The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Preemption: war with Iran next? > Comments

Preemption: war with Iran next? : Comments

By Jan De Pauw, published 24/4/2007

Let's not resign ourselves to a nuclear Iran: variables aplenty remain to be valued against each other.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
April 24 2007 Hamas spokesman Zahar said, in regard to an expressed willingness to 'negotiate' with Israel:

[Zahar emphasized, however, that "negotiations" did not mean recognition of Israel.
In an interview with a Hamas-affiliated Web site, the former minister said that there was nothing preventing talks with Israel, as long as the talks did not involve making concessions.

Even the prophet Muhammad, Zahar said, held negotiations with infidels and enemies.]


What kind of 'negotiations' did he have with his enemies ?

1/Khaybar Jews. "come down to my place (Medina) and we will discuss peace" yep.. so along went the military leaders of the Khaybar Jews to Medina and were ambushed on the way and killed by Mohammad.

2/ Jews of Banu Qurayza: "Surrender" they did, and he slaughtered 600-900 males and enslaved the remaining children and women.

3/ Heraclius Byzantine Emperor. "Turn to Islam and you and your property will be safe"

BASED ON the negotiating style of Mohammad, and his targeted political assassinations of opponents before they could gain sufficient momentum to deal with him and his gang, it is QUITE APPROPRIATE for the West to Invade Iran and disable it militarily.

Unfortunately, the West, being democratic, is also subject to political pandering to personal interests and is reluctant to take enemies on. This does not avoid the ultimate fight that is coming, on the contrary, every delay gives the enemy more strength to make the actual fight far worse than a pre-emptive strike.

If we waited until 'they' come charging up the beaches of Australia, it will be wayyyy too late to defend this place, as 'they' will by that time be so strong as to be unstoppable.

-The 'Islamic bomb' (Pakistan) and probable availability of Nuclear technology to terrorists/Islamo Fascists. (Khan was spreading is around)
-The distributed nature of the enemy, not limited to a particular nation but infiltrating many nations as I write.
-Reports of a 'bigger than Hiroshima' attack on the UK by Al Qaeda.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 9:30:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Many variables remain to be valued.
Let us start with International law there is no such thing as pre-emption allowing the trashing of another country. But then from Yugoslavia on the dream of escaping the commitment to the UN in favour of imperial action has grown. Efforts are still being made to apply law to the Iraq venture, private rather than National in origin, pity!

Okay so we return to the rule by might, aided by bilateral treaties, realist foreign relations.
We can always celebrate our might mourn our dead and alter the world to our vision, presumably whilst proclaiming righteousness and honour. Enjoyable! Look out for Blowback!

Why Iran?
Because it is part of the Shiite crescent see Hersh in the New Yorker and we think maybe the Sunnis more amenable?
Part of the arena of oil and its control?
A guilt assuaging exercise after all we did return the Shah and set up his secret police after getting rid of Mossadeq because he wanted Iranian oil for Iran not the oil companies and then on his ouster refused to hand his decrepit but living body to Iran resulting in the hostage dispute of Carter, Reagan time and the ensuing Contra affair, the return of a theocracy stridently seeking national security?

Or simply the exceptionalism of the USA which can in effect withdraw from the Non Proliferation treaty, experiment with battlefield nuclear weapons whilst hypocritically committing to disarmament and making over the world in its democratic multinational enterprise format?
It is about time we decided the people of the world have rights and that a imperfect system exists in the UN if, since it is the sum of its parts, we party within rather than without its confines. To few resources? Then return the population question to the table. Too many little men finding purpose in domination? Then apply the law, international.
No weapons? Only an informed electorate should they choose to become so starting on the basis that Governments lie and use the media, Goering style
Posted by untutored mind, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 11:19:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jan, it is obvious as Dr Kenny an Australian political scientist teaching at Harvard mentioned some time ago that the US ever since the Revolution has been politically schizophrenic.

Thus you failed to mention that regime change in Iran has been uppermost in the minds of the CIA, well before they planted in the fake Shah not long after WW2.

US frustration felt by such an occurrence, made more evil in American eyes by Iran holding the US embassy captive for over a year, had Americans clapping their hands when Saddam attacked Iran in 1981, Donald Rumsfeld according to reports having had very much to do with it.

More US hands were clapped when even the Soviets refused to help Iran, and though Iran failed to have one large backer for some reason, it could be said that the lone Islamic state, though suffering global condemnation, put the Iraqis and the American backers, virtually to flight.

It is so interesting that the only real understanding from us Western nations over the event, came from academics, including our own in Australia.

Do these facts reveal a message about a dumbed down Western public's unawareness of the real truth in the Middle East, or is it true that most of our academics are just the left-wing fruitcakes as mentioned so much over our OLO?
Posted by bushbred, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 11:52:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you think about it the only way the US has "won" a war was by using the Atom bomb. As long as there are people like Bush and Iran's raving loony (I rate them equal on this point) use of a nuclear weapon is inevitable. Let's hope Bush doesn't do it before he goes and that whoever does get the job uses diplomacy.

It is the threat of overwhelming force that has worked since WW2, not the use.

Sorry untutored mind but international law doesn't actually exist. It's on paper but no one practices it. Including John Howard.
Posted by pegasus, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 3:15:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We are not talking about a raving looney in charge of Iran, Pegasus, we are talking about justice, whoever is in charge of a member of the Axis of Evil as Bush calls Iran.

What we are asking, is who is the evil one, when we think about Schizo Americana's graball mental side, a side once termed by Mubarak of Egypt among others, as intrusive and unjust Western neo-colonial desperados mostly after contraband and global hegemon.

Yes, the above are more the terms of academic historians, Pegasus, so surely they could be closer to the truth than those coming from the lips of Bush, Cheney an Co, including us Anglophilic allies.
Posted by bushbred, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 4:56:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
iran's shah was an american puppet, installed by the cia through murder and riots in the socialist society of post war iran. they extirpated every agency of social cohesion with the cruelest secret police of the time.

that is why a secular iran is now ruled by fundamentalist mullahs: the only social group allowed to exist was religious, so resistance to the corrupt and brutal 'empire' used religion. but a great many iranians now are too young to remember the shah's hated 'savak' police, and the modern secular nature of iranian society is beginning to re-emerge. with a little patience, america can coca-colonize iran, as eisenhower predicted would happen in china.

unfortunately, american foreign policy towards iran remains as inept now as it was in the 1950's. this is the result of being driven by ideology rather than rationality. consequently, america continues to make an enemy in the middle east of a nation whose character is much more in tune with the west than, for example, saudi arabia.

with it's great industrial and commercial power driving what is still the greatest military machine on the planet, america could be a real nightmare for the human race, if they weren't fundamentally insane. the insanity causes them to misuse their power and dissipate it's effect. things could be much worse.

incidentally, america has never been any different. a nation doesn't really mature until it has been beaten and occupied. america beat all it's neighbors, from the iroquois to the philippines, and came away from vietnam thinking they 'won', sort of. even iraq won't cure them of the adolescent arrogance of unbeaten power. we must hope that mexico occupies and dominates the usa soon, to teach them civility.

the process is well underway, so much so that americans are finally beginning to worry about their porous southern border. too late! spanish is once again an official state language in california.
Posted by DEMOS, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 5:00:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy