NationStates Jolt Archive

To get the Europeans to agree to an intervention?

At least Saddam wasn't completely stupid... When you get European diplomats saying that the Iranian President is sticking his own foot up his own ass repeatedly in public, it's not like PNAC is having to sell anything at all...

By repeatedly calling for Israel's destruction and slamming the door on a nuclear compromise, Iran's hardline president has put Tehran on a collision course with the West, diplomats and analysts warned, AFP reports.

In his latest anti-Israeli assault, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed the Holocaust as a "myth" and said the Jewish state should be moved as far away as Alaska -- views that one European envoy posted in Tehran described as "way beyond political incorrectness".

"At first, we were tempted to put it down to inexperience or a simple gaffe," he said of the firebrand president's string of outbursts, which began in October with a call for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

"But there is now a clear pattern of confrontational, extremist rhetoric apparently designed to upset the international community. And he's succeeding," said the European diplomat, who asked not to be named.

According to the diplomat, "the very radical change of tone in Iran has to be seen in the context of the nuclear issue" -- or fears that Iran is using an atomic energy drive as a cover for weapons development.

"This kind of talk from the president is not confidence-building, this is confidence destroying. It undermines all the diplomatic efforts to find a mutually satisfactory compromise on a very serious issue. You can't help but feel pessimistic."

Well, he doesn't perceive any real threat, so why should he moderate his language?

I'm sure there's plenty he could to to make it easier....

Well, he doesn't perceive any real threat, so why should he moderate his language?
All Iran has to do to appear as a threat to world peace and stability in the eyes of Europeans is to continue to enrich uranium, develop nuclear weapons, continue to make threats, and continue to talk like an idiot about the Jews.

Everyone in the US could keep their mouth shut, and it wouldn't be long before the Europeans would be saying, "look, we're going to have to remove this idiot".

All Iran has to do to appear as a threat to world peace and stability in the eyes of Europeans is to continue to enrich uranium, develop nuclear weapons, continue to make threats, and continue to talk like an idiot about the Jews.

Everyone in the US could keep their mouth shut, and it wouldn't be long before the Europeans would be saying, "look, we're going to have to remove this idiot".

I think what Nazz meant is that Ahmadinejad doesn't perceive a threat to Iran from Europe, so he feels free to speak all this inflammatory rhetoric.

All Iran has to do to appear as a threat to world peace and stability in the eyes of Europeans is to continue to enrich uranium, develop nuclear weapons, continue to make threats, and continue to talk like an idiot about the Jews.

Everyone in the US could keep their mouth shut, and it wouldn't be long before the Europeans would be saying, "look, we're going to have to remove this idiot".Oh I agree with you, but that doesn't answer the question, "Who's going to do the removing?" Ahmanejad isn't an idiot--he knows that military resources are finite, and that he's signed up China as his defender by becoming their largest foreign source of oil. Is Europe going to go in if China rattles a saber or a million? Is the US for that matter? Would Israel drop a first strike nuke if they thought it might cost them their existence anyway?

Oh I agree with you, but that doesn't answer the question, "Who's going to do the removing?" Ahmanejad isn't an idiot--he knows that military resources are finite, and that he's signed up China as his defender by becoming their largest foreign source of oil. Is Europe going to go in if China rattles a saber or a million? Is the US for that matter? Would Israel drop a first strike nuke if they thought it might cost them their existence anyway?

I believe the US will, if supported by the Europeans. World War X, if you please.

But don't blame PNAC this time - Iran got to be stupid all by itself, and they are providing all the propaganda fuel themselves.

Iran is a buch of Ballless myopic zombies with the mindset, childish agression and narrow mindedness of the lost,...they are a danger.

What a bunch of wankers, "move Isreal to Alaska", how friggin childish can they be. Blame the plane that crashed into the apartment building on the US? Bonkers!

They WILL percipitate the Nuclear Destruction of this planet.

They need to lean to Eat pussy and enjoy it or something, instead of hating an entire race ala nazi Germany, it's so tiresome. Give it a Rest Muslims, Help the World or get off.

Tossers!

Rich

Gargh... those madly religious people...

I think that the president of Iran should be removed to make way for a more peaceful dude, and I believe all countries - not only Iran - should stop nuclear power production (my arse they're going to but hey).

He's pretty much brainwashing some of the people into drinking his ideas.
I do think it's more Europe's responsibility to sort this out but if China would be bumming him that would be difficult... and looking at the size of China I wouldn't think they'd be very afraid to attack.

I believe the US will, if supported by the Europeans. World War X, if you please.
That's what I figured you'd say, to which I can only reply, "with what army?" Unless you're thinking about resuming the draft...

I actually think China would stay out of this fight if it comes to it. Frankly, I don't think anything will get done.

No one is going to remove him from power even though we have legitament means thanks to his rhetoric and the fact that it could be considered a violation of the UN Charter.

It's a little more complicated than to say Ahmadinejad is an idiot. Sure he's an idiot and the Iranian public hate his guts, but I think most Iranians would agree that Europe and the UN didn't handle the question with Israel very well in the first place and that they have now totally screwed it over.

I think lots of Iranians do think that it's not fair palestinians should suffer because Europeans murdered millions of Jews.

Anyway, the rhetoric that Iran should take down their nuclear plant programs seem very silly to me. Two totally crazy nations, America and Israel, already have nuclear WEAPONS that they refuse to disarm. Sure, I really hope Iran won't develop nuclear weapons, but if they do, their just one of a couple of crazy-ass nations to be scared of.

Hope you get my point.

That's what I figured you'd say, to which I can only reply, "with what army?" Unless you're thinking about resuming the draft...

The US army was built to fight two major global conflicts at one time. Currently we are in a peacekeeping role in Iraq. We could easily shift troops to the East if needed. There are plenty of troops in reserve to take down Iran. Don't believe the liberal idea that we are stretched to thin to fight another war.

That's what I figured you'd say, to which I can only reply, "with what army?" Unless you're thinking about resuming the draft...
Unless you plan on occupying a country, you don't need the Army.

The Air Force, even with conventional weapons, can destroy the infrastructure of Iran in a few weeks - in a few months, they won't have any power, water, sewage, major cities, bridges, port facilities, airports, or armed forces.

Of course, we could do that in about 20 minutes with nuclear weapons - probably a single Trident submarine using D5 missiles could lay waste to the entire country using airbursts (which would keep fallout really low).

most Iranians would agree that Europe and the UN didn't handle the question with Israel very well in the first place and that they have now totally screwed it over.

Not just Iranians think this.

I think lots of Iranians do think that it's not fair palestinians should suffer because Europeans murdered millions of Jews.

And yet it was the Arab states that told the Palestinians to leave their homelands so they could attempt to wipe Israel out so who precisely is responsible for their suffering?

Anyway, the rhetoric that Iran should take down their nuclear plant programs seem very silly to me. Two totally crazy nations, America and Israel, already have nuclear WEAPONS that they refuse to disarm. Sure, I really hope Iran won't develop nuclear weapons, but if they do, their just one of a couple of crazy-ass nations to be scared of.

At least we're not crazy enough to use them to wipe out a nation. They are a deterrent weapon and have only been used in one war. A war that ended 60 years ago. Israel has never used their nuclear weapons at all.

Hope you get my point.

And that is?

It's a little more complicated than to say Ahmadinejad is an idiot. Sure he's an idiot and the Iranian public hate his guts, but I think most Iranians would agree that Europe and the UN didn't handle the question with Israel very well in the first place and that they have now totally screwed it over.

I think lots of Iranians do think that it's not fair palestinians should suffer because Europeans murdered millions of Jews.

Anyway, the rhetoric that Iran should take down their nuclear plant programs seem very silly to me. Two totally crazy nations, America and Israel, already have nuclear WEAPONS that they refuse to disarm. Sure, I really hope Iran won't develop nuclear weapons, but if they do, their just one of a couple of crazy-ass nations to be scared of.

Hope you get my point.


Israel is exactly where it should be. Through easily finding biblical maps you can understand this. I am a muslim saying this. The refugee problem is a creation of Israel's neighbors. They are as responsible for the problem as the Israeli's if not more. Palestinians have no more legitimate claim to the land that the nation of Israel stands on than the Israeli's themselves. Now if they would stop trying to blow up Israeli's than maybe they could live in peace together like they did in times past. I just don't have sympathy for people that want to terrorize others.

Israel is exactly where it should be. Through easily finding biblical maps you can understand this. I am a muslim saying this. The refugee problem is a creation of Israel's neighbors. They are as responsible for the problem as the Israeli's if not more. Palestinians have no more legitimate claim to the land that the nation of Israel stands on than the Israeli's themselves. Now if they would stop trying to blow up Israeli's than maybe they could live in peace together like they did in times past. I just don't have sympathy for people that want to terrorize others.
That bolded part is the problem with this whole middle east violence issue--people arguing that they have some right based on the way things were two thousand years ago. Personally, I think that any right those ancient groups had expired when the Romans beat all their asses and scattered them to the four winds. Does that mean that the Italians should now be ruling Israel? Not a chance.

Look--the situation was most recently fucked over post WWII, when the west decided to create Israel at the cost of the people who were currently living there. Now there's no way to go back and change that, but at the very least we ought to be able to get away from this retarded notion that the land belongs to some ethnic group just because it belonged to their ancestors over two thousand years ago.

That bolded part is the problem with this whole middle east violence issue--people arguing that they have some right based on the way things were two thousand years ago. Personally, I think that any right those ancient groups had expired when the Romans beat all their asses and scattered them to the four winds. Does that mean that the Italians should now be ruling Israel? Not a chance.

Look--the situation was most recently fucked over post WWII, when the west decided to create Israel at the cost of the people who were currently living there. Now there's no way to go back and change that, but at the very least we ought to be able to get away from this retarded notion that the land belongs to some ethnic group just because it belonged to their ancestors over two thousand years ago.


Wow, you just blew the whole native American claim to land issue out of the water. That arguement could be used there too.

Well I ask you who is the one that had military control over this area at the end of WWII? Was the British empire if I'm not mistaken. Now if you use the notion of the Roman's than why couldn't it be implied that the British didn't have the same rights to carve up the middle east as the romans? I mean they did create most of the "nations" current boundries. Over the course between WWI and WWII that is. So why could they not create one more?

Wow, you just blew the whole native American claim to land issue out of the water. That arguement could be used there too.

Well I ask you who is the one that had military control over this area at the end of WWII? Was the British empire if I'm not mistaken. Now if you use the notion of the Roman's than why couldn't it be implied that the British didn't have the same rights to carve up the middle east as the romans? I mean they did create most of the "nations" current boundries. Over the course between WWI and WWII that is. So why could they not create one more?
Yep--I did, because when it comes right down to it, land belongs to whichever government controls it. Whether Native American claims to land are legitimate has nothing to do with whether or not those claims are honored. When they are honored, it's because the US government decides to do it, not for any other reason. Moral outrage only gets you attention--military power gets you land, and in the US, the feds have all the power.

I don't quite get where you're trying to go with the second half of your post, however. The nation of Israel was essentially carved out of that area by the British post-WWII, correct? It was done under the auspices of the UN, but it was the British who were behind it, right? They controlled the area; they made the call, and that land has been violently disputed ever since then.

If you look back, I'm not disputing Israel's right to exist--I'm saying that to base its right to the land on Biblical era maps is ludicrous.

And yet it was the Arab states that told the Palestinians to leave their homelands so they could attempt to wipe Israel out so who precisely is responsible for their suffering?
Hope you see the difference between Arab states and Iran.
I'm not trying to defend what Arab states or Iran say about Israel, I'm trying to defend Palestinians from the view that it's their own fault they have one of the world's strongest armies around in the area which is their home.


At least we're not crazy enough to use them to wipe out a nation. They are a deterrent weapon and have only been used in one war. A war that ended 60 years ago. Israel has never used their nuclear weapons at all.
Newsflash! Iran hasn't "wiped out" any nation. And no other country have used nuclear weapons in conflicts even once.
Does it mean Iran can be trusted? Hell no, but you act like people can trust America to invade yet another nation but most of the world thinks you should keep your fat fingers to hamburgers. No offence, but people are quite angry.

And that is?
It is that the people of Iran DO believe in the Holocaust but they DO NOT think Palestinians should pay the price for it.

I'm not saying Israelis do not have the right to live in Palestine, I'm just saying they do not have the right to oppress palestinians.

Everyone in the US could keep their mouth shut, and it wouldn't be long before the Europeans would be saying, "look, we're going to have to remove this idiot".


unless, of course, a certain number of them are quietly making healthy, yet short term profits from dealing with Iran.
Pistachios, maybe?

It is that the people of Iran DO believe in the Holocaust but they DO NOT think Palestinians should pay the price for it.

Well, it looks like the "people" of Iran elected some fool who believes that the Holocaust is a myth - i.e., he doesn't believe it happened.

America doesn't need to attack Iran. Israel will do the job, and America (presumably with European forces as well) will be there to stop the other Arab nations from pwning Israel in return.

As odd as it may sound, it might just be the Final Solution to the Middle Eastern question.

What a dumbass. Unless he gets thrown out of office or assassinated fast, Iran is in for a rough time.

It's a bit illogical that he firstly disputes the fact that the holocaust took place but then goes on to assert that, as it was carried out by them, the Europeans should accommodate Isreal instead.

It's a bit illogical that he firstly disputes the fact that the holocaust took place but then goes on to assert that, as it was carried out by them, the Europeans should accommodate Isreal instead.
Rather like most posters on NS General. Are you sure he isn't really on this forum?

Quick question - where are the Palestinian refugee camps located? Israel? Nope. Why haven't the "refugees" been taken in by thier Arab "brothers"? No idea...Katrina "refugees" are all resettled all over the US, but the Palestinian refugee camps have existed for decades. Nosymp. Israel AND Iraq were created by the British. Shoudl we scatter the Iraquis to the four winds, as well? one is as good as the other, right?
The US used two nuclear bombs, in 1945, in an effort to save an estimated 1.5 million American, British, and Austrailian lives in an assault on mainland Japan. It worked. Not one nuclear weapon has been exploded by any country is anger since then, and there are scores of them up for sale in the former USSR.
Iran is a nation on the brink, for a good reason. Ever looked at a map? Iraq on one side, Afghanistan on the other - we ALREADY have them surrounded....
Iran ain't exactly been on my Christmas card list ever since the hostage crisis, when we had that overblown wimp Carter as president.

Quick question - where are the Palestinian refugee camps located? Israel? Nope. Why haven't the "refugees" been taken in by thier Arab "brothers"? No idea...

Actually, in the beginning, most of the Palestinians went to Jordan. They then tried to overthrow the Jordanian government, and plotted to assassinate the King of Jordan.

So he kicked their asses in ways that the handwringers today would never accept.

That bolded part is the problem with this whole middle east violence issue--people arguing that they have some right based on the way things were two thousand years ago. Personally, I think that any right those ancient groups had expired when the Romans beat all their asses and scattered them to the four winds. Does that mean that the Italians should now be ruling Israel? Not a chance.

Look--the situation was most recently fucked over post WWII, when the west decided to create Israel at the cost of the people who were currently living there. Now there's no way to go back and change that, but at the very least we ought to be able to get away from this retarded notion that the land belongs to some ethnic group just because it belonged to their ancestors over two thousand years ago.
"The West" didn't "create Israel." The expatriots, the holocaust survivors, and Jews from virtually every part of the globe created Israel, despite serious opposition from almost every Western nation. They made their own way to the area, landed on the beach with almost literally nothing but the clothes on their backs, and fought an extended, very bloody conflict with the Arabs and others in the area.

Don't discount the power of the concept of "home."

To get the Europeans to agree to an intervention?

At least Saddam wasn't completely stupid... When you get European diplomats saying that the Iranian President is sticking his own foot up his own ass repeatedly in public, it's not like PNAC is having to sell anything at all...

The only REAL difference why Saddam was treated differently than Ahmadinejad and his rantings is because Saddam was smart enough to know that they could be bribed and they would act like you weren't so bad and Ahmadinejad believes he can say what he wants without paying/bribing the European leaders anything...

And like the mafia in the days of old, the Europeans are pissed that they aren't getting paid their 'protection' money and might end up breaking some kneecaps around here... :p :D

"The West" didn't "create Israel." The expatriots, the holocaust survivors, and Jews from virtually every part of the globe created Israel, despite serious opposition from almost every Western nation. They made their own way to the area, landed on the beach with almost literally nothing but the clothes on their backs, and fought an extended, very bloody conflict with the Arabs and others in the area.

Don't discount the power of the concept of "home."
In the sense that the governmental powers who controlled the area drew the map, fixed the borders, and dispossessed the people who lived there created Israel, the west, led by the UN in Resolution 181 most certainly created Israel. (http://www.mideastweb.org/misrael.htm)
Israel was created in 1948, after UN Resolution 181 partitioned the territory of the British Mandate for Palestine into two states for Jews and Palestinian Arabs. The Arabs objected to the creation of the Jewish state and fought a war against it. The Arab side lost the war, and the Palestinian state never really came into being. The territory allotted to the Palestinian state by the UN partition resolution was taken over by Israel and Jordan. About 780,000 Palestinians became refugees.

In the sense that the governmental powers who controlled the area drew the map, fixed the borders, and dispossessed the people who lived there created Israel, the west, led by the UN in Resolution 181 most certainly created Israel. (http://www.mideastweb.org/misrael.htm)
181 also created a Palestinian state, which Arabs not only rejected, they spent all the years since then trying to defy 181 and destroy Israel.

181 also created a Palestinian state, which Arabs not only rejected, they spent all the years since then trying to defy 181 and destroy Israel.
Absolutely--the very next paragraph from that link makes that point.

Well, it looks like the "people" of Iran elected some fool who believes that the Holocaust is a myth - i.e., he doesn't believe it happened.

Iran is not a democracy. Their elections are more or less fixed. I havn't been in Iran since Ahmadinejad was elected, but as far as I know, the corruption of the election this time was stronger than the elections before.

The people of Iran most certainly think there was an organized murdering of millions of jews, no question. Most iranians (persians, kurds, et.c.) are also opposed to the regime and they fight it. If you ask me, they deserve a break. They don't deserve to be bombed once more as you suggested. It's the people that will suffer. I want to support them as much as i can, and if America wants to support Iranians, perhaps they should try to reach out instead of acting like jerks that can bomb anything they feel like.

Somehow, many of you people seem to think Ahmadinejad is completely stupid. But unlike Saddam, he's not insane. Iran is controlled by a class of priests that are extremely wealthy, they are very successful businessmen that do business everywhere in the world. They even organize concerts in America that millions of people attend to. They have chosen Ahmadinejad because they think he can make their position stronger, in a country where the poor are starting to organize.

I think Ahmadinejad knew exactly what the reaction from Europe, Israel and America would be. But I can't say what he's intentions are. Perhaps it is war he wants, what do I know.

But if there's going to be war, let me make one thing clear. There's no way one can compare Iraq's or Afghanistans armies with Irans. Iraq and Afghanistan were extremely weak when they were attacked, but Iran has a very strong army, modern weapons and a functioning infrastructure. They also have what neither Afghanistan nor Iraq had. A population that IS willing to fight any invading armies off. Iranians may hate the conservative ruling class of their country, but they don't want America around. So if Ahmadinejad is trying to stir up hatred against the West in his own population, to prepare for war, he's doing exactly the right thing.

I'm too lazy, so I'll let Mr. Steyn make my point

...What does it mean when one party can talk repeatedly about the liquidation of an entire nation and the other party responds that this further "underscores our concerns," as if he'd been listening to an EU trade representative propose increasing some tariff by half a percent?

Well, it emboldens the bully. It gives him an advantage, like the punk who swears and sprawls over half the seats in the subway car while the other riders try not to catch his eye. The political thugs certainly understand the power of psychological intimidation. Look at Saddam Hussein in court, so confident in his sneering dismissal of judge and witnesses that he's generating big pro-Baathist demonstrations in Tikrit. I was struck by his complaint that the real terrorism was that he hadn't been given a change in underpants in three days. I hope that's true. It requires enormous strength of will on the part of free societies to bring blustering cocksure thugs down to size, even after we've overthrown them and kicked them out of the presidential palace. In Iran, President Ahmaddamytree figures that half the world likes his Jew proposals and the rest isn't prepared to do more than offer a few objections phrased in the usual thin diplo-pabulum.

We assume, as Neville Chamberlain, Lord Halifax and other civilized men did 70 years ago, that these chaps may be a little excitable, but come on, old boy, they can't possibly mean it, can they? Wrong. They mean it but they can't quite do it yet. Like Hitler, when they can do it, they will -- or at the very least the weedy diplo-speak tells them they can force the world into big concessions on the fear that they can....

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn11.html