US Iran attack plans

Originally posted by petrosianpupil
Iran was moving towards moderation and relative to other states in the region was more stable.

It is totally irrelevant who holds the title of "president" in Iran. He is not "the people in power" of that country.

Originally posted by Merk
What you have the is the translation of one statement. One that could be what you suggest.

I'm not sure I see it though. Regime would be referring to the Israeli leadership and that's not who is occupying Jerusalem. The Israeli people are. This looks to me to be call for the removal of Israel not just it's leadership.

Besides all that, we have to assume t ...[text shortened]... se speeches are made in public, we are looking at the carefully chosen words of a politician.

Interesting reading; however, the position of most of the Middle East is that the creation of Israel, a Jewish run state against the wishes of the majority of people in Palestine, was an illegitimate act. Against that background, which has been consistent for the last 60 years, the comment is clear and isn't talking about genocide.

Originally posted by knightwest
It is totally irrelevant who holds the title of "president" in Iran. He is not "the people in power" of that country.

Not totally irrelevant.

True the main control is held by a bunch of clerics, similar to nearly all muslim countries.

However Iran has very specific problems with strange demographics in terms of age and opinions. The very large young (and generally more recptive to western values) population should hold out hope that the secular system that has existed since the US botched up attempts at supporting the corrupt Shah, was mellowing.

Even if you think (incorrectly) that the president has no real power, you must still realise that he is a barometer of feelings of politically active Iranians..

Originally posted by no1marauder
Interesting reading; however, the position of most of the Middle East is that the creation of Israel, a Jewish run state against the wishes of the majority of people in Palestine, was an illegitimate act. Against that background, which has been consistent for the last 60 years, the comment is clear and isn't talking about genocide.

I would agree that the statement says nothing about genocide, nor does it neccessarily imply it either. I think the worry here is that we know what end he desires, but we don't know through what means he is willing to achieve this end.

That, and most of the west doesn't agree with the end he desires. Relocating Israel would be a massive undertaking.

Originally posted by Merk
I would agree that the statement says nothing about genocide, nor does it neccessarily imply it either. I think the worry here is that we know what end he desires, but we don't know through what means he is willing to achieve this end.

That, and most of the west doesn't agree with the end he desires. Relocating Israel would be a massive undertaking.

Sure assume that somebody supports genocide. Assume that he has the capacity and will to do it. Why let facts get in the way?

Israel's not going anywhere and won't no matter who runs Iran. And a US attack on Iran won't help the security of Israel; if anything, it will decrease it.

Originally posted by knightwest
Correction: It is easier for a dictator to gain power.

You are by no means wrong when you pinpoint some of the blame on the Treaty of Versaille, however there were many many other factors that allowed Hitler coming to power.

Amongst these were large unemployment and hyperinflation brought on by the stock-market crash in the US, many local communist ...[text shortened]... ist goes on and on, but to blame it on British and French fear and protectionism is simplistic.

Simplistic would be if I stated it was the only reason, I did not.

The point was not an in depth analysis of the rise of Hitler, just that dictators are helped in their rise by overzealous outside influences. I don't see how the wall street crash was relevant.

The fact that the British P.M. predicted the ww2 before all the factors you mentioned came about; demonstrates the importance of the point.

p.s.
You seem to conveniently forget that as these Germans were starving in this economic hellhole, the French reaction was to march their army into Germany and "confiscate" in lieu of their ww1 war damages.

Originally posted by lordhighgus
...and you believe in the tooth fairy too right?

The tooth fairy, santa claus and an intelligent lordhighgus. I believe in all of these things.

In the days that the US had a foreign policy that was not based on Cowboy movies. The Israel/Palestine situation was improving AND relationships with Iran were light years ahead of where they are today.

It is no coincidence that the then president of Iran was not an anti-semetic hothead. I am surprised you did not know this?

Compared to Afghanistan, Iraq, even Pakistan & Saudi there are many things about the Iranian society that held out hope. And in many ways, once we have a US president with a brain, I am actually optimistic that Iran will be one of the least western hating Muslim governments.

Clearly you have another view?

I would be interested to hear it

Originally posted by no1marauder
Sure assume that somebody supports genocide. Assume that he has the capacity and will to do it. Why let facts get in the way?

Israel's not going anywhere and won't no matter who runs Iran. And a US attack on Iran won't help the security of Israel; if anything, it will decrease it.

I'm not saying we should just go ahead and assume that genocide is there intend. I'm just saying that's where the assumption come from.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
if one country uses nuclear weapons on another, then all the other nuclear powers will unite and oblitarate the first. how does joint attacks from russia, america, france,india, pakistan etc sound?n. korea will not join in the attack they need to conserve their nuclear missile.
there will be no iran left, just the golf of iran and the waters of the indian ocean.

i think iran just wants the weapon as leverage in future "negotiations".

But what if Iran were to accidentally lose a nuclear bomb and it turned up in the hands of Al Qaida?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Interesting reading; however, the position of most of the Middle East is that the creation of Israel, a Jewish run state against the wishes of the majority of people in Palestine, was an illegitimate act. Against that background, which has been consistent for the last 60 years, the comment is clear and isn't talking about genocide.

Marauder: " ... the position of most of the Middle East is that the creation of Israel, a Jewish run state against the wishes of the majority of people in Palestine, was an illegitimate act."

" ... the position of most of the Middle East ... "

Can you be more specific and name them ?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Maybe not.

The original Persian phrase translated as “Israel must be wiped off the map” seems to have read:

“een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad”

The word-for-word translation is:

een = This
rezhim = regime
ishghalgar = occupying
qods = Jerusalem
bayad = must
az = from
safheh-ye = pages of
ruzgar = t ...[text shortened]... disappear

If so, this is an expressed wish for regime change, not a demand for annihilation.

How did you reach that conclusion ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
How did you reach that conclusion ?

That seems pretty obvious, ivanhoe. He spelled out his analysis very clearly. Do you disagree that the quote he chose is accurate, or that his translation is accurate, or do you know of times this man has said other, similar things that can be translated differently?

Originally posted by knightwest
Iran has already stated that it's goal will be to wipe Israel of the face of the world.

Surely allowing them to have nuclear weapons would be total madness.

"Once again, the world stood by and did nothing as millions of Jews were annihiliated." That's what the foreword to some history book about the Iranian nuclear strikes on Israel will say, 50 years from now.

the history books will say.

"Once again Knightwest was seen to peddle ridiculous scare stories"

Iran will launch nuclear missiles at Israel?????????????????

I presume these missiles will have a special device that will not kill any of the millions of muslims as well?

Of course there would be no bad consequences of such a missile launch for Iran? Everyone will just ignore it!!!!!!

Again you seem to ignore the fact that Hitler was not exactly Mr popular.

It is the height of arrogance to assume that Iran would act in such an irrational manner.

Many nuclear powers have been at war and only the US have used them. Apart from the Cuban missile crisis, US in korea and the Israeli's in 73, I do not know of any conflict where nuclear weapons have been considered a first strike weapon. Do you know differently?


In your typical bias, you seem to have forgot that Israel have around 200 nuclear weapons of their own with far better delivery systems and far better missile defence systems.