war with iran

[mnaz]

Diplomacy, as I said earlier, is the answer. No one, including Israel or anyplace else wants war at this point in time.

i'm not too sure about that.

[Steve Plonk]

I'll grant you that there is no way to be certain of many things these days...
But, at the moment, there is restraint on many fronts...

[tinkerjack]

No one, including Israel or anyplace else wants war at this point in time.

I can't speak for Israel but . . . . It
Seems like there are many people all over the place who are dying to fight for God.

Is Obama a crypto christian zionist? Lord lord I hope not.

I am not the least bit paranoid. I am sure it is all a Papist plot.

don't mind me guys I am trying so hard not to be cynical. I am sure the price of oil has nothing to do with it. This probably not about religion.

[mnaz]

"Did Ahmadinejad really say Israel should be ‘wiped off the map’?" (by Glenn Kessler , 10/5/2011)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

okay, to be clear, almost everyone this side of teheran would agree that ahmadinejad is a hateful, dangerous idiot. but as this piece notes-- he is also not the main power broker, or "shot-caller" in iran.

The firestorm started when Nazila Fathi, then the Tehran correspondent of The New York Times, reported a story almost six years ago that was headlined: “Wipe Israel ‘off the map’ Iranian says.” The article attributed newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s remarks to a report by the ISNA press agency . . . . The article sparked outrage around the globe, with then-President George W. Bush and other world leaders condemning Ahmadinejad’s statement. The original New York Times article noted that Ahmadinejad said he was quoting Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution, but that aspect was largely overlooked.

Cole said this week that in the 1980s Khomeini gave a speech in which he said in Persian “Een rezhim-i eshghalgar-i Quds bayad az sahneh-i ruzgar mahv shaved.” This means, “This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena of time.” But then anonymous wire service translators rendered Khomeini as saying that Israel “must be wiped off the face of the map,” which Cole and Nourouzi say is inaccurate . . . . Ahmadinejad slightly misquoted Khomeini, substituting “safheh-i ruzgar,” or “page of time" for "sahneh-i ruzgar" or “arena of time.” But in any case, the old translation was dug up and used again by the Iranian news agency, Cole says. In fact, that’s how it was presented for years on Ahmadinejad’s English-language Web site, as the Times noted in a somewhat defensive article on the translation debate.

Sadjadpour, who has closely studied the statements of Khamenei, said that the supreme leader has spoken more on the question of Israel than any other issue, which is remarkable given that Iran shares no border with Israel and that the Jewish state has virtually no impact on the daily lives of Iranians. Sadjadpour said Khamenei has been consistent, stating repeatedly that the goal is not the military destruction of the Jewish state but “the defeat of Zionist ideology and the dissolution of Israel through a ‘popular referendum.’”

In fact, Ahmadinejad is not the power broker in Iran; it is Khamenei. Khamenei, in fact, has been consistent in speaking of his hatred of Israel, but without a military context, as he demonstrated once again this week. Moreover, the fact that Ahmadinejad was merely quoting Khomeini suggests that even less weight should have been given to his words, especially since there is a dispute over the precise meaning in English.

these are important things to consider for several reasons--- mainly, the current hysteria over iran's "nuclear weapons program," and the bizarre assumption, growing in popular public perception, that iran is completely devoid of any rationality, and would nuke israel immediately if they did get a nuke. and it also points to the underlying source of iranian opposition to israel--- namely, a perceived "zionist" attempt to take over jerusalem and purge the city of its islamic roots. why does it always seem to come back to that? i was surprised to read that iran does not support any sort of "two-state" solution for israel-palestine, and instead would prefer what it considers an illegal, extremist "zionist" government to basically be "voted out of power." and unfortunately, that is not a particularly helpful position to take in the conflict.

[stilltrucking]

What we are talking about is a preemptive war on Iran.

Of all the kinds of wars there are my personal favorite is a preemptive war.

Good copy mark, thanks for the links.

A strategy of addressing an emerging threat with a range of options including force was envisioned by the UN Charter. While traditional international law emphasized respect for state sovereignty by placing greater restrictions on the use of force, the literal language of the UN Charter has a more liberal standard when force is used under the auspices of the Security Council. For cases where force is used outside of the Security Council framework, it is not definitively clear whether under the UN Charter a state retains a traditional right of self-defense, including a right of anticipatory self-defense against an imminent threat, or if that right is curtailed to not include anticipatory self-defense. Some commentators argue that the UN Charter itself is no longer a valid source of international law, in which case a right of anticipatory self-defense would exist regardless and traditionally be limited to cases in which there is a threat of imminent attack.

http://www.cdi.org/news/law/war.cfm

[stilltrucking]

Post Bush administration period (2009 to present)

Since the departure of the Bush administration, the Obama administration has made no such claims to retain the right to declare a preemptive war, but has adopted and continued many polices of the Bush Doctrine.[37]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemptive_war

[Arcadia]

Cole said this week that in the 1980s Khomeini gave a speech in which he said in Persian “Een rezhim-i eshghalgar-i Quds bayad az sahneh-i ruzgar mahv shaved.” This means, “This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena of time.” ahh... traduttore, tradittore!

i was surprised to read that iran does not support any sort of "two-state" solution for israel-palestine, and instead would prefer what it considers an illegal, extremist "zionist" government to basically be "voted out of power." and unfortunately, that is not a particularly helpful position to take in the conflict. I´m not at all surprised ... Israel government sees Evil itself in Iran, at its best, it´s a sort of mirror-like situation ...

[e_dog]

wheres ole Ginsy when you need em?


Iran i ran
hu ran ?
u ran?
we ran i ran.

hum bomb?
who we gonna bomb?!
bombiran? idonwannabomiran.
hum bomb hum? we bom hum?
u bom? i donwannabom!

[stilltrucking]

Ginsy he dead man.

And the Pope is a N*zi
"It's going to hell on a sled"
I think to myself in my lonely lonliest
God don't get no respect anymore
not even in Jeruselam, Tehran or Washington DC
bring on da rapture
the raptors
Oh lordy, is it going by the book
and me so cynical
I am going to hell on a sled too.

Where is Jimmy Carter when u need him?

[e_dog]

f THE internationalist communitee.

long live the revolutionS.

[stilltrucking]

US Navy deploys 2nd aircraft carrier to Persian Gulf amid Iran tensions

[mnaz]

"The Irrationality of the Case against Iran’s Nuclear Program" (by GARY LEUPP, 4 / 12 / 12)

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/12/ ... r-program/

Preparations for an attack on Iran have been made, like those for the Iraq War, through a media campaign involving terrifying phrases and accusations. “Mushroom cloud over New York” has been replaced with “existential threat,” “nuclear holocaust,” “threats to wipe Israel off the map,” “calls for the destruction of Israel.” This is fear-mongering with a twist. Few are suggesting that Iran constitutes a major threat to the U.S.; instead the focus is on the putative threat to Israel.

Many have pointed out that key architects of the Iraq War (including Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser) authored a report under Perle’s leadership in 1996 for incoming Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. (They did so presumably in their capacity as U.S.-Israeli dual nationals.) The paper, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, advocated pre-emptive strikes against Iran and Syria, regime change in Iraq, and the abandonment of “land for peace” negotiations with Palestinians. . . . But the war propagandists said little about Israel’s interests in regime change. They surely didn’t want to encourage the perception that this would be a “war for Israel.”

when are we going to wake up?

What if mainstream journalists made it a point to constantly reiterate the following?

----The Iranians have consistently stated that they do not have or want a nuclear weapons program. They want to enrich uranium for nuclear medicine and for electrical power. They are not necessarily doing anything other than what Brazil, Argentina, Japan and other countries have done under IAEA investigation, and as signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, they are absolutely entitled to do so. (The language of the treaty is clear: signatory nations have the “inalienable right” to develop civilian Nuclear programs.)

----The chief decision-maker in Iran is Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. His religious edicts (fatwa) are considered binding law by Shiite Muslims. In 2005 he issued a fatwa banning the production, stockpiling or use of nuclear weapons as un-Islamic.

----The entire U.S. intelligence community (CIA, FBI, military intelligence, etc.) in two National Intelligence Estimates (in 2007 and 2010) concluded with a high degree of confidence that Iran does not have an active nuclear program. And Israeli intelligence has concluded the same thing.

----The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has never found any evidence for a nuclear weapons program. It has found some evidence for concealment of information, and complained of some lack of cooperation. But due to political manipulation, and the appointment of Yukiya Amano as director in 2009, the agency has become increasingly critical of Iran, packaging dated and dubious data to put pressure on Tehran . . .

[mnaz]

i'm seriously pissed at obama over this. i understand he has to "play along with this madness" to get re-elected, but at some point, well... what's the point?

[stilltrucking]

15. An objective or purpose to be reached or achieved, or one that is worth reaching or achieving: What is the point of discussing this issue further? — onlinedictionary.com

Not sure what Obama's point is but I think I know what mine was when I posted that. I was wondering why Obama sent that particular carrier. The oldest in the fleet. Slated for decommissioning, this will be her last voyage. Probably a very good strategic reason for it. But...

This guy smells a rat, difficult to listen and watch, he rambles to Pearl Harbor and FDR sending the oldest ships to be stationed there before the attack.




How the hell are we supposed to know what is really going on?
Maybe Obama is trying to protect Iran from an attack.
Maybe it is what used to be called brinksmanship
Maybe Mel Gibson is right

Islamic Republics get a bad press here it is true.
I wonder could you call the United States of America a Christian Republic.

pardon the ramble