Bombs away?

March 31st, 2007 at 06:06pm reckless G 277

Recent events point to an imminent US attack on Iran…

Government and media propaganda on how Iran constitutes a threat to America and Israel is increasing. The US Navy recently conducted its largest show of force in the Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, with 15 ships, 125 aircraft and 13,000 sailors taking part in an exercise within a few dozen miles of Iran's coast. The US is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region. There is buzz on the Internet about “Operation Bite.”

International diplomatic exchanges have been carried out for securing areas of military cooperation and/or support for a US-Israeli led military operation directed against Iran. Israel has recently taken delivery from the US of some 5,000 "smart” air launched weapons. The munitions are said to be more than adequate to address the full range of Iranian targets.

Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel. They could also target US military facilities in other Persian Gulf countries, which would lead to an all out war throughout the Middle East.

But it’s not all bad. Sensing an impending US war with Iran, members of the Gulf States recently went on a weapons buying binge, signing contracts with defense contractors including Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing, who expect to rake in sales that will surpass $2 billion. About a quarter of the world’s oil comes through the Straits of Hormuz and any military conflict would severely disrupt those supplies, which would produce an immediate price spike, increasing the profits of the world’s oil companies. And then there’s Halliburton…

Entry Filed under: Carbondale, Foreign Policy

40 Comments Add your own

1. alpha6 | April 1st, 2007 at 7:39 am

Gee....lets not consider that Iran has repeatedly thumbed its nose at the UN, engaged in war speech rhetoric itself, threatened Israel, supplies terrorist and their organizations with weapons and man power, and most recently kidnapped 15 British sailors in Iraqi waters and in violation of the Geneva convention in the treatment of prisoners by parading them in front of TV and who knows what else...

Nope, its big bad American business that are to blame...I guess Keith's kid isn't the only one seeing monsters under the bed.
2. Edward Troy | April 1st, 2007 at 11:28 am

The halcyon of marketed jingoism -- my country right, wrong or stupid. They, whoever they are, are not in our country as an invading force. We are in their countries as an invading force. Insanity is, continuing to expect Muslims; Sunni and Shi'a, Arabs and Persians to rejoice when our bombs, missiles and bullets kill their families. This is of course, followed by surprise, when the aforementioned, fail to rejoice. That is however what passes for American foreign policy as executed by so called conservatives, almost always Republican. Is there a conservative with the following concept: they wouldn't want to be here if we wern't already over there? Granted, I truly believe exterminating Al Qeada is a laudable goal, for many reasons. That mission, to solve many of the problems in the Middle East, is not one of the objectives, in terms of zealous commitment. If this is wrong then the value of assets in Afghanistan would exceed that of other theatre where American troops are deployed and mobilised, now who believes that except the taliban Christianite ignoranti composing the rank and file of the GOP. Certainly not the leadership of either major party, liberal or progressive. There is a mass of stooges voting for the cheap lies of the GOP, and with Supreme Court skulduggery, got the miscreant Bush in and maintained this bungling ill mannered lout, through another mismanaged election, and we are expecting to export democracy?
3. Cathleen Krahe | April 1st, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Today the Jerusalem Post was reporting about Operation Bite, the US April 6th attack on Iran. See below

JPost.com » International » Article

Apr. 1, 2007 1:00 | Updated Apr. 1, 2007 13:15
'US ready to strike Iran on Good Friday'
By JERUSALEM POST STAFF AND AP

The United States will be ready to launch a missile attack on Iran's nuclear facilities as soon as early this month, perhaps "from 4 a.m. until 4 p.m. on April 6," according to reports in the Russian media on Saturday.

According to Russian intelligence sources, the reports said, the US has devised a plan to attack several targets in Iran, and an assault could be carried out by launching missiles from fighter jets and warships stationed in the Persian Gulf.

Russian news agency RIA Novosti quoted a security official as saying, "Russian intelligence has information that the US Armed Forces stationed in the Persian Gulf have nearly completed preparations for a missile strike against Iranian territory."

Is this for real or just a rumor? I guess we will see on Friday.
4. reckless G | April 1st, 2007 at 7:26 pm

So alpha, thousands of innocent Iranian civilians get to die because we don’t like what the Iranian leaders are saying and allegedly doing (no proof they have done anything wrong). Another country bombed into ruins, making more enemies in the Muslim world, because of some rumors and lies by the Bush administration. Isn’t this how we got into the mess in Iraq? Shouldn’t we be more suspicious of our leader’s motives and claims this time?

By the way, thousands of innocent civilians died for their leader’s policies on 9/11 too. The only difference between 9/11 and what Bush’s team is proposing for Iran is that it’s much, much worse. An attack on Iran will essentially qualify the US as the biggest terrorist organization on the planet. Al Qaeda could only dream of having the power and guts to pull off something like this.

I can tell you one thing for sure, if Operation Bite is for real, the world is going to change drastically for all of us on Friday. Better strap yourselves in, it’s going to be a bumpy ride!
5. alpha6 | April 1st, 2007 at 9:10 pm

"An attack on Iran will essentially qualify the US as the biggest terrorist organization on the planet."

terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.

The key phrase here is "against civilians". Your assertion that war against an enemy combatant is a terrorist act is incorrect.

You, as well as many have bastardized the use of the word "terrorist", it's tiresome, try some other rhetoric for a change.
6. reckless G | April 1st, 2007 at 9:37 pm

Please explain how Iran qualifies as an enemy combatant. And if, well…when the US bombs nuclear targets in Iran, who do you think is going to be killed? The Iranian army? The Ayatollah? Ahmedinijad? No, sadly it WILL be civilians who lose their lives, in the nuclear facilities where they work, and in the communities near the nuclear facilities where they live.

No doubt Israel and the US will also target military facilities, and even though the casualties will be military men, they will be innocent victims as well. These are the sons and brothers and husbands of ordinary Iranians. They are not “enemy combatants” they are people, innocent people that we are going to kill in order to feel safe.

Is this the new American Way? It isn’t very brave or noble, in fact, it’s the most cowardly thing the US has ever contemplated. Not only shameful, but downright despicable. Iran is not our enemy, they’ve never harmed us, they are no threat to either the US or Israel. This is just another ploy by the rich and powerful to make money and gain control of the world’s last remaining oil reserves. Doesn’t make me very proud to be an American, and it certainly doesn’t make me feel any safer.

Sorry alpha, but sending missiles into a country, killing and injuring thousands and spreading toxic nuclear material over the countryside, certainly does qualify as terrorism. At least it would if it happened to us.
7. alpha6 | April 2nd, 2007 at 6:55 am

A perfect example of what I meant when I stated that people like yourself have bastardized the meaning of the word. Please refer to the definition, our language unfortunately does not allow us to assign definitions to words to fit our agenda.

"Doesn’t make me very proud to be an American, and it certainly doesn’t make me feel any safer." Please, you live a life of security and luxury few in this world, no matter where they live, have ever known. If you are complaining about it, then your issues are far deeper then Iraq and Iran.
8. reckless G | April 2nd, 2007 at 8:20 am

“terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.”

I don’t see how this definition doesn’t apply to a US/Israel military attack on non-military targets (nuclear power facilities) in which civilians will be killed and absolutely terrorized for political purposes. Since Iran is not an enemy combatant, but a peaceful nation that has made no aggressive moves toward us or Israel, it will at the very least be an illegal act of war.

[Please, you live a life of security and luxury few in this world, no matter where they live, have ever known. If you are complaining about it, then your issues are far deeper then Iraq and Iran.]

What does that have to do with being proud of my country? I’m not complaining about my life as an American, I’m complaining about the behavior of the Bush administration, which doesn’t represent American values and codes of conduct.

The true test of any action is to see if it works as well in reverse. If Iran, or any other nation decided that US nuclear power development facilities were a threat to them, and sent aircraft carriers to our waters, launched missiles to destroy all of our nuclear facilities, killing thousands and contaminating our environment, would that be ok with you? If not, why?
9. Edward Troy | April 2nd, 2007 at 9:42 am

Sorry Alpha,

you are on the wrong side of history, war by it's nature is terror. One can go back to the aristocratic wars, waged during and in the theatre of European monarchies, where terror was minimal, since these wars took place between professional armies. Those wars were basically a choice of who was going to terrorize and oppress the peasants. I defy you to come up with a war where there was terror, at the same relative level as those aristocratic wars, since the Napoleonic wars. Your effort at finding some semantic difference will fail just as the Bush maladministrations effort to not use the term "civil war" describing the conditions in Iraq. There is no distinction, only refinements.

Your implied definition of an enemy combatant is what; non American? By your reasoning/rationalisation any one we kill in their country is an enemy combatant and anyone in their country that kills an American in their country is a terrorist? Not even Bush goes there, or are enjoying devil's advocate.

Reckless, I still think the oil is a cover for the inconvenient arrangements many in this administratration had with their former buddy Saddam Hussein during the Reagan administration. They must spread the war to reduce the size of the arrangements in the mediscapeand maybe add a little more American Idol. The distraction from that notable inconvenience will be far more palatable, to the rank and file minions, who adore the mercilous diabolical coward living in the White House, who I hope will have his triple six signature revealed to them. I had to go biblical, they like it so much. A gullible platter served to those with guile. I believe this administration to be actually sinister and practitioners of unmitigated evil as a self determined method for the control of readily liquidated commodities and attendant power. I do want to emphasize this does not make Al Qeada better than the heretical manipulative murderous theologues they are. I just want to point out that hundreds of thousands will, if they haven't already, die because of this conflict within evil. The big distinguishing factors between the followers of Bush and Laden are the attachments to sovereignty and relative power. The similarities are the preaching of religion and the love of death -- remember how Bush loved human sacrifice disguised as the "death penalty" when governor of Texas? Remember when Karla Faye Tucker, a "born again Christian," was put to death with his unbridaled glee, over the protestations of many of the "religious" right wing leaders and the Pope? Remember Henry Lee Lucas the serial killer Bush pardoned? Nothing like the smell of death, it blows from the White House and Al Qeada, just in different "religious" flavors.
10. alpha6 | April 2nd, 2007 at 11:25 am

"G" Iran has no "nuclear power facilities" but they do have facilities that are enriching uranium to a weapons grade level. Clearly a difference.

Ed, I have no idea what you are trying to say. My remarks were to point out how much the term "Terrorism" is being thrown around without regards to its true meaning. War is terror? Whats next from you guys, democracy is war?

Lastly, "the wrong side of history?" Nice catch phrase but idiotic as it suggests that history is some sort of political debate.
11. reckless G | April 2nd, 2007 at 11:57 am

Yes, war is terror. Anyone who has lived through one knows that. It's the most barbaric form of gaining power over someone else's resources ever devised by man. Nothing noble about it.

alpha I see you have fallen victim to the Bush crew propaganda. There is no proof that Iran is enriching uranium for weapons. All of their facilities are years to decades old and were built for the purpose of developing nuclear power, not weapons. Iran’s leaders have repeatedly invited the IAEA to inspect their facilities and every IAEA expert has said that Iran is not making weapons, has no capability of making weapons, and even if they started today, they are 8 to 10 years away from merely developing the technology to begin to make weapons. By then crazy Ahmedinijad will be out of power anyway.

This whole nuclear weapons scare tactic is just like what happened with Iraq. Saddam had no nuclear weapons, there was no danger of “the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud.” Are you really that gullible or are you just itching for another huge war that we can pour our tax dollars into so Haliburton and Dick Cheney can get even richer?

Iran is not a threat to world security. The US and Israel are a threat to world security.
12. B Jon Traylor | April 2nd, 2007 at 2:12 pm

I can't wait to chime in on this one! Button down the hatches boys, this just might get good! Back later. -- J
13. B Jon Traylor | April 2nd, 2007 at 8:23 pm

Okay, first let me admit that there is no way I can possibly reply to each of these comments right now, given my schedule, ... albeit I have a comment for each of them, for sure!
I gotta focus in on the first comment, from Alpha6. I absolutely agree, completely (sorry, this laptop is hard to type on, so forgive typos.)
Iran has repeatedly given a stuck up nose to the U.N. Their president repeatedly makes comments that not only threaten the idea of Israel, but it's very real security.
(Let me add here that it doesn't take a nobel peace prize historian to understand that the lines drawn after WWII not only created the Palestinian/Israeli confict as we know it today, it also created the tribal/sectarian riffs in places such as Iraq, such as Bosnia Herzegovenia, Balsamic confict, etc. What was the forward thinking there? ... the acceptance of history and peoples and society's and cultures? The leaders of the winners of WWII failed the world, in my opinion, ... enough there.
Iran is definately a supplier to various terrorist organizations, throughout the region. -- Perhaps not a state sponsor, but still sponsor. A true leader of that nation would eliminate unsponsored terrorism for the good of their country, the good of the region, the good of the world.
They have conducted a serious hulllabaloo and propoganda showing to the rest of the world by kidnapping those 15 British sailors. What waters were they really in anyway? Who cares? For crying out loud... look at the type of vessel they were in! Woo hoo... big threat to the security of Iranian vessels or shoreline or the Iranian peoples.
This last action is a very real violation of the Geneva Convention's rules of engagement, taking prisoner, and what they've done in parading these british soldiers is a thumb up the butt of the U.N., the U.S, Great Brittian, and the world.
They are asking for it, and I think they are fixin' to to get a rude slap in the face, a slap that should set them back down at the dinner table to finish their meal, mouth shut, go to bed, and get up a different person (country) the next day.
My real diplomatic beef is this: their president was in New York not long ago. There was no attempt by anyone of our present administration to invite him to sit down and talk about differences. This administration's stance from day one, since Bush's Axis of Evil State of the Union address, as been one of we are right, they are wrong.... we won't talk to them, at all.
What kind of foriegn diplomacy is this? Its a complete lack of a proactive policy. This is where I take issue.
If we are supposed to be the leader of the free world, then we should be willing and able and wanting to sit down with countries and factions from all over the world, so as to bridge and foster peace in this world.
I know what its like to rule with an iron fist or bayonet, as well as knowing what its like to see the eyes of the one I wielded it against. Those horrors aren't easy to get out of your head. I'm afraid the ruling with an iron fist will come back to haunt this country for decades.
Our own great country thumbed it's nose at the U.N. for the first time by choosing to go it alone in Iraq. I'm afraid my own kids and grandkids will forever pay the price.
The time for real leadership is now.
-- B. Jon Traylor
14. reckless G | April 2nd, 2007 at 9:22 pm

As with alpha’s comments, B. Jon makes some statements that show the error of our ways. By taking what the Bush administration says and repeating it as if it were the truth, Americans are once again victims of the propaganda machine in the run up to war. This goes back to my post about the responsibility of the media in informing the public. Everyone seems to just parrot the administration’s lines about Iran as if they were the gospel truth instead of what they really are; gross distortions and downright propaganda. After the Iraq fiasco, we should be doubly cautious in trusting info from mainstream sources.

B. Jon states [Iran has repeatedly given a stuck up nose to the U.N. Their president repeatedly makes comments that not only threaten the idea of Israel, but it's very real security.]

Long before Ahmedinijad came to power and Bush made his “axis of evil” proclamation, Iran had a peaceful nuclear energy program including uranium enrichment that was approved by none other than Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Iran has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty that the US and Israel refuse to adhere to. Their supreme leader, whose power trumps their president’s has decreed that it’s against the laws of Islam to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has never balked at allowing IAEA inspectors in to all of its facilities, unlike Israel which denies it even has a nuclear weapons program. Should we trust the word of Iran’s leaders? Well, if we had believed Saddam when he repeatedly told us he didn’t have any WMD’s, over 3200 of our soldiers would still be alive today. Besides, nuclear weapons experts and IAEA inspectors have assured us that Iran is nowhere near the capability of developing weapons grade nuclear material. For details read Scott Ritter’s book “Target Iran.” Why isn’t our media interviewing these experts, and getting the real info about Iran’s nuclear program?

As for Ahmedinijad making statements threatening Israel’s existence, these are misinterpretations and misrepresentations that now have become part of the west’s popular myths. It’s disturbing to see someone as intelligent and generally well informed as B. Jon Traylor make blanket statements that are based on false information.

Iran’s beef with Israel has nothing to do with its existence as a Jewish state and everything to do with the Israeli government’s treatment of its Muslim population and neighboring countries. Iran’s leaders have not called for the destruction of Israel, they want regime change (gee just like we did in Iraq). Iran, as well as many other Middle Eastern nations take exception to the Zionist regime in Israel usurping land and rights of Muslim civilians. It’s a legitimate complaint.

Because America has bought in to the “axis of evil” idea, everyone just assumes that Iran is the bad guy, that they have evil intentions and a desire to perpetrate violence against their neighbors and us. The record shows just the opposite, Iran has never invaded or attacked another country, unlike the US and Israel. Iran has complied with the UN and IAEA rules, unlike the US and Israel. Now we are talking about attacking them without provocation and without legitimate reasons.

The pattern is very clear; demonize, ignore diplomacy, provoke with rhetoric, threaten sanctions, then attack. We’re four fifths of the way there.
Bombs away!
15. Edward Troy | April 2nd, 2007 at 11:40 pm

Alpha

If I were in your position as far as this discussion goes, I wouldn't admit anything either. But let's make a friendly bet for a Franklin, if legal; Bush is exposed by documents as knowing about an Al Qeada plot and left the door open for them to do it before 9-11, and this will happen before 1/1/2010, if a Democrat wins in '08, you must accept before 4/72007. In the meantime; Your position in defense of the Bush policy is as bankrupt as that administration. If you understood realpolitik as practiced by Otto von Bismarck, you would understand that terror is a part of war, when it is suitable, and war is a part of politics when it is necessary to retain power and position, the country be damned.

What is idiotic, is the failure to acknowlege how the biases of those who have written (or attempting to write) the history leave a debate about what the analog of historical reality is. That you keep repeating the crap from this administration, demonstrates an unwillingness to choose a different approach, when what has become an enemy (with or without your, and those like you, help) becomes familiar with the same stupid strategy. It is like someone becoming so enamoured, with a particular chess opening, and never changing, allowing the oponent to find the finest fissures and threads of flaw that exist in every opening and middle game.

Maybe people in this country will purge the stupidity of of the sheeple following and listening to the trumpeted Maginot crap comprising the foreign policy of this administration. All this ex post facto idiot talk sickens me. This situation was entirely preventable by someone sincerely interested in preventing it. Our foreign policy has all the attributes of a fool getting drunk, walking into a bar picking a fight, with the bar owner, and getting his eyes blackened, and having the gall or idiocy to wonder why the bar owner would do that. Really, even if the bar owner was the biggest a** hole, did the fool have to walk into the bar?

Oh, but you want to tell me they came over here? Do tell. Guess what; remember the flaw in the overused chess opening? That's 9-11. It's time we start using brain power to deal with miscreants, instead of airpower, and stupidly dropped bombs as the greatest recruitment marketing effort in behalf of these extranational terrorists, ever. In my opinion, and I am sure I will be seconded (do we need Roberts rules of order?), you and those of your thinking, despite what rhetoric you purvey to the ignorant masses of Taliban Christianite stooges, are not serving the interests of this country, but are serving the interests of Bush and his cronies, perpetrators of patriotic and economic fraud, and hopefully so your intelligence is at least respected, yourself. As an American, I am certain you are not serving my interests or the interests of this country. I really don't need the Bush policy to convince the Shi'a that they too need to come here and kill a few thousand people to make a point, and get a few virgins.
I just can't imagine a country ,with leadership acting with sincerity at a level of even more mental deficiency. Since I don't ,as many liberals think, Bush is that stupid, that leaves deliberate premeditation and manipulation. It is no accident acting that stupidly. It would be nice if you cut out the well practiced propaganda mouthpiece style of writing and attempted to take in the entire spectrum of information. No one needs to listen to why the sky might be green, when they see that it is blue with clouds at times.

I am looking at 3,300 dead Americans, plus another 3,000 killed on our soil and 50,000 -- 500,000 dead Iraqis with Bin Laden still at work. Does anyone see anything else? If so, what? If not, then why are repeating the same damned idiot crap with Iran; three times the population, unified, and we having a hemmorhaging treasury, spent military forces. After that what? The road to China? Now if you are a paid mouthpiece for the Bush putsch, I totally understand. I wouldn't do it and don't expect me to believe it.
16. reckless G | April 3rd, 2007 at 10:23 am

While I appreciate Michael Conniff’s monologue on the subject of this post this morning, it was very frustrating that the phones weren’t working so I couldn’t comment on some of his statements. I should’ve known something was up when Chuck didn’t call in.

Now to address those issues Conman brought up…

It was very interesting to hear Michael go into explicit detail about MAD – Mutually Assured Destruction regarding Russia and even Iraq, then completely dismiss that when it came to Iran, insisting that if Iran had a nuclear weapon there is little doubt they would use it to annihilate Israel. That is complete nonsense for two very good reasons. The first is that if Iran were to touch one hair of Israel’s head, they would be completely destroyed by nuclear weapons from the US and Israel…MAD. Second, the holiest site in the Muslim world, the Dome of the Rock, is located in the middle of Jerusalem. This is where Mohammed ascended to heaven. Iran would never desecrate their holiest shrine with a nuclear weapon. Neither would they contaminate the entire region encompassing Muslim nations around Israel, or endanger the population of Palestine, or render Palestine uninhabitable for generations (of Muslims) to come.

Another thing; Iran’s leaders have not called for the destruction of Israel as everyone seems to think and as Michael cited on his show. This is one of those myths that AIPAC and the Bush administration would like us all to believe so they can justify attacking Iran. Too bad so many fall for it without checking out the truth. Here is what people are saying Ahmedinijad said; “He said he wants to wipe Israel off the map.” Here is what Ahmedinijad really said; “ The regime occupying Israel must be wiped from the pages of history.” Neither Ahmedinijad, nor Iran’s true leader Ayatollah Khameini has ever called for the destruction of Israel. If you read their websites, there is no mention of hatred of Jews or Israel anywhere. Their only complaint is with Israel’s Zionist regime’s brutal occupation and human rights violations against Palestine. Iran is one of the few Middle Eastern nations that recognizes Israel and has no problem with their existence other than Israel’s refusal to stay within the UN 1947 borders.

These rumors about the demonic nature of Iran and its leaders is causing Americans to condone an attack that will in fact ensure Israel’s destruction. If Israel and the US attack Iran, Israel will be attacked in return…MAD.
17. alpha6 | April 3rd, 2007 at 1:38 pm

For some reason, I couldn't post last night, either a glitch in the system or Reckless put a hex on my computer...

Ed, please post your sources for your statement of "Bush is exposed by documents as knowing about an Al Qeada plot and left the door open for them to do it before 9-11."

Second, also point out where I have stated that I support the current administrations policies. Just because I choose to expose the agenda driven distortion of facts related to the liberal left doesn't mean that I agree with the current policies.

Reckless, once again you are attempting to justify what Ahmedinijad stated with your own interpretation which is contrary to what everyone else says, even Irans presidents own web site. (see below) I would think he would know what he was talking about, don't you?

"At a conference in Tehran on Wednesday entitled “The World without Zionism,” President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be “wiped off the map.” “The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world,” he added. He also denounced moves by some Arab states to recognize Israel or normalize relations with it."

In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner stated that Ahmadinejad had in fact said that Israel was to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole and Steele, Bronner said: "But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away." Bronner stated: "So did Iran's president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so.

Lastly, did you see what those peaceful, loving Palestinians are teaching their kids lately. I especially love the clips of the kids marching next to guys in suicide bombers outfits....nice.
18. reckless G | April 3rd, 2007 at 3:08 pm

["At a conference in Tehran on Wednesday entitled “The World without Zionism,” President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be “wiped off the map.” “The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world,” he added. He also denounced moves by some Arab states to recognize Israel or normalize relations with it."]

First of all, I don’t know where you got that quote alpha, but it wasn’t from Ahmedinijad’s website. As you can plainly see by the quote itself, this is a quote of a quote. And this is where the whole notion that he said those words came from; mistranslations and interpretations. By this propaganda we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel".

To quote Ahmedinijad’s exact words in farsi:

"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

Note the word rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or the people of Israel, but the Israeli regime. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).

Even the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said.

The full quote translated directly to English:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

Word by word translation:

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

Here is the full transcript of the speech in farsi, archived on Ahmadinejad's web site

www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/speeches/1384/aban-84/840804sahyonizm.htm
19. Edward Troy | April 3rd, 2007 at 3:57 pm

Alpha,

if it wasn't clear, Bush will be exposed before 1/1/2010, if a Democrat wins in '08.

If you don't support the war, say so.
20. Edward Troy | April 3rd, 2007 at 4:11 pm

While I think this administration has the hubris and intention, to attack Iran, it will not happen this Friday 4/6/'07. To do so will aknowlege a massive intelligence leak, very high in the stovepipe of information. But, with the war drums beating, I would have no surprise about developing a new committed obligation -- to the military-industrial-fossil fuel complex in the next two to four months.
21. reckless G | April 3rd, 2007 at 4:33 pm

I agree, I suspect it won't happen this Friday. I haven't been able to verify any other source for the info on Operation Bite other than one Russian report. This could be a hoax, or a deliberate diversion from the real plans.

To answer Michael's question about why Good Friday, there is no reason I can see why we would pick Good Friday, other than Congress will be out of session. But to the administration’s credit, if the attack is planned for a Friday, any Friday, it will minimize civilian casualties because that is the Muslim holy day (like our Sunday and Jewish Saturday) and few people will be at work at the nuclear facilities we intend to bomb.

Which brings us back to the definition of terrorism that alpha and Michael both refute as it applies to a US attack on Iran. If we were attacking military facilities or targeting the army of Iran, it would be an act of war against an alleged enemy, though I still haven’t got a clear answer from alpha as to what qualifies Iran as an enemy combatant. But this attack is planned on nuclear facilities, which contrary to Michael’s assumption are not weapons manufacturing plants “hidden in civilian areas.” They are long established research facilities staffed by civilian personnel. In addition to the Iranian civilians slaughtered in the initial strike, the toxic material contained in these facilities will be spread into the air, ground, and water. That qualifies as terrorism against civilians. Either way, it will be terrifying for those Iranians killed, maimed and poisoned by the attack.

I can't understand why anyone would condone something like that, certainly no one with a modicum of compassion, and definitely not a liberal, as Conniff claims to be. As for alpha6, well I suggest you take your own advice and quit being a pussy. Just because you're afraid of the big bad Iranian wolf doesn't give you the right to condone the slaughter of innocent civilians.
22. B Jon Traylor | April 3rd, 2007 at 8:32 pm

So, Sue, and yes, everyone, Reckless G is none other than our infamous Sue Gray. You stated, "yes, war is terror. Anyone who has lived through one knows that its the most barbaric form of gaining power over someone else's resources ever devised my man. Nothing noble about it."
Nice statement, fine and dandy, worthy of a snowcone on main street.
Sue, as much as I respect much of what you say, albeit I disagree with about half of it, you approach all these topics with an obvious predetermined agenda. I must stop and ask... Sue, did you ever live through a war? Have you ever truly seen the "barbaric" side of what a war or military operation presents? You ever worn combat gear? You ever jumped out of an airplane wearing that gear, with night vision gear, and land in the middle of nowhere, using gps to figure out where you were in order to find where you were supposed to be? You ever been involved in a mission that was more than yourself? A mission that meant more to the overall security of your country and your fellow man, your neighbors, your family... than yourself?
I'm sure you have not
For your info... I'm from Texas, and I dont' even remotely consider myself a conservative. I think I'm a true moderate independent, but I lean a bit democratic\,yet definately not liberal. I didn't vote for Bush the second time. I voted for him the first time, not because he was a Texan, but because I stupidly bought into the propoganda platform he ran on.
I repeatedly turned down the strong arms of my former Army higher-ups to step back in to this second Iraq conflict. I turned them down repeated, and sought sound legal representation to get them off my back in order to do so. You can brand me however you want. But I'm sure between us, I'm the only one who ever branded cowhide and horsehide repeatedly. Don't make assumptions about me on this blog. You want to make a dumbfounded assumption about me?>... then email me, and I'll clear up any question you may have, privately, one on one, so as you can make a better public conclusion or assumption about me on this site.
I'd think I'd welcome the opportuninity to have coffee or your choice, on me, anywhere in this valley. Let's not make uninformed assumptions about each other on this site. Lets be real.
You mentioned how I said that Iran gave a stuck up nose to the U.N., as well as the U.S. Isnt' that obvious? But whats more obvious is that our own country is doing the same thing to the U.N. and to the world. We gave a stuck up nose to the U.N. in 2003 and went to war alone, invaded a country alone, with a very weak coalition of the willing for the first time in our history. It was the wrong war, at the wrong time, against the wong enemy. (Al Queda was the enemy , the only real enemy.)It was overall planned inadequately and insufficiently. It was inacted and carried out wrongly. Can't you see here that as someone who is kinda moderately conservative, yet liberally moderate, someone who's been around the world and back at least 20 more times than you have, and seen stuff you enjoy writing about and alluding to, but you weren't there, you haven't a clue.
You said, "its disturbing to see someone as intelligent and generally informed as B. Jon Traylor (you can call me Jon), make blanket statements that are based on false information."
With all due respect Sue Gray, Jon Traylor makes statements based upon my own conclusions, my own experiences, and after gaining news and insights from a very wide range of sources. Please do not stereotype me because I served my country. Dont' stereotype me because I'm an Aggie. Don't stereotype me because I'm a Texas farmer/rancher product. And simply, don't stereotype me! You want to meet for coffee and chat. Then, fine, its on me. Call me.
As a matter of fact.... I'm a bit progressive thinking and impatient.... so hell, lets just give Conniff and this blog a break for a few days. I'll rent a multi room log cabin conference center place in Powderhorn, and we'll all just take a three day weekend and sit at a large roundtable and hash this all out. We'd need to find a caterer, but I'd pay for the place and perhaps most of the bar.
We can take potshots all we want. That will never get us anywhere. We need to peel off our own personal/policital scarlet letters, tosh ithem in the trash or firebin, and we need to just talk.
Isn't this what I've been saying publicly all these years? We have a beef with Iran? They gotta beef with us? Lets freakin' sit down and talk about it and make it work for the betterment of each, as well as all mankind.
--B. Jon Traylor
23. reckless G | April 4th, 2007 at 6:37 am

Guess I hit a nerve with Jon (what’s the B for anyway?). Question now is…why are you so defensive? I didn’t attack you personally. I didn’t even attack military personnel in general. All I said was; war is terror. And I wasn’t talking from a military perspective, I was speaking from a civilian perspective. No I haven’t lived in a war zone, but I’m in regular contact with someone who is. And from a purely human standpoint I can empathize with a situation in which bombs are destroying my neighborhood, killing my friends and family, and causing my children to have nightmares. The result of war is the same as that of terrorism, civilians suffer. What’s the difference between an American going to work at the World Trade Center on 9/11 and an Iranian going to work at the nuclear research center on 4/6 (or whenever)? Ordinary people, getting the shit blown out of them is terror, doesn’t matter who the perpetrators are.

[you approach all these topics with an obvious predetermined agenda.]
Duh. I’m a peace activist.

[You ever been involved in a mission that was more than yourself? A mission that meant more to the overall security of your country and your fellow man, your neighbors, your family... than yourself?]

Have you? Have you defended American freedom? Have you made America more secure? Have you fought in a war that was defensive? What noble war did you participate in? Sorry, I guess that’s getting too personal. Maybe you justify your service with the belief that it was for a noble cause. That’s fine. Not having combat experience myself I’m in no position to criticize the motives or justifications of those who have. My position is purely philosophical. I look at the big picture and see that war originated as a device by tribal societies to take other people’s stuff, and I don’t see that much has changed. We can cloak it in whatever noble cause we choose, but the bottom line is that any time we attack and invade and occupy another country, we’re there to take their stuff. And that applies to Israel’s occupation of neighboring countries as well. Sorry to sound so pious, but that’s just the way I see it.

[Don't make assumptions about me on this blog.]

Ditto. Isn’t that exactly what this whole tirade is about? You have so far made several true and untrue assumptions about me. Here’s another one…

[I'm sure between us, I'm the only one who ever branded cowhide and horsehide repeatedly.]
Repeatedly, no, but I have herded and branded and vaccinated and tagged cattle.

[And simply, don't stereotype me!]

Can you actually provide an example from my post that stereotypes you? Because after your last post, I can certainly find many instances where you have stereotyped me.
As Michael has pointed out, I do strike a nerve with people because I’m not afraid of being attacked or stereotyped. I use provocative words for a reason. There’s no use pussyfooting around so as not to hurt someone’s feelings. This is war we’re talking about, raw, brutal, inhumane, war. Speaking meekly doesn’t cut it. The brutal truth is the only way to confront a brutal reality.

Jon, I’d be happy to have coffee and/or a conference with you anytime. But I have to warn you, I don’t come off the same in person as I do in print (ask Conniff). When I write this blog and letters to the editor, I can project an aggressive persona that I don’t carry in “real life.” The “Sue Gray” everyone thinks they know is not the same person as those who know me, know. Hmm.

So if you still want to buy me a drink after you read this, I’ll take you up on your invitation. I don’t know what purpose it could serve, but I have to say I’m intrigued by your various enigmatic contradictions.
24. alpha6 | April 4th, 2007 at 8:01 am

"All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away."

Are you a certified linguist in Farsi "G"??
25. reckless G | April 4th, 2007 at 8:37 am

No, are you? Otherwise how do you know that what we are being told he said is actually what he said? Guess we're in the same boat huh?

After being lied to about Iraq, I don't trust the media or our government to give me anything other than propaganda to further their agenda. Sorry to hear you prefer to take them at their word.

And more to the point, do you condone violence against civilians because of the alleged policies of a country's leader? If so, I guess 9/11 was ok with you.
26. Edward Troy | April 4th, 2007 at 9:12 am

dear fellow bloggers, I was wondering if anyone can recall any nice, honorable, peaceloving leaders of any countries since 1900? I was thinking Gandi, Shimon Peres and maybe Jimmy Carter, but Carter did say he was going to kick Kennedy's a** in the primary campaign and he really went after that rabbit too! please no appeasers like Chamberlain. Being peaceful doesn't mean stupid and spineless.

Does anyone qualify besides Gandi, Peres and maybe Jimmy Carter. Would anyone include any heads of any regimes in the Middle East. Are any of these kind cuddly types?
27. reckless G | April 4th, 2007 at 1:29 pm

Ed, depends on what your perpective is I guess. We can all probably agree on Gandhi, but he wasn't technically the leader of the country. Some people would leave Jimmy Carter out and others (not of this nation) might include their favorite Middle Eastern leader. Not being a student of historical politics, I don't have a good answer, but...where is this going?
28. Wharf Rat | April 4th, 2007 at 1:52 pm

Nelson Mandela might qualify.
29. reckless G | April 4th, 2007 at 3:06 pm

[You ever been involved in a mission that was more than yourself? A mission that meant more to the overall security of your country and your fellow man, your neighbors, your family... than yourself?]

Upon further thought, I would put my pre-invasion trip to Iraq in that category. Does peace activism count? I did lose clients, alienate family and almost sacrificed my 30 year marriage for something I believed to be "a mission that meant more to the overall security of my country and my fellow man, my neighbors, my family... than myself."
30. Edward Troy | April 4th, 2007 at 9:51 pm

Dear G,

I can't think of any Middle East Leaders that aren't thugs despots, absolute monarchs or plunderers. That of course is no excuse for our finest example of a shmuck president.

Nelson Mandela deserves addition -- thanks Rat. What can we gain by voting for candidates who come closest to these fine indiciduals. How can we bring them to the fore, replace American Idol with We The People? Start evolving again.
31. reckless G | April 5th, 2007 at 6:59 am

[I can't think of any Middle East Leaders that aren't thugs despots, absolute monarchs or plunderers.]

Ed,
I have to tell you, I really get annoyed with bigoted generalizations like these. From your modern western Judeo-Christian perspective it might be true, but what do you really know about Middle East history and politics? It is statements like these that have been used to justify brutal wars and genocides throughout history, such as the slaughter of the Native Americans (they were all savages) and the Holocaust (inferior races). It was the characterization of Saddam Hussein as a thug that led Americans to believe we were doing a good thing by removing him. Now we see the brilliance of his brutality. He unified, modernized and pacified a nation made up of warring tribes and factions that left to their own devices would attempt to exterminate each other, as they are doing now. It may seem brutal from our delicate democratic perspective, but as Middle East leaders go, he accomplished much in the way of providing security and benefits (education, health care, infrastructure) for his country. It was the demonization of Hussein and his subsequent removal that was partly to blame for the mess we’re in. And now people are attempting to do the same with Ahmedinijad.

From; http://people.virginia.edu/~wbq8f/Time.html

King Hussein of Jordan has managed to create a viable country under sensible leadership, which has helped to stabilize an otherwise volatile region. Without King Hussein and his essentially realistic views, the Arab-Israeli and Gulf conflicts would most likely have come much closer together, in dangerous ways. As King Hussein nears his 50th year in power, he can claim a share of shaping the modern Middle East.

Mustafa Kemal (later known as Ataturk, the father of the Turks) led Turks in a national resistance movement, drove out invading Greek troops, deposed the Sultan and Caliph, rejected the onerous terms of the Treaty of Sèvres, and forced the victorious allies to recognize a new Turkish Republic in 1923. He then presided over a remarkable period of institution building, trying, with partial success, to create a modern, largely secular, state. While ruling very much as an authoritarian leader, Ataturk deserves credit for the fact that little more than a decade after his death Turkey was on its way to the first peaceful transfer of power as a result of free elections. With all of its problems today, democratic Turkey still reflects much of the Ataturk legacy.
32. alpha6 | April 5th, 2007 at 7:18 am

"Nelson Mandela might qualify"

In 1961, Mandela became the leader of the ANC's armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (translated as Spear of the Nation, also abbreviated as MK), which he co-founded. He co-ordinated a sabotage campaign against military and government targets, and made plans for a possible guerrilla war if sabotage failed to end apartheid. A few decades later, MK did indeed wage a guerrilla war against the regime, especially during the 1980s, in which many civilians were killed. Mandela also raised funds for MK abroad, and arranged for paramilitary training, visiting various African governments.

Sounds like a nice guy..."many civilians were killed"
33. reckless G | April 5th, 2007 at 7:26 am

"Many civilians were killed" in India under Gandhi's instruction of passive resistance against the British occupiers. "Many civilians were killed" under General George Washington's leadership in the fight for independence from British rule. Is this the standard for a "nice, benevolent" leader? That civilians don't die? Any time there is a conflict for power over territory, civilians get killed, no matter how nice or brutal the leader at the time may appear.
34. Edward Troy | April 6th, 2007 at 10:24 am

Sorry G,
you are making my argument, demonizing a demon is like accusing a leopard of being spotty. You know damned well that the use of words like "pacification" from the perspective of those being "pacified" means brutality, which you defend and support in words that echo of triumphance. I do not think removing Hussein and being in the situation we are in, was or is beneficial to the US or Iraqis except the Kurds, I do not think it was good for the world either -- so far. If you are getting negative feelings because I am questioning and now attacking the quality of despots, absolute monarchs, murderers, dictators and the sacred cows you lionize, then so be it. You support what you support, they are what they are, by having done what they did. The same goes for Bush supporters, exactly. I see no defense for people not expecting and demanding better of leaders, or those "leaders" acting no better than a bunch of little Fuehrers, including the one in the White House.
Your text below;

[{Ed,
I have to tell you, I really get annoyed with bigoted generalizations like these. From your modern western Judeo-Christian perspective it might be true, but what do you really know about Middle East history and politics? It is statements like these that have been used to justify brutal wars and genocides throughout history, such as the slaughter of the Native Americans (they were all savages) and the Holocaust (inferior races). It was the characterization of Saddam Hussein as a thug that led Americans to believe we were doing a good thing by removing him. Now we see the brilliance of his brutality. He unified, modernized and pacified a nation made up of warring tribes and factions that left to their own devices would attempt to exterminate each other, as they are doing now. It may seem brutal from our delicate democratic perspective, but as Middle East leaders go, he accomplished much in the way of providing security and benefits (education, health care, infrastructure) for his country. It was the demonization of Hussein and his subsequent removal that was partly to blame for the mess we’re in. And now people are attempting to do the same with Ahmedinijad}]

I am most certainly not a bigot. I am well aware of the hospitals roads and schools that Hussein built before the war over the Sha'at Al Arab, and the freedoms for women. Pacifism is my first option not my only one. I do not and have not ever supported oppression in a willful and informed manner ever in my life and never will. I do support and have considered fighting with and for liberation movements against oppressors whether they were indigenous to the area/political unit drawn by colonial powers or carved and lived in a more natural way; or imposed upon by an outside power. What you are wrote indicates support for whatever indigenous person who leads the political unit even despots, murderers and the like. I find linear minded pacifists extremely annoying in that they are willing to go extinct and get in the way of liberators willing to die for the freedom of their peoples attempting to overthrow the shackles of dictators, colonialists, imperialists and the like. Yet you justify death as casually as Alpha and the crew that would follow that thread. As I see it you support any indigenous person as a leader, oppressor or not. Alpha supports US imperialism, whether it is good for the US or not.

I have consumed as much information about the Middle East as I could from the '67 war, Gamel Abdel Nassar, and Ba'athist Socialism it's waning secularism with the loss of Nasser by heart attack in 1970. You are smart enough to pop your own bubble and open up a spectrum of information and call it what it is. I socialized with Middle Easterners including Israelis, for many years as friends, not dependants or a military man on some mission agenda, or kidnappers.

My comment about leaders in the Middle East goes in more than equal measure to most African countries too, indeed the rest of the world and history. I don't need you, or anyone else, to remind me of how my native American ancestors were treated with smallpox, lies, land theft, murder and being corraled in Basutoland crap land "reservations," just in case you are wondering that goes for my African ancestry too, plus the slavery. I do not support oppression suppresion or any type of special treatment of peoples including gender, until one personally steps over the line and invades or hinders my development or others who expect special socioeconomic treatment or are merely already used to it. It is extremely annoying at best when I hear the condescension of those who do not live in my shoes tell me how should think in my skin with my skin, and can have NO CLUE what it is like. The best you can get is a specific feeling expressed from a particular perspective as told by those who share those experiences. Visiting the poor and impoverished, whether it is a slum, barrio, res, favela, refugee camp or Sadr City, is seen by some as visiting a living, petting zoo of human fauna, because you have the financial option and plan to leave.

If you changed "On The Subjugation of Women," by John Stuart Mill, to; 'on the subjugation of anyone,' his arguments would apply exactly to my philosophy. Maybe you could refine where you are coming from, right now I don't see much difference, from you or Alpha, except who is going to do the oppression, and that you may be a pacifist with no exceptions but I am not sure.

My religion is a very unconventional spirituality, that includes, but is not limited to Christ, and is specific to me and I don't prosyletize. I don't need a Pope, preacher, Imam, guru or Rabbi. Between the two of us, I have little doubt that you would be considered the more Modern Western Judeo-Christian in this context.
35. reckless G | April 6th, 2007 at 11:30 am

Whew! OK good retort. First, I meant you’re comment was bigoted not that you are a bigot. And second, that you come from a modern Judeo-Christian oriented society doesn’t have anything to do with your personal spirituality, just that our attitudes are shaped by our social conventions. It’s difficult for us to judge another country’s leader’s abilities or actions based on what we consider right or good, when there may be a different set of standards from the people of that culture’s perspective. To pass judgement on a leader because they don’t fit our standards is a dangerous path, as I noted before.

While we may not have liked Saddam’s methods of controlling an unruly segment of his population with brutal force, if he hadn’t done so, Iraq would have experienced total collapse long ago and many more would have died at the hands of the ideological radicals we now see exerting their power in his absence.

Like you, I’m no pacifist, so I wouldn’t stand by idly while those around me were hurt or killed. I believe that violence in defense is justified, which is why it’s hard to condemn acts of violence by those fighting against occupation and genocide. While I don’t condone civilian deaths for any reason, I’m a realist in that I understand that death is a part of the struggle for independence. Even good leaders with the best of intentions are responsible for civilian deaths when the situation allows no other recourse than to oppose oppression.

The old adage that power corrupts is unfortunately true in most instances and it’s unrealistic to expect a good, benevolent leader to come forth and lead us all out of degradation. Those who have fit the bill in the past, Gandhi, MLK, end up getting shot. So obviously we have a lot of evolving to do before we can produce quality leaders from our midst. If some such leader was able to come to power in the Middle East and attempt to preach brotherhood and justice between Israelis and Palestinians, I’m afraid his/her fate would be the same as that of Gandhi.

It isn’t that we are lacking good leaders, it is that we lack goodness ourselves. When we’ve evolved to the point that we could produce good leaders, we won’t really need them, because we’ll be able to govern ourselves with autonomous integrity.
36. Edward Troy | April 6th, 2007 at 12:37 pm

[{When we’ve evolved to the point that we could produce good leaders, we won’t really need them, because we’ll be able to govern ourselves with autonomous integrity.}]

Come the day.
It is very easy to pity those in a desperate situation coming out of a society privileged through the practice of social Darwinism on the back of guns, disease and plunder. Turning your shield to the plunderer means turning your back on the defenseless. Not an easy choice, unless you think about it.
37. Mitch.Mulhall | April 7th, 2007 at 10:05 pm

[Turning your shield to the plunderer means turning your back on the defenseless.]

That depends on how you circle your wagons.

Cheers,
38. alpha6 | April 9th, 2007 at 8:23 am

Hey, all you wannabe intel types...what happened to "Operation Bite"??
39. reckless G | April 9th, 2007 at 1:37 pm

alpha it’s been awhile since you commented, I was starting to miss you! Thanks for posting again, if only to chide us “wannabe intel types” on the nonexistent Operation Bite. I don’t think any of us really believed it would happen on that day/time, at least I don’t see any evidence otherwise on this blog. But it would have been negligent to write a blog on the plans to attack Iran without mentioning the internet buzz over the aforementioned rumor. Most of us probably still believe it will happen sometime in the near future, but I would have serious doubts about an operation that was leaked to the public or even some so-called Russian intelligence guy. The Pentagon would never be that sloppy.

That hostage stunt turned out to be pretty smart on Iran’s behalf; bolstered the government’s image for Iranians, got them some public attention from the rest of the world and opened the door for negotiations with Britain. Maybe that Ahmedinijad is smarter than he appears.
40. alpha6 | April 9th, 2007 at 5:42 pm

Glad to be back....Not sure if it was smart on Ahmedinijads part or not, especially with their announcement today about reaching a new level with regards to uranium enrichment...from what I am hearing coming out of the UN, they are boucoup upset, and now that Russia has even stepped back from its support of Iran's nuke projects, they could be in for some tougher times. With sanctions getting stiffer and an "accident" at their only petroleum refinery they could be in a world of hurt if people knew what they were doing and were as smart as me. But then again, we are talking about governments, and they never seem to prove to be very smart.