Iranian President would move Israel
Now here's a fella that's thinking outside the box:
Iran's conservative president has said that Israel should be moved to Europe.
If European countries claim that they have killed Jews in World War II... why don't they provide the Zionist regime with a piece of Europe," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Iranian television.
I didn't think it was possible for a country to elect a leader more diplomatically tone deaf than Bush. What an incredible dunderhead.
posted by Chris Dykstra @ 4:24 PM |
| 
8 Comments:
One would by hard pressed to claim he one a free electionas only "approved" canidates could run. More of an appointment by an unelected council of religious elders.
All we can hope for is this leads to the faster fall of the ruling elite.
Dave
The guy has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."
Nevermind relocation.
So the question is, in light of what this guy says, would Israel be justified in attacking to prevent Iran from gaining nukes?
Serious question.
-Censored
Calls for Israel to be wiped off the map are hardly new. That in an of itself wouldn't necessarily be cause for a strike. Iran with nukes makes me really uncomfortable, though. It strikes me that we don't really have any visibility into whether or not Iran is close to a bomb or not, though, given the unbelievably crappy track record of the US's recent intelligence efforts.
It also strikes me that if the Iranian Pres continues to make belligerent remarks while whistling down the nuclear path, it isn't a matter of should we/Israel should bomb or if we are justified, it's a matter of when. I think it's alread a foregone conclusion.
A couple more months, missles fly.
(I hope I am wrong. But we opened up the biggest, nastiest pandora's box with the invasion of Iraq.)
On the contrary Chris. The pandora's box has been open a long time. Its the contents that are being dealt with now, rather than being put off.
Iran's nuclear ambitions are unrelated to our liberation of Iraq. If anything, a Saddam without sanctions would be a greater security threat to them.
I'm curious though, is it that you think missiles will fly or think that's an appropriate response? Wouldn't it be better to liberate Iran and remove the threat for all time?
-Censored
The pandora's box we opened with the invasion of Iraq is the following:
- Iraq and Iran, though they shared a loathing of Israel, were enemies.
- By upsetting that delicate balance with the invasion itself, by coopting a suspected Iranian spy (Chalabai), by losing border security, etc. etc, we created an environment where Iran can exert unopposed influence. Now instead of two anti-Israel states who neutralized eachother with their own hate, we have two anti-Israel states who will work together, covertly or overtly, in the region. That's the pandora's box. It was extremely stupid to lift the lid off. If the region blows up and goes to total war - every single death can be laid at the feet of Bush and his strategically inept, ideologically insane cronies.
- I think misseles will fly because Iran will continue its belligerent course, because the US lacks diplomatic options and credibility, because George Bush is in the White House and that's his MO, and because Israel will feel very, very threatened by a Nuclear Iran. The other piece, of course, is Iran's outside interference in Iraq. That's a no-no. It doesn't matter now whether or not Bush laid the table, they can't be allowed to interfere.
- If, after exhaustive international inspections and sanctions, Iran goes nuclear, military action would be justified to remove that threat. If proof comes to light that they are sponsoring the insurgency in Iraq, that would also be justification for military action, though the nature of that action might be quite different.
Prior to that time, I would err on the side of extended inspections and sanctions. This is tricky ground and the US has not navigated it well in the recent past. We cannot afford to be drawn into any kind of offensive in Iran. Iran, unfortunately, knows this.
-Liberate Iran? That' crazy talk. We can't do it and shouldn't attempt it. No way, no how. We don't want to be at war in the Middle East for the next century. Besides which, if we play our cards correctly and do not get too aggressive, Iran will evolve into a more enlightened state. Its youth will demand it. But if we overreact with some ill-concieved military action that doesn't have a winnable endgame - we would just swell the ranks of our enemies.
I think the President is right. He just said what a lot of people think and never say.
Cheers.
I'm surprised you don't think Iran REALLY has a nuclear program. Or that its not sponsoring terrorism in Iraq.
Given those statements its not surprising we don't agree.
I also don't share your assessment of Iran becoming more enlightened if we leave it alone.
Endgame? Afghanistan and Iraq are looking like models to me. I suspect we disagree there too. Considering that more people died in NY on 9/11 without WMD, than we've lost in Iraq we have different opinions on the cost of doing these things or the risks of inaction.
-Censored
Read carefully. I didn't say I didn't that I don't think Iran has a nuclear program. I think it does. I also think that othe credibility of our intelligence is so badly damaged that we will have a hard time making a case for that. I also believe fully that Iran IS sponsoring the insurgency in Iraq. After all, Bush hired an Iranian spy to sell the war (Chalabai). The war completely benefited Iran. For sure they are making a huge power play there.
I have no idea what you are talking about with your comments about 9.11. Iraq and 9.11 are in no way related except in Bush's mind.
Post a Comment
<< Home