Reply With Quote
yes, the larger en y has a right to defend itself while forcing it's will on others.
"Terror" is a means to an end.
A group cannot take on an opponent through conventional means, so it resorts to acts of "terror" which do little to affect the functioning of the larger organization, but simply creates unrest and unease in the "innocent" population at large.
Again, fair enough. It's what the "underdog" can do.
Far be it from any American to criticize such tactics. After all, because our own revolutionary army threw out the rulebook, as it were, we are an independent nation today.
However, you cannot ask the larger nation to ignore, or simply accept the terrorism as a matter of course and an inevitibility of its own actions. The larger en y has a right to defend itself; even proactively.
Both groups are acting selfishly, after all. Both claim moral superiority. You seem to want to grant moral highground only to the underdog.
yes, the larger en y has a right to defend itself while forcing it's will on others.
Can you say Kurds?
No, I don't think the US is directly arming the Kurdish rebels in Iran, but indirectly, almost certainly.
I can't tell whether it is terror. I would rather call it "enhanced fear".
thats what happens when billions of dollars and millions of weapons are claimed to have disappeared.
1. Iran may be, who can tell at this point. However, it will take three or more years of development before Iran's Nuclear Program can yield Weapons Grade Plutonium.
2. A nuclear-armed Iran is not a good thing. However, a nuclear-armed Iran is nowhere near the greatest threat the West has ever faced, as some Republican Presidential Candidates would have us believe.
3. A little more of the carrot and less of the stick.
Huge difference between direct and indirect. Intentionally indirect = as good as direct, after all.
Are just assuming, or have you seen something?
What about weapons grade uranium?
As many centrifuges as they have going, it won't take long. If it was for 'peaceful' purposes, like fuel, they wouldn't need so many because they wouldn't need to enrich it to weapons grade.
just do what you want and Putin will probably give it to them. what then?
It seem like a good guess.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/wo...t/23kurds.html
...
Like the P.K.K., the Iranian Kurds control much of the craggy, boulder-strewn frontier and routinely ambush patrols on the other side. But while the Americans call the P.K.K. terrorists, guerrilla commanders say P.J.A.K. has had “direct or indirect discussions” with American officials. They would not divulge any details of the discussions or the level of the officials involved, but they noted that the group’s leader, Rahman Haj-Ahmadi, visited Washington last summer.
Biryar Gabar, one of 11 members of the group’s leadership, said there had been “normal dialogue” with American officials, declining specifics. One of his bodyguards said officials of the group met with Americans in Kirkuk last year.
Iranian officials have accused the United States of supplying the fighters and using them in a proxy war, though those assertions were denied by the American military. “The consensus is that U.S. forces are not working with or advising the P.J.A.K.,” said an American military spokesman in Baghdad, Cmdr. Scott Rye of the Navy.
A senior American diplomat said that there had not been any official contacts with the group and that he was unaware of its having received any support from the United States. He also said that Mr. Haj-Ahmadi, while in Washington, did not meet with administration officials.
...
sound familar?
Then Israel will take care of things. They have far better intelligence on such things than we do. They are not pussified like America is either. They will take action if necessary.
A moot point. The one percent solution. This is capabilities vs. intent. Neither the IAEA, nor the Israelis are truly concerned with Iran's Intentions, if they aren't, why should anyone else be?
Haaretz 25.10.2007
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said a few months ago in a series of closed discussions that in her opinion that Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel, Haaretz magazine reveals in an article on Livni to be published Friday.
Livni also criticized the exaggerated use that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is making of the issue of the Iranian bomb, claiming that he is attempting to rally the public around him by playing on its most basic fears. Last week, former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy said similar things about Iran.The current Foreign Minister of Israel and the former head of Israel's Mossad are downplaying the threat of Iran's Nuclear Program and are calling for renewed diplomatic efforts. There is time for pragmatism.Haaretz 18.10.2007
The Iranian threat to Israel is substantive but not existential, according to former Mossad Chief Ephraim Halevy.
During a lecture in Jerusalem yesterday, Halevy said "the State of Israel cannot be destroyed."
He also called on the government to follow Washington's lead and offer Iran a diplomatic option, in parallel with stepping up efforts to foil Tehran's nuclear plan. Halevy's lecture presented a less-disturbing picture from the one offered by President George W. Bush.
"Israel cannot be destroyed for many reasons, some of which are known and others you can presume, Halevy said. "There is a chance that something serious will happen here, but I tend to say the following when I am abroad: Israel cannot be destroyed. If you do not believe this, then don't, but I suggest that you do not try it."
... "We must deal with Iran in parallel ways," he said. "Do everything possible to make it harder on them, undermine their efforts through economic measures and international sanctions, and on the other hand come to them and say 'if you change your ways - there are things we can talk about,'" Halevy said.
Like I said, let Israel take care of the situation. They will strike if needed. If they think diplomacy will work, then my hat's off to them.
very good points. it's the only intelligent alternative.
thats insanity.
It seems that Israel is trying the carrot and keeping the stick in reserve. Both countries have a history of cooperation prior to 1979, hopefully this counts for something.
It's hard to say with the president that Iran has.
Ahmadinejad has no control over either Iran's Armed Forces or it's Nuclear Program. True power resides with the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei and the Assembly of Experts.
These folks have bank accounts in Dubai and Switzerland. They know on which side their bread is buttered.
no, no, raging on Ahmadinejad is the life blood for fear monging. without the threat of fear, we're helpless to get americans to conform.
Then those weird beards are directing Quds forces and the Revolutionary Guard against American Troops in Iraq? They're supporting Hezbollah and Syria? They're moving forward with Iran's nuclear ambitions? They're sanctioning the president's anti-jewish holocaustic rhetoric?
If so, they're worse than Ahmadenijad. They think they're untouchable.
And, if you think their money in a Swiss Bank Account will stay their craziness, you're a frog sitting in a cool pot of water and they've just turned the burner on under your ass.
True, but his words are something terrible. I have a hard time believing he could say them if they were not words from above him.
Yep, they know where their money is the safest.
Ahmadinejad is already in disagrement with both Khamenei and Rafsanjani. Iran is not some monolithic nation. There are factions and schisms in all societies.
What do you think would happen to their money if increasingly severe sanctions are slapped on Iran? Sanctions turned Iraq into a 4th World Nation in the 1990's.The criticism against Ahmadinejad is not coming from the reformers front only, but also from the conservatives. According to The Economist, “it seems that a clique of senior figures in the regime, perhaps including the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, have endorsed the criticism”
...According to The Economist, “conservatives in Iran’s parliament and press blame his extravagance at home and braggadocio abroad for Iran’s worsening economic malaise and for the unpleasant sense of being ever more squarely in the Americans’ firing line”. The English weekly continued with a significant hypothesis: “It seems that a clique of senior figures in the regime, perhaps including the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, have endorsed the criticism”.
...The idea of a fracture between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad is supported by Abbas Milani, director of the Iranian studies program at Stanford University, who believes that the majority of the Iranian leadership, except for Ahmadinejad and his followers, understood that confronting the West wouldn’t take Iran anywhere and could only be perilous.
Swiss Bank Accounts are hardly in keeping with their image as religious fanatics. Especially considering that the Western Concept of earning interest is Haram in Islam. Some may regard the Iranian Leadership as irrational, but they are eminently rational, with the apparent exception of Ahmadinejad.
We disagree with quite a bit here. I'll just remind you that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said some pretty inflammatory words, and is the highest ranking official of any nation with power advocating the destruction of Israel. His words alone, weather he can order things to happen stir the hears of the radicals.
As for 4th world nation? Is that term really used? My take of it is that Iran has been in a downturn ever since the Iranian revolution. Their policies created the situations where the UN and USA decided to take the stances we have. Iran was a very nice Islamic country to live in before 1979. They were adopting western ideas and cultures.
Because elites who stockpile money do not care about the future and will easily launch nuclear strikes without regard to their own.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions