Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
Iran wants to nuke Israel
Topic Started: Oct 28 2005, 05:42 PM (1,422 Views)
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Jeffrey
Oct 29 2005, 05:13 PM
jon - "its security problems"

      Your wording is quite revealing and correct, and it is how the world will view the situation and why they will do nothing.  Yes, precisely.  So long as Iran going nuclear is regarded merely as Israel's security problem, it will not be taken seriously, and nothing real will be done to stop it.  Such is the way of the world.  Iran has stated many times that it believes it's size makes it able to survive a counter strike by Israel.  They are deadly serious. 

    I was not talking about blackmail or any such thing.  A nuclear strike big enough to wipe out Iran, would all by itself alter the world ecosystem.  That's what nuclear exchanges can do.  Israel must make sure that it will not just have one or two bombs left, but enough to make it worth something.  Hydrogen, not merely atomic.  And it needs to make sure the world knows it will not go quietly.  Then and only then will the world regard a nuclear Iran as the world's security problem, not just Israel's.  Maybe.

    I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this, but I don't see any real effort to stop Iran.

my wording wasn't reavealing - it was responsive. I was commenting directly on the suggestion in your post. so your post doesn't really address my original. reread it with that tidbit in mind, and then comment.

i view a nuclear iran as a security problem to the US. not an existential problem like it is for Israel, but a serious problem nonetheless.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
iainhp
Middle Aged Carp
Why nuclear? There's sufficient non-nuclear explosives to do the job. Why I'm sure George has secret shipments on the way to Israel as we discuss this. When it's all over I wonder if the Israelis will manage the production of oil any better than the current regimes?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Amanda - "I'm SO glad. But frankly, his speaking so clearly and crazily, seems too good to be true. "


I disagree, it's not good at all. Everyone who wants to know, already knows that Iran wants to nuke Israel. Anyone saying otherwise is simply unwilling to look at facts (individual liberals) or unwilling to take action as a government (e.g. Europe). (I have heard the theory that the real target is Sunni Saudi Arabia, and rhetoric against Israel is a cover, but I doubt it.)

I guess the real question is why is Iran speaking this way. My answer is that this is a rational method of retaining political power for them, same as the Taliban destroying Bamiyan Buddhas to the world's condemnation (this happened about a year before 9-11). Crazed theocratic regimes with failed economies need to legitimate themselves somehow. Acting as the virtuous killer of the Jews is one such legitimation. I say they are preparing their own population for war.


Amanda: "Hardly, since Israel will stike preemptively one way or the other - or both.

And thanks to Iran's million-wide rally and the new president's big mouth, no one will blame her.

So then the question comes, what IS the ulterior motive? You think it's just a distraction? Israel won't take that chance."

I infer that Iran is confident that it's military assets are sufficiently hidden amongst the civilian population and sufficiently dispersed so as to make an Israeli air raid ineffective. If Israel bombs Iran, it will be blamed by the world despite what Iran is now saying.

Again, Iran's actions make sense as a way of pacifying a restless population, as a way of preparing for war, and it will suffer no long-term negative consequences for it's behavior from the world community, which has ruled out either military or economic action against Iran.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Jeffrey
Oct 29 2005, 01:13 PM
Israel must make sure that it will not just have one or two bombs left, but enough to make it worth something.  Hydrogen, not merely atomic. .

If by hydrogen, you are thinking of the 1950's early 60's vintage nukes whose blast was measured in megatons you are bound to be disappointed. They were that large in order to compensate for imprecise accuracy of ICBM's and strategic bombers of the day. Since the 70's with advances in targetting MIRVed systems down to .5 of a kilometre- now is probably .5 of a metre or less- a 170 kiloton fission/fusion warhead is quite sufficient to knock out any hardened (bunkers, silos etc.) or soft (bases, airstrips, formations etc.) military target.

As well, I doubt whether any nuclear attack on Iran would produce a *nuclear winter*. Iran has nothing to throw back and there really aren't that many crucial targets needed to destroy Iran's fighting capability. The nuclear winter scenario was hypothesized in the early 1980's in the event of a thermonuclear exchange of land and submarine based systems between the US and the USSR. It involved one hell of a lot of MIRVs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Amanda
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
jeffrey:
Quote:
 
Again, Iran's actions make sense as a way of pacifying a restless population, as a way of preparing for war, and it will suffer no long-term negative consequences for it's behavior from the world community, which has ruled out either military or economic action against Iran.

The internal political benefits to Iran, of baiting Israel are obvious. However, I disagree vehemently, that the motives of the new president are so clear. I say there needs to be an in-depth psychological profile of him, drawn up to figure out this outwardly stupid move. I am sure that even our very behind-the-curve state department is doing just that right now, in fact. You are taking for granted the meaning of some very strange behavior.

I also disagree that the world community would condemn Israel's for striking Iran preemptively now. In fact, even many elements which WOULD have condemned Israel, will not now - cannot.

This doesn't mean the well-oiled Arab/Islamic/radical propaganda machine won't do their best helped of course, by whatever photo-ops (and more) such an attack provides them. That does not, of course, include clever sabotage of the sort bach alludes to (such as cyber sabotage). They MAY say they condemn Israel, but at this point, no rational nation can avoid feeling threatened by an Iran, led by what is apparently a dangerous religious fanatic, with present or imminent long-range nuclear capability.

The intellectual and even the popular response is very much weakened by this wild rhetoric. I am certain that the policy-makers and propagandists in the other camp are very much dismayed by this more-than posturing, precisely on this account, in fact.

Israel's long-standing bind is obvious (of which is this is but one part). This mouthing off, lessens it, however.

You discount the people whose opinion (or ability to rationalize, anyhow) has been affected by this rhetoric - as being few in number and/or insignificant. I do not agree. I say within this country alone, they amount to a substantial number of the anti-Semitic, anti-neocon and anti-War camps (hastening to add these sets are NOT identical!).

Abroad, they are equal in number and perhaps even more influential. They may amount to the vast majority in Europe, in fact, though not the true radicals who are as fixated as ever (remember, they are long allied with the radical Islamic movement in a marriage of convenience).

The inter-relatedness of the world's economy alone makes this threatening even to countries like China which has scarcely acknowledged the existence of the Middle East up to now.

Finally, no country "prepares for war" years ahead of the fact especially when baiting a country which as bach says, cannot afford to be victimized by a first strike. Israel cannot even afford further advancement of the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Look what happened when Israel was threatened by Nasser in the six-day war when he threatened Israel in the Suez (and not even with nuclear warheads) and later in the six-day war.

You have not addressed what is at least, a very puzzling difference of intelligence about Iran's closeness to nuclear strike capability. I doubt things are so simple as you posit - not by a long-shot. Not unless the Iranian president is really nuts, and has absolutely no strategy except faith in Allah to make things come out right for Iran.

[size=5]
We should tolerate eccentricity in others, almost to the point of lunacy, provided no one else is harmed.
[/size]

"Daily Telegraph", London July 27 2005
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
AC - It is obviously difficult to do any testing of this, but -

"Nuclear winter, theory holding that the smoke and dust produced by a large nuclear war would result in a prolonged period of cold on the earth. The earliest version of the theory, which was put forward in the early 1980s in the so-called TTAPS report (named for last initials of its authors, Richard P. Turco, Owen B. Toon, Thomas P. Ackerman, James B. Pollack, and Carl Sagan), held that the ensuing low temperatures and prolonged periods of darkness would obliterate plant life and seriously threaten the existence of the human species. Later models, which took into account additional variables, confirmed the basic conclusions of the TTAPS report and suggested that the detonation of 100 megatons (the explosive power of 100 million tons of TNT) over 100 cities could produce temperature drops ranging from 5 to 15 degrees."

I confess to not know what the megatonnage of the Israeli nuclear arsenal is at present. Is it less than 100 tons?

Obviously better solutions would be for the world to take this issue seriously on its own, or give Israel political leeway to take direct action now rather than let the genocidal maniacs of Iran get nukes. I am doubtful this will happen.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Amanda: "I also disagree that the world community would condemn Israel's for striking Iran preemptively now. In fact, even many elements which WOULD have condemned Israel, will not now - cannot. "

I hope you are correct. I never underestimate people's ability to rationalize what they want to rationalize, however. You seem to think this is a miscalculation on Iran's part. Perhaps. I see no evidence that this is the case. Let's see if Russia stops providing nuclear technology to Iran. Betcha they keep doing it. Let's see if China decides not to buy Iranian oil. Betcha they keep doing it. Let's see if Europe decides on an economic blockade. Betcha they don't.

Also, I assume that Iran has calculated that an Israeli military strike would not be effective, which is my analysis as well (of course, based on only the most partial of evidence).

I see no evidence that Iran has blundered. Please study the actions of the Iranian regime during the Iran-Iraq war. This is not a government afraid of blood. They sent kids across mine fields to "clear" them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Oh, I believe the whole world would condemn Israel for striking preemptively. Then breathe a huge sigh of relief and do sweet f*ck all about it. This is really the up-against-the-wall plan.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Amanda
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Oh, I quite agree the economic responses of the other countries won't change. This is the short-sightedness of the world, all the more dangerous and foolhardly today than ever, given the inter-relatedness of the consequences of missteps. As if borders meant anything nowadays for the atmosphere, the oceans, the climate, and the ground water... :sad:

But I was talking about the UN, the media and the international popularity contest. And yes, these things DO matter. It is for this that young men enlist in the army and that people live and die. Patriotism, in a word - and increasingly religious-patriotism. The UMMAH in Islamic terms, but surely there is a Western equivelent to the concept.

Let's put it this way - it does Israel good in the sense that less harm is done! If the other side is dismayed by the Iran president's remarks - if they feel they need to act as apologists and that their cause is set back (and I'm sure all these have happened), it is very good that the new Ayatollah has revealed himself so clearly.

BTW you didn't refer to the US "Left" in your catalog of the "unchanged". Everything isn't economic. The economic world is largely international businessmen/corporate alliances which already constitute a trans-national world unto themselves. If only they had a greater sense of the future! Perhaps they do not love their children.
[size=5]
We should tolerate eccentricity in others, almost to the point of lunacy, provided no one else is harmed.
[/size]

"Daily Telegraph", London July 27 2005
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Amanda
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
JBryan
Oct 29 2005, 09:13 PM
Oh, I believe the whole world would condemn Israel for striking preemptively. Then breathe a huge sigh of relief and do sweet f*ck all about it. This is really the up-against-the-wall plan.

What they would say and what they would feel, are two different things. To explain, just consider the difference in the reaction if the Iranian president had NOT mouthed off as he did (and with their nuclear capability a year or two away if not further along).

It's not better now?
[size=5]
We should tolerate eccentricity in others, almost to the point of lunacy, provided no one else is harmed.
[/size]

"Daily Telegraph", London July 27 2005
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Jeffrey
Oct 29 2005, 04:39 PM


I confess to not know what the megatonnage of the Israeli nuclear arsenal is at present. Is it less than 100 tons?


Nor do I, but I am confident that it is over 100 kilotons but considerably less than 100 megatons. In any case, there are probably less than 5 targets in all Iran worth incinerating in order to achieve the desired objective.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
interesting article, on the iranian president, from haaretz.

A tutor for the president

By Zvi Bar'el

Hartford University, as opposed to the University of Hartford in the United States, is a virtual college that operates on the Internet and grants academic degrees, from bachelor's to doctorates. It is the college where Ali Saeedlou, the designated oil minister of Iran, studied, and where he received his Ph.D. "Designated," because the conservative Iranian parliament, the body that is supposed to give its full backing to the new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, decided at the conclusion of a lengthy debate, which lasted more than 30 hours, to reject the appointment.

The reason was not the doctoral degree he received from the online university, which of course teaches in English - the language of the Great Satan - but his lack of experience in oil affairs and the concern that he could lead Iranian oil policy to the brink of disaster. This was the official reason, which in itself was enough to prevent the appointment. The other, non-official but no less powerful reason is the creaky relationship between the president and the parliament. In the less than three months since his election as president in June, Ahmadinejad has managed to get on the nerves of numerous members of parliament, particularly those who head important committees, such as energy and national security.

For example, these members of parliament claim that the government, in other words the president (Iran has no prime minister), is not responding to their requests, and is not initiating legislation to improve the economic situation. Similarly, they contend, his new bureaucracy is at odds with their plan to wipe out poverty. Instead, it prolongs the administrative corruption, as he attempts to appoint individuals who served with him in his previous posts as the mayor of Tehran and as an intelligence officer in the Republican Guards.

One of Ahmadinejad's associates, the conservative MP Ahmed Tawakli, was quoted by the Fars news agency as saying that "absolute support for Ahmadinejad is liable to lead to an administrative breakdown of the state." But more importantly, Iran is beginning to realize that Ahmadinejad could cause strategic damage to the state. And this does not refer to his statements about Israel. They are only the latest example of the damage, which led to the ensuing "correction speech" by Hashemi Rafsanjani and the response of the Iranian foreign ministry, in which spokesmen underscored Iran's commitment to the UN charter, and especially the positive attitude of Islam toward Judaism and Jews. For Ahmadinejad this is a no less severe slap in the face than the parliament's decision not to confirm four of his proposed cabinet appointments, or parliament's enactment of a law to reduce gasoline imports, which Ahmadinejad's government should have initiated but did not.

Oil shortage

The main criticism of Ahmadinejad stems from the fact that Iran is now under immense international pressure, from which it seeks to extricate itself in order to gain some strategic objectives: continued construction of its nuclear reactors without outside interference, and the building of an economy - especially an oil economy - that will not bring it to bankruptcy 20 years from now. Iran's economic data is at first glance impressive: Approximately 13 percent of global oil reserves lie under its territory, it earned about $30 billion this year from oil exports, and in recent years evolved from a state that owes money into a state that can pay in cash for its projects.

The bad news is that even according to official Iranian reports, at current production levels, unless Iran invests large amounts of money to develop its oil fields, within 20 years it will be unable to export oil, and will consume all its production locally. Since the Khomeini revolution, Iran has produced about 4.5 million barrels of oil a day, about 2 million barrels less than production levels prior to the revolution, due to the sanctions that led to the corrosion of equipment and the curtailment of investment in development of the oil industry. In recent years, national oil consumption has increased by some 5.2 percent annually, and Iran is already forced to import gasoline at a total outlay of $5.5 billion a year, as its refineries are unable to refine the amount required for domestic consumption. It is estimated that Iran needs an investment of about $4 billion a year in order to increase its oil production and develop its refineries.

Given the situation, a clever Iranian parliament cannot accept an oil minister who lacks a full understanding of the oil economy and whose experience amounts to having managed the finances of the Tehran municipality for Ahmadinejad. Nor can such a parliament agree to a populist policy in which the president wants to hand out approximately $1,000 to every couple that marries, and by this means prevent unrest among the younger generation. This is a generation that is less interested in revolutionary ideology and wants to hear its government say when they will be getting decent jobs. Based on the outcome of the last five-year plan, the previous regime, under Mohammed Khatami, managed to create only 2.9 million jobs, about 700,000 less than planned and about 1.5 million less than needed even to begin to wipe out unemployment, which affects mainly young people and university graduates.

With populist planning like Ahmadinejad's, it is hard to see not only how Iran will break free of its economic difficulties but also how it will create an opportunity for local and foreign investors to up their investments in the state. For example, sources in the Iranian opposition report that since Ahmadinejad's rise to power, private capital along the lines of $200 billion has fled the country, and has been invested in real estate and stock exchanges in the Gulf states, particularly in the United Arab Emirates. And if it is difficult to receive any conformation of such a report, it is sufficient to observe the Iranian stock market, which has plummeted by 20 percent since June.

The result of all this is that the spiritual leader, Ali Khamenei, has decided that Ahmadinejad is still in need of a "tutoring period," and recently appointed Hashemi Rafsanjani as the tutor. He is the man that Ahmadinejad beat in the election. Rafsanjani, who is himself a past president of the state and speaker of parliament, now serves, as well, as chairman of the State Expediency Council, an appointed body that has been assigned the job of bridging the gap between government policy and parliament legislation, and is essentially the supreme arbiter when it comes to government policy. Rafsanjani, who appointed the outgoing president Khatami to a senior post on his council, is well aware of Iran's international dilemmas and its need to enlist investors, as well as the necessity of not stepping on the toes of Europe and the U.S. This also explains why it was Khamenei and not Ahmadinejad who has now issued statements on nuclear development, since Ahmadinejad's pronouncements caused the countries of Europe to join in the demand to have the Security Council vote on the Iranian question.

The fruits of pressure

Ahmadinejad is now feeling pressure from the Iranian power centers, as did his predecessor Khatami. However, this time the pressure is coming from Ahmadinejad's cohorts, and even from the group that supported him in the election. He now realizes that as president he cannot set policy on his own, that he cannot rely on parliament to support him unconditionally, and he cannot even issue pronouncements against Israel without someone in the Iranian regime intervening.

Interestingly, the counterresponse to the international condemnations of Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel statements was delivered by Rafsanjani, who in his Friday sermon in Tehran spoke about the great respect that Islam in general and Iran in particular feel for Jews and for Judaism, emphasizing, "We have a problem only with Zionist circles in Israel, which we see as being responsible for the repression of the Palestinian nation." This is the same Rafsanjani who in 2001 claimed that Israel could be destroyed with a single nuclear bomb, with minimal damage to the Muslim world. But now he is in a different position, as someone opposed to Ahmadinejad and once again close to Khamenei, and especially as someone who would like to present himself once again as a reformer in the next election.

The pressure on Ahmadinejad is already having an effect. This week, he dismissed Iran's ambassadors in Britain, Germany and France, claiming that they were not up to the task of alleviating the global pressure on Iran. But more importantly, he threatened to tell the public in Iran how Rafsanjani is thwarting his programs. And when this is the threat voiced by Ahmadinejad, it can be assumed that he is beginning to climb the wall of conflict with the conservative but pragmatic establishment, which is itself astonished to see him as the president of Iran.

"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
This supports my view: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull



Even as UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is planning a visit to Iran, a Hebrew University public health expert Thursday called on Annan's adviser for genocide prevention to indict Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad because of his call to destroy Israel.

Elihu Richter, who since 2001 has carried out research on the prediction and prevention of genocide, wrote Juan Mendez saying that the statement was "a direct incitement to genocide, i.e. a crime against humanity, because it calls for the destruction of an entire nation defined by who they are, and includes explicit endorsement of acts of terror and violence to achieve this objective."

Mendez, who is Annan's special adviser for prevention of genocide and works closely with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, is mandated with examining existing and potential threats of genocide and their links to international security, and makes recommendations on actions to prevent genocide.

Richter wrote that incitement and hate language by those in power "is a validated predictor of intent to commit genocide. The role of incitement and hate language has been well documented for the Holocaust, Cambodia, Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and many other genocides. No less important as a predictor for genocide is acquiescence, indifference, and inaction by the outside world."

Richter wrote that last Friday's UN Security Council condemnation of Iran "should be followed by definable actions to deter potential perpetrators before they begin to carry out their inhuman agendas."

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
The key passage is: "Richter wrote that incitement and hate language by those in power "is a validated predictor of intent to commit genocide. The role of incitement and hate language has been well documented for the Holocaust, Cambodia, Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and many other genocides. No less important as a predictor for genocide is acquiescence, indifference, and inaction by the outside world."

When a major political figure of a nation says that his nation intends to commit genocide, the default reading of this statement should be that they are preparing to commit genocide. That is what such words meant in Germany, in Rwanda and in Cambodia. If someone says "I intend to stalk and kill you" you should interpret that to mean that the person intends to stalk and kill you, unless extreme countervailing context exists.

Iran says it wants to nuke Israel, because they want to nuke Isreal. Let's not be too cerebral about this. Rick Z likes to talk about "chess games" and everyone wants to "interpret" what on earth the words "I want to kill you" could really mean.

Iran is preparing for first-strike nuclear war. Every other interpretation is rationalization and denial.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Jeffrey
Nov 4 2005, 07:05 PM

Iran is preparing for first-strike nuclear war. Every other interpretation is rationalization and denial.

All the disagreements I have had with you are nothing compared to the total agreement I have with this statement.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Amanda
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
JBryan
Nov 4 2005, 11:35 PM
Jeffrey
Nov 4 2005, 07:05 PM

    Iran is preparing for first-strike nuclear war.  Every other interpretation is rationalization and denial.

All the disagreements I have had with you are nothing compared to the total agreement I have with this statement.

Then for God's sake take back or qualify your "chess game" remark which has been so used to argue the contrary!
[size=5]
We should tolerate eccentricity in others, almost to the point of lunacy, provided no one else is harmed.
[/size]

"Daily Telegraph", London July 27 2005
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
I have never made any argument to the contrary and the only "chess game" analogy I can recall making was not inconsistent with what I quoted above. Once again, Amanda, what on earth are you talking about?
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Amanda - I regarded you as one of the people coming up with various explanations other than the literal one for what Iran meant when they said they wanted to "wipe Israel off the map". I assume they mean it literally, everyone else is trying to interpret the statement.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Jeffrey
Nov 5 2005, 09:11 AM
I assume they mean it literally, everyone else is trying to interpret the statement.

My emphasis. Please don't generalize.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
AC - Correction: "many people" - particularly liberals - are trying to interpret that clear statement.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kathyk
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
:cloak: Sounds like Ahmadinejad is burning as many bridges at home as he is internationally. My understanding of the elections is that he won by making a populist appeal to curb poverty, a lynch pin of which was his goofy idea of giving every newly married couple $1,000. Now, it seems the people are asking, "Where's the Beef? A grand is cool, but we needs jobs to keep going."

Very interesting how Rafsanjani is having to come in and do damage control, and in doing so, is appearing to be the moderate. Sort of like the transformation of Khadafy over the past couple decades? My prediction is that international and internal pressures are going to see this guy, Ahmadinejad out of power sooner rather than later.

Yeah - I'm sure he meant his comment literally, but just because he's a nut-job doesn't mean that everyone in Iran takes them seriously; as evil as one might want to have painted Rafsanjani in the past, at least his response has been sensible.

Almost makes me wonder if the whole thing wasn't orchestrated. Fix the elections to put this whack-off in charge. Let him make his wild-eyed statements to the horror of the world. Bring in Rafsanjani, who was previously viewed as a radical, have him appear the moderate by reassuring the world. Do a little government shake-up putting Rafsanjani at the helm, and voila - Iran wins international approval.
Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Kath - did you mean Ahmadinejad in your last two paragraphs? Or are you thinking of Rafsanjani?
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kathyk
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Arggh - yes. Both names get stuck in my craw and my brain when I try to get them out. Thanks for the correction - fact, I'm going back and editing to spare confusion.
Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
jon-nyc
Nov 5 2005, 02:53 PM
Kath - did you mean Ahmadinejad in your last two paragraphs? Or are you thinking of Rafsanjani?

Actually she's thinking of Rathsputin. The names don't matter anyway - it's the opinion she's after......

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kathyk
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Stuff it, Larry. I'd say, put a sock on it, but you've already done that several times and they've been all kind of chewed up, haven't they?. :lol:

Are you missing me at your website? Aching for another banning now that you outed that nice Brit, and deleted my posts? Must make you feel mighty powerful. :rolleyes: But, you still need more action, don't you?

You really have no clue. :wave2:
Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3