The drumbeat to declare war on Iran gets louder


by Sunny
12th August, 2010 at 9:59 am    

Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic has written a long article titled: The point of no return.

His point is that within the next 12 months, Israel will take the unilateral decision to fly into Iranian airspace and attack what it believes to be its nuclear weapons programme.

When the Israelis begin to bomb the uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz, the formerly secret enrichment site at Qom, the nuclear-research center at Esfahan, and possibly even the Bushehr reactor, along with the other main sites of the Iranian nuclear program, a short while after they depart en masse from their bases across Israel—regardless of whether they succeed in destroying Iran’s centrifuges and warhead and missile plants, or whether they fail miserably to even make a dent in Iran’s nuclear program—they stand a good chance of changing the Middle East forever; of sparking lethal reprisals, and even a full-blown regional war that could lead to the deaths of thousands of Israelis and Iranians, and possibly Arabs and Americans as well; of creating a crisis for Barack Obama that will dwarf Afghanistan in significance and complexity; of rupturing relations between Jerusalem and Washington, which is Israel’s only meaningful ally; of inadvertently solidifying the somewhat tenuous rule of the mullahs in Tehran; of causing the price of oil to spike to cataclysmic highs, launching the world economy into a period of turbulence not experienced since the autumn of 2008, or possibly since the oil shock of 1973; of placing communities across the Jewish diaspora in mortal danger, by making them targets of Iranian-sponsored terror attacks, as they have been in the past, in a limited though already lethal way; and of accelerating Israel’s conversion from a once-admired refuge for a persecuted people into a leper among nations.

At least he’s realistic about what the consequences will be. And those are just the short-term consequences.

But the article then goes on to say, in effect, that Israel thinks it has no choice because Obama’s willingness to confront Iran isn’t credible. He concludes, after spending a lot of time discussing Israeli perspective, with:

Based on months of interviews, I have come to believe that the administration knows it is a near-certainty that Israel will act against Iran soon if nothing or no one else stops the nuclear program; and Obama knows—as his aides, and others in the State and Defense departments made clear to me—that a nuclear-armed Iran is a serious threat to the interests of the United States, which include his dream of a world without nuclear weapons.

It looks like a kite-flying operation. The drumbeat for Obama to attack Iran otherwise Israel will, is likely to kick off with this… though it has been in motion for a while.

But here’s the thing: the article doesn’t even bother discussing that bizarre concept of peace. It’s assumed without doubt that the Iranians are only interested in obliterating Israel and that no peaceful settlement can be found.

I also have this radical idea. It involves Israel making significant overtures to its Arab neighbours by stop building illegal settlements, working with the Obama adminstration to build on peaceful steps, and offering Palestinians much more autonomy, aid and land. That would reduce tensions massively across the Middle East, create the environment for a closer relationship with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and would isolate Iran. But none of this is discussed as a viable option. There’s only one option: either Israel attacks or the US does something drastic. The neo-cons have learnt absolutely-fucking-nothing from their previous escapades.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Current affairs,Middle East






163 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. sunny hundal

    Blog post:: The drumbeat to declare war on Iran gets louder http://bit.ly/cs7xx3


  2. M. R. C. Barrett

    Sunny Hundal says Israel stopping "illegal settlements" would prevent Iran nuking it. http://bit.ly/cs7xx3


  3. mattrcb

    ?????????????????????????????????? – ???Blog http://blog.livedoor.jp/geek/archives/50939498.html


  4. Jay Baker

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: The drumbeat to declare war on Iran gets louder http://bit.ly/cs7xx3


  5. Ben Coleman

    RT @sunny_hundal: The drumbeat to declare war on Iran gets louder http://bit.ly/cs7xx3


  6. mysteriousclark

    ???????http://bit.ly/aHM5tB


  7. paulstpancras

    RT @sunny_hundal: The drumbeat to declare war on Iran gets louder http://bit.ly/cs7xx3


  8. bethan john

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: The drumbeat to declare war on Iran gets louder http://bit.ly/cs7xx3


  9. stuartamdouglas

    RT @sunny_hundal: The drumbeat to declare war on Iran gets louder http://bit.ly/cs7xx3


  10. earwicga

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blog Post: The drumbeat to declare war on Iran gets louder http://bit.ly/cs7xx3 < Spot on.


  11. War with Iran: The biggest pile of corpses since 1945 « Left Outside

    [...] some neocon fantasists in the US are planning something like that, as Sunny Hundal highlights. Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic predicts what will happens if the US doesn’t [...]


  12. War with Iran would bring the biggest pile of corpses since 1945 | Liberal Conspiracy

    [...] Iranians easily. Yet some neocon fantasists in the US are planning something like that, as Sunny Hundal [...]




  1. douglas clark — on 12th August, 2010 at 10:50 am  

    Sunny,

    It seems to me that exactly the same people that said Iraq could blow us out of the water are still in charge of our foreign policy.

    It also seems to me that this could be resolved by insisting that UN weapons inspectors are sent into Iran, with a proper mandate. If that takes a threat to Iran, well, so be it. They have not, exactly, played a pacifistic game themselves.

    I think bullies should be confronted, and that includes Ahmadinejad.

    It is worth noting that Israel has nuclear weapons already…

    I also have this radical idea. It involves Israel making significant overtures to its Arab neighbours by stop building illegal settlements, working with the Obama adminstration to build on peaceful steps, and offering Palestinians much more autonomy, aid and land. That would reduce tensions massively across the Middle East, create the environment for a closer relationship with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and would isolate Iran. But none of this is discussed as a viable option. There’s only one option: either Israel attacks or the US does something drastic. The neo-cons have learnt absolutely-fucking-nothing from their previous escapades.

    Well, yes.

    Except I don’t see why Iran should be isolated, exactly? This is war talk, and I, for one, reject it…

  2. RezaV — on 12th August, 2010 at 10:55 am  

    “The neo-cons have learnt absolutely-fucking-nothing from their previous escapades.”

    The neo-cons will never learn because share the same internationalist and intellectually bankrupt ideology as the multiculturalists. They believe that all peoples and all societies are fundamentally ‘the same’ or can become ‘the same’.

    The fact is that Iran is a product of the Iranian people. It is the result of the culture and the values of a very high proportion of the Iranian population.

    Regardless of whether many Iranians are dissatisfied with their government, the inconvenient truth remains that some form of Islamic government is supported by enough Iranians to make the imposition, by force, of liberal democracy impossible.

    We should isolate Iran. And let them know that as long as they don’t threaten or attack our friends or us then they’ll be left alone. If they transgress, we should apply non-violent measures such as sanctions. If these don’t have the desired effect then we should bomb strategic military or industrial sites. Then withdraw.

    Only time will fix Iran. They need decades to prove to themselves that Islamic government, like all totalitarian ideologies, is unworkable. Leave them to it.

    At the same time, the best way of ensuring that time can ever fix Iran is to ensure that young, secular-democracy-loving Iranians stay in Iran. We should support their efforts, peacefully, in Iran. As long as they continue to leave Iran in the numbers they are leaving then there will never be the groundswell necessary to change the country.

    At the same time we should prevent Islamist Iranians from entering our liberal democracies. We should proscribe the building of Mosques and Islamic centres with Iranian money and deport their Iranian staff. We should close down Press TV. We should deport the Iranian Ayatollahs, Imams and Islamist ‘students’ and ‘settlers’ from our shores.

    Iranian students must not be allowed to study here. If an Iranian wishes to leave Iran to live in the West then we should make it conditional on them having rejected Islamist ideology.

    Think. If during the decades of Soviet communism, people who opposed communism had simply emigrated to the west, then would communism have ever fallen? And what would have happened to our societies if during that period, we had allowed communist countries to export their ideologues to our countries in order to promote communism and build centres of communism in our towns and in our universities. To set up communist broadcasters in our capital cities. What if we had allowed millions of communists to seek ‘asylum’ in our countries so that they could promote that ideology whilst they were here?

    The neo-cons and the multiculturalists are simply the opposite sides of the same irrational coin.

  3. douglas clark — on 12th August, 2010 at 11:03 am  

    RezaV,

    I was reading along with your analysis until it went off on a bender. It is pretty clear that people living under a communist regieme that left it are not communists and are certainly not likely to promote that ideology here. Why do you think that would be so?

    Is every immigrant a threat?

  4. RezaV — on 12th August, 2010 at 11:18 am  

    Douglas

    “It is pretty clear that people living under a communist regieme that left it are not communists…”

    Of course they weren’t. I doubt that anyone would have welcomed Soviet immigrants or asylum seekers if they were communists. So why is it so different with Islamism?

    “Is every immigrant a threat?”

    Of course not. However, those immigrants that leave Islamist societies to settle here whilst continuing to support and even promote Islamism will be a threat to our secular democracies if their numbers are high enough.

    Is that not obvious to you?

  5. douglas clark — on 12th August, 2010 at 11:33 am  

    RezaV,

    No, it is not ‘obvious’ to me.

    The few Muslims I have met do not seem to hang together in the way that you expect. Some vote for secular politics, y’know Labour or Tory or, ‘heavens’ SNP.

    There is not an obvious, or perhaps successful, political party for them to support. After the demise of Respect, at least. And that died because Muslims are much like you and me. Most Muslims I have met are not particularily keen on the ‘takeover’ thingy that worries you so. Most muslims seem to reject that fantasy world that you choose to inhabit. Well, the ones that I have met, obviously. The strikingly virulent nutters you get on the web are a breed apart…

    Would you not be happier commenting at ‘The Gates of Vienna’ where you could find like minded freaks?

