Iran: Why build the bomb?

[ironchef]

I've heard Ahmadinajad (spelling) say that Israel should be whiped off the map.

Hi Kennas,

Actually, what was omitted after that whole 'wiped off the map' speed was the questionable translation of Ahmadinejad's actual words.

His speech is confirmed as miss-translated. American based university professors later translated the speed and that particular statement as:

According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as:
The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[12]

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

I urge you and others to look into this.

Ahmadinejad's desire to remove the regime occupying Jerusalem is no different from Israel and America's desire of removing the many regimes they are not aligned with.

Ahmadinejad also has issues with Zionism and may wish to destroy Zionism and this can also be compared with USA's desire to remove Communism from the world. I also urge you to look into Zionism and the goals of Zionists. (Zionism should not be confused with Judaism.. Please look into it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

I'm a happy little Vegemite in living on this side of the world, working 9 to 5 and having drinks with mates on Friday nights, so really for me, these issues aren't a huge deal, but I do like to stay informed and have opinions based on facts. Please don't think I agree with Ahmadinejad, infact, I'd really like to less of him. He is obnoxious and loud but we shouldn't crucify him for something he DIDN'T say.

 

[juw177]

I'm taking about the Nuclear Non Prolifiration Treaty which is generally accepted to be the solution to MAD.

Yes but who is doing anything about it? The US obviously does not care for international laws?

If they want to make the world a safer place, start by disarming the aggressors (US and Israel). Disarming the countries likely to be bullied will only make a war more likely.

 

[Sean K]

Yes but who is doing anything about it? The US obviously does not care for international laws?

If they want to make the world a safer place, start by disarming the aggressors (US and Israel). Disarming the countries likely to be bullied will only make a war more likely.

I agree, no one is because the world comminuty is too divided. It's only when there is one element so risky that anyone will do something about it. Out of the 5 nuclear powers - (US, China, Britain, Franch, Russia) we also have India, Pakistan and Israel who have nukes, and maybe Nth Korea. Can't think of any others. Australia could develop one very quickly if we needed to.

Rudd tried to get the ball rolling with disarmament and was shot down. Pretty naive actually to think any of the current 5 powers would give it up.

 

[wildkactus]

The only way to stop others building the bomb is to stop everyone from having them.

The Nuclear nations need to take the lead and start to dismantle their entire stockpiles of nuclear weapons, not just the one's that cost the most to upkeep.
Then they will have a leg to stand on with the other countries tring to develop the bomb, but while they have them and say to everyone else you can't, the non nuclear countries like Iran will just keep going until they get one.

If the amount of money that is spent on stopping countries from getting the bomb was put to better use, like developing a new generation of nuclear power plants or whatever good social program the world would be a lot better off.

 

[bassmanpete]

The Nuclear nations need to take the lead and start to dismantle their entire stockpiles of nuclear weapons, not just the one's that cost the most to upkeep.

That will never happen because none of them would believe that the others had got rid of all theirs. And they'd probably be right because they'd all keep a few tucked away somewhere, "just in case...!"

 

[wildkactus]

That will never happen because none of them would believe that the others had got rid of all theirs. And they'd probably be right because they'd all keep a few tucked away somewhere, "just in case...!"

you are right 100%, I was stating what needs to happen, not what will happen.

And that is why it is all doomed to fail and why we will see one of these going off in a city near you.

I also do beleive that it will be one of the so call nuclear nations that will be the ones to use one, premptive they will call it!!!

 

[wayneL]

But Robert, I thought Wayne's point was that if they do go ahead with it, they will have Usrael bombing them with efficient weapons, and tons of them. It's virtual suicide.

Yes, this is exactly my point. Let's not get sidetracked on other issues.

They may NOT actually be building a bomb, they may be building them as fast as they can; I don't know. But why would they, seeing as it is guaranteeing an attack and the destruction of said facility, including any peaceful power plants.

Something is wrong. Thing don't add up.

 

[juw177]

Something is wrong. Thing don't add up.

What is wrong is that the US is spreading propaganda to further zionist interests in the middle east. What Iran is doing is perfectly legal under international / UN laws. On the other hand, it would be illegal for US or Israel to infringe on Iran sovereignty.

It makes no difference to the US anyway, just like how they didn't need to prove Sadaam had WMDs before invading.

 

[rederob]

The burning question in my mind is this;

The Iranians know that they will be/are going to be bombed, SO WHY BUILD IT only to be turned to toast?

The Iranians know the Israelis may attack their nuclear program facilities, but they also know this: To get to Iran the Israelis would overfly Iraq - and Iraqi airspace is controlled by the US.
Put another way, an Israeli attack on Iran is equal to a US attack on Iran.
If that doesn't start a major northern hemisphere skirmish - world war - then I would be very surprised.
Put slightly differently, how happy would you be if Iran shut down the Straits of Hormuz - 20% of global oil output - because the US sanctioned a pre-emtive strike?
Lastly, an attack on Iran would re-activate Russia and China to its real defense. The US is already overstretched militarily, so if they wanted to see an early grave a sanctioned attack would definitely be the way to go.
My assessment:
Risk - possible but improbable
Consequences - more dire than anyone in Australia could imagine

 

[wayneL]

The Iranians know the Israelis may attack their nuclear program facilities, but they also know this: To get to Iran the Israelis would overfly Iraq - and Iraqi airspace is controlled by the US.
Put another way, an Israeli attack on Iran is equal to a US attack on Iran.
If that doesn't start a major northern hemisphere skirmish - world war - then I would be very surprised.
Put slightly differently, how happy would you be if Iran shut down the Straits of Hormuz - 20% of global oil output - because the US sanctioned a pre-emtive strike?
Lastly, an attack on Iran would re-activate Russia and China to its real defense. The US is already overstretched militarily, so if they wanted to see an early grave a sanctioned attack would definitely be the way to go.
My assessment:
Risk - possible but improbable
Consequences - more dire than anyone in Australia could imagine

OK this is largely along my thinking as well.

I hope you're right about it being improbable, as per your last comment.

 

[juw177]

Obviously, the US has done their math and they have decided that Iran is worth invading. Rally a little more public support, spread more hate and plant a few more news articles. They will get there.

The consequences may be disastrous for people living in the middle east and for the US soldiers, but the few elites who are pushing for this war will benefit (just like Iraq).

 

[mayk]

Damned if you do damned if you don't. I forsee a big 'strategic' plan in the works.

Some big heads in the middle east will roll (probably get killed). It will be 1970's again. This time the regiemes will be a bit more friendly to US.


No nation will provide support to Iran. It is a sad fact, but no arabian country likes Iran and they might be happy if someone will reduce their military strength.


If Iran will try to stop the oil other methods will soon be discovered. It is a big world and unless problems arise they are seldom solved. I bet an alternate route will be already in place by the time the strike happens.


In this over charged scenario I don't think Iran will do much apart from some angry remarks. But long term they will 'eat grass' to get an atom bomb and take revenge. But by that time Oil will already be history and world focus will be on something else.

 

[jtb]

If Australia's landscape was entirely arid and our only resource was 20 years (maybe substantially less) of coal, and that coal was worth 100 times more on the open market than we were subsidising it to our own population/industry/generation capability for.
Would it not be a good idea to bank (leave in the ground) as much as possible of that very valuable commodity and source an alternate energy source?

Or should we just wait until once our lights sputter out in 2028 and we become a dark, cold sandpit.

As we would also have no wind,vast mineral resources, uranium, water, infrastructure,economy or alternate hydro-carbons and loads of wasteland than importing enriched uranium would probably be the rational and economic decision?

I also think the fruitcake is a major risk-but unfortunately Tehran is hardly Dubai.

 

[Sean K]

Hi Kennas,

Actually, what was omitted after that whole 'wiped off the map' speed was the questionable translation of Ahmadinejad's actual words.

His speech is confirmed as miss-translated. American based university professors later translated the speed and that particular statement as:


I urge you and others to look into this.

Ahmadinejad's desire to remove the regime occupying Jerusalem is no different from Israel and America's desire of removing the many regimes they are not aligned with.

Ahmadinejad also has issues with Zionism and may wish to destroy Zionism and this can also be compared with USA's desire to remove Communism from the world. I also urge you to look into Zionism and the goals of Zionists. (Zionism should not be confused with Judaism.. Please look into it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

I'm a happy little Vegemite in living on this side of the world, working 9 to 5 and having drinks with mates on Friday nights, so really for me, these issues aren't a huge deal, but I do like to stay informed and have opinions based on facts. Please don't think I agree with Ahmadinejad, infact, I'd really like to less of him. He is obnoxious and loud but we shouldn't crucify him for something he DIDN'T say.

IF, I have looked at this, and there are actually several references to removing the Zionist regime, which can be interpreted as wipping Israel off the map, or from the pages of history, or removing the entire Jewish population, from Palestine. Interesting that the 'wipe off the map' interpretation came from his office.

Part of the translation also provides this statement:

I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world

I'm not sure how you can compare Zion with Communism. Communism is a political system, Zion is a place, or group of people.

(yes Zionism is the political movement, but is that what he wants to remove)

As we're using Wiki for our references let's quote it in regard to what Zion is:

Zion (Hebrew: צִיּוֹן, tziyyon; Tiberian vocalization: tsiyyôn; transliterated Zion or Sion) is a term that most often designates the Land of Israel and its capital, Jerusalem. The word is found in texts dating back almost three millennia. It commonly referred to a specific mountain near Jerusalem (Mount Zion), on which stood a Jebusite fortress of the same name that was conquered by David and was named the City of David.

The term Zion came to designate the area of Jerusalem where the fortress stood, and later became a metonym for Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem, the city of Jerusalem and the entire Promised Land to come, in which, according to the Hebrew Bible, God dwells among his chosen people.

So, it's not a political system but the country of Israel.

It just floats on the interpretation of his various comments regarding the policical system, or the people. Perhaps he is just saying the political system..

 

[juw177]

kennas,
1. Israel is not a country. It is a state created by an illegal occupation.
2. Being Jewish does not equate to supporting Israel.
3. Israel's regime has one of the worst human rights record in the world.
4. Speaking out against (3) does not make you evil or anti semantic as US propaganda wants you to believe.

 

[DB008]

The burning question in my mind is this;

The Iranians know that they will be/are going to be bombed, SO WHY BUILD IT only to be turned to toast?

Not if you bomb them first...

Could be a media beat-up...but...

Report: Iran mulls 'pre-emptive attack' against Israel; commander warns of 'World War III'

Updated at 4:46 a.m. ET: Iran could launch a pre-emptive strike on Israel if it was sure the Jewish state were preparing to attack it, a senior commander of its elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted as saying on Sunday.

Amir Ali Hajizadeh, a brigadier general in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, made the comments to Iran's state-run Arabic language Al-Alam television, according to a report on the network's website.

"Iran will not start any war but it could launch a pre-emptive attack if it was sure that the enemies are putting the final touches to attack it," Al-Alam said, paraphrasing the military commander.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/24/14059635-report-iran-mulls-pre-emptive-attack-against-israel-commander-warns-of-world-war-iii?lite

 

[saiter]

Not if you bomb them first...

Could be a media beat-up...but...

Cold war v2.0?

 

[DB008]

Breaking!! Israel Lobbyist - We Need a False Flag to Start War with Iran!