media (yeah right lol) .So has Israel ever used this existential threat thing before well yes they have , when they took out the reactors in Iraq they made that claim , when they took out the reactor in Syria they made that claim and now they are doing the same with Iran . So what do all three of these share in common , Saddam was a strong supporter of the Palestinian cause , granted for his own posturing and aggrandizement but still a strong supporter , Syria has been a long time strong supporter of the Palestinian cause and still is , and Iran once the Mullahs came to power has been a strong supporter of the Palestinian cause and what would happen if a strong supporter like that were to get a bomb . Well immediately this paradigm under which they currently operate , in which they just do whatever they please when it comes to the Palestinians , would suddenly end .Its not an existential threat they protecting themselves from its a paradigm of conduct that their protecting themselves from losing.A paradigm in which they get to do as they please without consequence.

 

Sukeban is absolutely right its a group of Likud and orthodox zealots that are in control in Israel and they plus Saudi Arabia (Shia problem) want a war with Iran and in the election thread I said it will be the dominate issue as I thought its 50/50 they would be going to war and dragging America with them ,Then it hit me , wait a minute their not going to have the same amount of leverage in this a Presidential election year , until it comes around again in 2016 , does anyone really believe they will be willing to wait long.Honestly I beginning to think that maybe this can't be avoided unless 10's of millions of Americans took to the streets and simply said no and that ain't happening .Well have to look on the bright side of things , I'm too old for war but too young to diie and if it comes they will be dragging all the young guys off to war , leaving many young ladies who will be in need of consoling and if I survive there will be that whole repopulating thing ,this might not be such a bad thing after all.

[sukeban]

Harbringe, you are a godsend.

 

I watched that Brzezinksi interview with Fareed when it aired and I instantly wished that he was our Secretary of State.

 

I'd very much admired him before, but after seeing that I was literally so happy that at least some of our prominent national figures have managed to retain a sense of intelligence and reason when it comes to foreign affairs.

 

I am also glad to see you raise the issue of Israel's nuclear doctrine and how they have sworn, as a matter of military policy, to nuke the victor of any conventional war. Meaning that they must always win (or have somebody else win for them) lest the unthinkable happen--to somebody else. That is indeed, as you say--thuggish.

 

Your post deserves far more commentary, but it is very late here so I will have to revisit this tomorrow.

Edited April 2, 2012 by sukeban

[Nintii]

@ Harbinge ... I have just deleted a huge post on which I spent a lot of time and reserch in favor of this article ...

 

Link to the World Nuclear Association

 

Armed with all my new knowledge from reading plenty of diverse articles ranging from Agriculture, Medicine, Energy, Environmental, and their host of sub-topics I will conclude with this statement ... Ok, so allow Iran to build there nuclear reactors but completely ban their enrichment activities ... without reservation.

[HeyYou]

@ Harbinge ... I have just deleted a huge post on which I spent a lot of time and reserch in favor of this article ...

 

Link to the World Nuclear Association

 

Armed with all my new knowledge from reading plenty of diverse articles ranging from Agriculture, Medicine, Energy, Environmental, and their host of sub-topics I will conclude with this statement ... Ok, so allow Iran to build there nuclear reactors but completely ban their enrichment activities ... without reservation.

 

Why? I am not entirely sure Iran has the capacity to enrich uranium to weapons grade levels.... yet. If they wanna produce their own nuclear fuel, all well and good.

[grannywils]

Would just like to comment on Harbringe's post. Thank you so much for your presentation of some factual information and your delivery of your interpretation of the situation. I also give you kudos for providing your information in such a way as to enable all to review it and come to our own decisions in an unemotional and prudent manner.

 

I, for one, am not entirely convinced of Iran's innocence in the nuclear issue, but am willing to give your post some further consideration. Thanks. :thumbsup: