Iran actually ends up modelling the severity that is needed to contain Isalmic terrorism, but the west has no stomach for it. I suggest reading this article with that in mind:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Ar...Article.asp?ID=20001

An excerpt:


"Ahmadinejad also made it clear that, like Hamas, he did not view the Palestinian conflict with Israel as one of nationalism, but of religion: �Anybody who recognizes Israel,� he warned, �will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation�s fury, any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world.� It is unfortunate but true that many officials and observers in the West will be puzzled by his view that recognition of Israel would amount to defeat for Islam; although the President has begun recently to refer to the jihadists� goal of establishing a unified caliphate under Sharia law, the totalitarian, supremacist, expansionist jihad ideology that Ahmadinejad and his ilk espouse has still received scant attention given its increasingly central role in so many world conflicts. Ahmadinejad, Hamas, and innumerable others believe that any land � not only Israel, but Spain also � that has once belonged to the House of Islam belongs to it forever. Non-Muslims may live in such lands, but only as dhimmis, protected people, subject to various forms of legal discrimination and harassment; they have no right to govern such lands. This is why Ahmadinejad views Israel as a �stigma,� and will, like Hamas, accept nothing short of its total destruction."

In a way, I'm glad this has happened and that their leader is associated with it, for it makes it much more difficult for the PC crowd to blame it all on the U.S. and our support of Israel.

Behold the prejudice! And the religious idealism that gave rise to it!

Hopefully, one possible outcome would be for more thoughtful Moslems to distance themselves from this kind of rhetoric. Hopefully . . .

quote:

Ahmadinejad, Hamas, and innumerable others believe that any land � not only Israel, but Spain also � that has once belonged to the House of Islam belongs to it forever. Non-Muslims may live in such lands, but only as dhimmis, protected people, subject to various forms of legal discrimination and harassment; they have no right to govern such lands. This is why Ahmadinejad views Israel as a �stigma,� and will, like Hamas, accept nothing short of its total destruction."

Ya know, much of that stuff is but a stone's throw from National Socialism.

Old fuddy duddies move over! They have the world's lowest voting age and most of them are under 20. It could change if we can wait them out.

wishful_thinker.com

MM:

There may be more representation in Iran for those fuddy duddies than we'd like to believe. The government is running its own university-based jihad recruitment program. Wonder what kind of turn-out they'll get?


http://www.iranfocus.com/modul...cle.php?storyid=4429

http://www.breitbart.com/news/...164944.y49anqze.html

quote:

Al-Alam said Ahmadinejad was speaking in the holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia where he was attending a two-day meeting of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference that opened Wednesday.

"Is it not true that European countries insist that they committed a Jewish genocide? They say that Hitler burned millions of Jews in furnaces ... and exiled them," Ahmadinejad told Al-Alam.

"Then because the Jews have been oppressed during the Second World War, therefore they (the Europeans) have to support the occupying regime of Qods (Jerusalem). We do not accept this," he said.

He also noted that European countries "believe in this so much and are so determined that any researcher who denies it (the Holocaust) with historical evidence is dealt with in a most harsh way and sent to prison."

The Holocaust was Nazi Germany's systematic slaughter of an estimated six million Jews between 1933 and 1945, mainly in the latter years of World War II.

Official Iranian media frequently carry sympathetic interviews with Holocaust revisionist historians -- who attempt to establish that the number of Jews killed by the Nazis was wildly exaggerated.

Iran refuses to recognise Israel.

The Israelis will definitely NOT allow this government to have nuclear weapons, so the West had better figure out a peaceful way to prevent their development.

Iran is on a one way ticket for their version of Iraq. Does the Iranian leader have one ounce of intelligence or is he as disturbed as Saddam? Basically what he said in his speech is:

I am a threat. Please USA come here and blow me up. Thank you.

Well Eric, it looks like he may get his wish. If they do this, it will probably be narrow and intense, as Iran's nuclear infrastructures aren't baking under the desert sky . . . well, not yet, anyway:


http://www.discoverthenetwork....cles/usplanning.html


I don't like it when I post like that . . . surprised? It's hard to support war, but in this case, the dangers are perhaps even greater than with Saddam, as Islamists around the world only stand to gain with a nuclear mullachracy. The thinking must be . . . "Well, we can't invade and colonize them, so let's just keep destroying their worst threat to the free world, and hope that relatively minor increases in instability also lead to shifts in political power."

I agree W.C. War is hell. But letting evil people run the world is an even bigger hell.

I just can't see how we could ever let Iran have a nuke. We all know that they would use it. They have no respect for life. If they could destroy Israel out of spite they would do it. Even if they knew we would nuke them afterwards.

I am for a pre-emptive strike on this one.

What I find interesting is how we "conveniently" find our troops strategically placed around Iran. I have been saying since Iraq happened that it was just a ploy to get to Iran. That may sound cynical- but really?

What I really have a problem with is the USA footing the defense bill of the world. Especially while Europe spends it's money on Public Health care. Let the European's clean up that side of the world for once.

I'm getting so sick of those liberal European's running their mouths while we do all the dirty work.

Looks like it's coming to a head:


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n...asp?ARTICLE_ID=48327

And an NRO VDH article:


http://www.nationalreview.com/...nson200601130837.asp

It seems likely that Israel will eventually have to take matters into their own hands, as they did when Saddam built a nuclear reactor in the 80s. Everyone condemned them for bombing it, with fingers crossed behind their backs.

Problem is, this time, Iran undoubtledly knows this is a possibility, and it's unliekly they will have all their eggs in one basket. They might even be hoping for such a scenario, which they would see as justification for retaliation -- most likely with some kind of WMD attacks involving suicide bombers.

Counter-measure: Israel knows that, too.

The chess board has been set up and the players are ready to move their pieces.

Ugly and nasty, but it's not as if Iran has been covert about what it's up to. That's the most striking thing about North Korea, a fascist-like communist state, and Iran's Islamo-fascism: both are more committed to dangereous provocation than the protection of their own people. And, of course, nobody on the left ever acknowledges this.

I'm also guessing Israel has evidence of Iran's involvement in Palestinian-sponsored terrorism, and may be hedging its bets on that as well.

Did the Holocaust really take place? This highly "controversial" question (in Iran and the KKK) is now being debated at a state-sponsored conference in Iran.
- http://www.breitbart.com/news/...142536.rhu8rs3p.html

Western leaders are condemning this in the strongest possible language. If anyone has evidence of similar objections from middle eastern countries besides Israel, please call them to our attention.

There is no doubt that Amadinejad is about as abhorrent as national leaders come, and the so-called "Holocaust Conference" is just one of many examples of that. Unfortunately, few ask the questions: Why did Amadinejad win in Iran? Why did Hamas win the Palestinian vote?

In the West, we tend to interpret their election as an expression of extremism � and there is no doubt they are extreme. But in my opinion that does not really explain what moved the voters. I believe Iranian and Palestinian voters were concerned with many of the same issues other voters are.

The answer is corruption. Rafsanjani was rotten to the core. And so was Arafat and his PLO henchmen. An inner circle built up fortunes while the people suffered.

You can say a lot of negative things about Amadinejad, and about Hamas. But nothing indicates they are for sale, and that is the voters� perception.

In the Middle East, there are many other regimes that are also considered corrupt. They are sitting on powdered kegs. When these explode, I definitely do not think it will serve North-American or European interests.

* * *

In the midst of this, there is one question I do not understand. There were signals that Iran was willing to trade its nuclear programme for a non-aggression treaty with the USA. Kim Jong-il requested the same. So why not give it to them? While making it very clear that breaking the treaty or attacking any of their neighbours would invite aggression.

Ok, they would score a few propaganda points on the domestic front, having defeated "the Great Satan", as they see it. So what? The world would be a safer place.

Unfortunately, the issue has not even been seriously up for discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]If anyone has evidence of similar objections from middle eastern countries besides Israel, please call them to our attention. [/qb]

I did, however, hear that an Arab Israeli wished to attend, but was denied a visa. By the Israelis? Hardly � by Iran. He wanted to stand up and put the story straight, insisting of course on the historical fact of the Holocaust.

It is worth noting that some Orthodox Jewish Rabbis, such as Ahron Cohen for Great Britain, also are participating. Mr Cohen considers Zionism the enemy of the Jewish people.

Perhaps not the best choice of venue to voice his views...

In the midst of this, there is one question I do not understand. There were signals that Iran was willing to trade its nuclear programme for a non-aggression treaty with the USA. Kim Jong-il requested the same. So why not give it to them? While making it very clear that breaking the treaty or attacking any of their neighbours would invite aggression.

What is a treaty with Iran and/or N. Korea worth? The latter reneged on promises made when nuclear technology was shared by the Clinton admin.

As for why Hamas was elected, I think you made a good point; the party was much more credible than Arafat for assisting the people. Same goes for Hezbollah in Lebanon. This doesn't answer the question of why there are so many corrupt states in the Middle East. In 2001, one could list Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria. Some were worse than others, for sure, and the neighboring countries weren't much better. So what's the deal there? Any small wonder that Bush and co. decided to try something radically new, like "nation-building?"

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]What is a treaty with Iran and/or N. Korea worth? The latter reneged on promises made when nuclear technology was shared by the Clinton admin.[/qb]

Excellent question. I certainly wouldn�t trust either leader further than I could throw them � but I would still have preferred to sign a non-aggression treaty with both.

I�ll give you one excellent reason why:
Regimes of this nature need to conjure up an external enemy, because it unites people. When their ability to do so is lessened, there is far greater likelihood of positive change in their domestic political situation, and in their foreign policy.

Amadineja and Kim Jong-il certainly do not have the credibility of Muammar al-Gaddafi. When he said he would stop supporting terrorism, the Western countries knew he meant exactly what he said, and rewarded him accordingly. (Lest I be misunderstood, that does not mean I�m painting al-Gaddafi as a "good guy"!!)

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]As for why Hamas was elected, I think you made a good point; the party was much more credible than Arafat for assisting the people. Same goes for Hezbollah in Lebanon.[/qb]

Hamas could make wonderful progress, and truly serve the Palestinian cause, if they pursued a strictly non-violent strategy. The tragedy is that there is no Gandhi in sight, and whatever moderates there were have been effectively neutralised by one side or the other...

Hamas� aggression was uncalled for and terribly ill-considered. But so was Israel�s collective punishment of massive destruction of Lebanon�s infrastructure, including many targets of absolutely no military interest.

I have a good Lebanese friend who recently returned from the country of his birth. But I suppose that�s a different story, and a different thread...

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]This doesn't answer the question of why there are so many corrupt states in the Middle East... Any small wonder that Bush and co. decided to try something radically new, like "nation-building?"[/qb]

Nation building? Sorry, I know that sells to some of the US audience, but I don�t buy it, nor do most Europeans. More importantly, I think you would be terribly hard pressed to dig up terribly many Muslims, or Arabs, who believe that.

A noteable exception to the corruption and extremism that we see in the Middle East is Jordan and King Abdullah II, and King Hussein before him � in my opinion two great, pragmatic heads-of-state.

Amadineja and Kim Jong-il certainly do not have the credibility of Muammar al-Gaddafi.

You realize, I know, that using Gaddafi as a "yardstick" isn't saying much, which is probably your point, no?

Hamas could make wonderful progress, and truly serve the Palestinian cause, if they pursued a strictly non-violent strategy. . .

Agreed! But isn't that like asking a tiger to eat vegetables instead of red meat? Would Hamas still be Hamas if they negotiated with Israel as a neighbor instead of denying their right to exist?

Hamas� aggression was uncalled for and terribly ill-considered. But so was Israel�s collective punishment of massive destruction of Lebanon�s infrastructure, including many targets of absolutely no military interest.

I'm sure you meant Hezbollah, but Hamas' constant bombing of Israel applies as well. We had a good discussion of the summer war and lamented Israel's response for many reasons, one of which you note. Of course, Israel could have totally annihilated Lebanon in an afternoon, so the reality is that they were more restrained than they might have been. E.g., they never did target civilian centers; Hezbollah "setting up shop" in civilian areas was problemmatic. All in all, however, the Israeli response belied Hezbollah's braggadocio about being able to defend Lebanon. They did no such thing, and dragged the country into ruins. I hope the Lebanese wake up to that fact and ask what they gained from the war.

Nation building? Sorry, I know that sells to some of the US audience, but I don�t buy it, nor do most Europeans. More importantly, I think you would be terribly hard pressed to dig up terribly many Muslims, or Arabs, who believe that.

An image of 9 million Iraqis holding up their purple-inked thumbs comes to mind. They were hoping for it a new start.

We're drifting away from "Watching Iran," here, but I will say that the "European opinion" on this matter isn't very significant to the overwhelming majority of Americans. Europe wasn't attacked and targeted as was the U.S., and, besides, there was the complicity of a few nations in the oil-for-food scandal. I read somewhere recently that over 20% of Europeans believe Bush and co. actually orchestrated 9/11. Pathetic. I do believe Norway was part of the "coalition for the willing," weren't they?

quote:

"The aggressive forces will vanish, while the Iranian people will survive � since all who chose God will survive and those who distance themselves from God vanish like Pharaoh," said Ahmadinejad in his speech.

"The US, Britain, and the Zionist regime will vanish since they have distanced themselves from God. This is a divine promise," he added.

- http://www.ynetnews.com/articl...40,L-3342368,00.html

This is the guy James Baker says we ought to be talking to for help with Iraq!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,243710,00.html

quote:

Ahmadinejad spent much of his time lashing out at the United States.

During a visit to a trash-strewn neighborhood in the capital of Managua, he told hundreds of Nicaragua's poor: "The imperialists don't like us to help you progress and develop. They don't like us to get rid of poverty and unite people. But the whole world knows that Nicaragua and Iran are together."

Ortega has vowed to maintain relations with Washington and build a more moderate administration than his turbulent, Soviet-allied government of the 1980s. But, setting the stage for a careful balancing act, he has spent his first four days in office heavily courting three of Washington's most outspoken critics: Venezuela, Iran and Bolivia. Chavez promised millions of dollars in aid and support on Thursday, and Iran followed its lead.

How exactly are Iran and Venezuela going to get rid of poverty in Nicaragua?

from the State Dept http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/1850.htm

quote:

Since 1990, the United States has provided over $1.2 billion in assistance to Nicaragua. About $260 million of that was for debt relief, and another $450 million was for balance-of-payments support. The U.S. also provided $93 million in 1999, 2000, and 2001 as part of its overall response to Hurricane Mitch. Aside from funding for Mitch reconstruction, the levels of assistance have fallen incrementally to reflect the improvements in Nicaragua. Assistance has been focused on promoting more citizen political participation, compromise, and government transparency; stimulating sustainable growth and income; and fostering better-educated and healthier families. The Millennium Challenge Corporation, signed a five-year, $175 million Compact with the Republic of Nicaragua on July 14, 2005. The Millennium Challenge Compact will reduce poverty and spur economic growth by funding projects in the regions of Le�n and Chinandega aimed at reducing transportation costs and improving access to markets for rural communities; increasing wages and profits from farming and related enterprises in the region, and increasing investment by strengthening property rights

http://www.ynetnews.com/articl...40,L-3356154,00.html

quote:

Israel and the United States will soon be destroyed, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday during a meeting with Syria's foreign minister, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) website said in a report.


"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad� assured that the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives," the Iranian president was quoted as saying.

Such a sweetie pie!