  6. MaidMarian — on 12th August, 2010 at 11:43 am  

    RezaV – ‘immigrants that leave Islamist societies to settle here whilst continuing to support and even promote Islamism will be a threat to our secular democracies if their numbers are high enough.’

    Well, I’d imagine that you could replace the word, ‘Islam,’ in that sentence with just about anything. I worry about how the eco-loons are swamping our democracy, but there you go. Of course, British democracy is not secular. Perhaps where you come from you don’t understand the true nature and quality of democracy.

    There are good arguments for checks on religion – it’s just that your hyperbole does not seem to be a very good one.

  7. douglas clark — on 12th August, 2010 at 11:48 am  

    MaidMarian,

    Us eco-loons are indigenous. Otherwise, I completely agree. :-)

  8. RezaV — on 12th August, 2010 at 12:09 pm  

    Douglas

    We don’t have to get into this debate. We’ve had it before.

    I, an ex-Muslim, an ex-Iranian, with an in-depth and first-hand experience of both Islam and Islamism will keep warning of the dangers of Islamism growing in the west. I will provide substantial evidence to support my view in the form of opinion polls amongst Muslims living here, in the form of statements from prominent and respected Islamic scholars, in the form of statistical evidence. All from reputable sources.

    You, as a (I presume) Scots-born non-Muslim will at worst refute the evidence or at best claim that the evidence is just my ‘biased opinion’. After all you know a Muslim or 2 who has told you that they support secular democracy and liberal values.

    And we’ll get nowhere.

    So let’s pretend that everything here is just peachy. There isn’t a worrying rise among British Muslims of support for Islamism.

    1. Would you therefore have any objection to taking steps to preserve this wonderful multicultural and pluralistic Utopia we live in?

    2. Would you object to us ensuring that any efforts from overseas to fund or promote Islamism here are prevented?

    3. Would you object to Islamist organisations, funded by illiberal and intolerant regimes overseas, being allowed to establish mosques and study centres in our towns and universities?

    4. Would you object to that mouthpiece of the IRI, Press TV, being closed down as long as we are proscribed from broadcasting news in Iran?

    5. Would you object to us preventing active Islamists from receiving visas to study here and especially residency and citizenship?

    I know Doug, these people represent an infinitesimally small proportion of the Vast Majority of Moderate Muslims®. All those polls carried out by the right-wing Telegraph, Times and even the BBC are wrong. That’s just their opinion innit? You know better.

    But why would you possibly object to the ensuring that the ‘infinitesimally small’ number of Islamists already here are allowed to grow by allowing the immigration of more Islamists and the promotion of Islamism from overseas?

  9. BenSix — on 12th August, 2010 at 12:18 pm  

    The neo-cons have learnt absolutely-fucking-nothing from their previous escapades.

    That assumes they’re arguing in good faith! See also, Stephen Walt and Flynt and Hillary Leverett.

    Reza

    4. Would you object to that mouthpiece of the IRI, Press TV, being closed down as long as we are proscribed from broadcasting news in Iran?

    Hang about – on what basis? The worst that Press TV achieves is misinforming its viewers about events inside Iran. That’s intensely loathsome, but poor rationale for censorship.

  10. RezaV — on 12th August, 2010 at 12:25 pm  

    MaidMarian

    “I worry about how the eco-loons are swamping our democracy…”

    Eco-loons aren’t arriving in huge numbers from overseas. They aren’t part of an ethnic or cultural demographic. The rise of Eco-loonery is not clearly linked to demographic change through immigration. Eco-loons do not, on average, have many more children than other sections of society.

    Insulting Eco-loonery or Eco-loons will not put you in the dock under ‘hate’ laws. As a democracy, we’re allowed to debate Eco-loonery and discuss how we deal with it. Yes, organisations like the BBC are biased as is our socialist-infected public sector, but we are allowed to criticise and debate. And one day, one side will win the debate with enough people to force through real change.

    People are not born as, or raised as eco-loons. I suspect that in the overwhelming majority of cases, an Eco-loon can become an AGW ‘denier’ without being ostracised from his/her family or community. And the penalty for ‘converting’ isn’t technically death.

    ‘Eco-loonery’ is not being funded by foreign ‘eco-loon’ regimes that have the openly stated aim of converting the entire world to ‘eco-loonery’.

    So your moral relativism is both irrelevant and disingenuous in this context.

  11. MaidMarian — on 12th August, 2010 at 12:36 pm  

    RezaV – ‘The rise of Eco-loonery is not clearly linked to demographic change through immigration.’

    Ah, so this is not per se about protecting people from religion, that is just a hook for fear. This is all about, ‘the other,’ right?

    ‘Insulting Eco-loonery or Eco-loons will not put you in the dock under ‘hate’ laws.’

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6494213/Climate-change-belief-given-same-legal-status-as-religion.html

    ‘People are not born as, or raised as eco-loons.’

    No one is born Islamic. People can absolutely raised as eco-loons.

    ‘‘Eco-loonery’ is not being funded by foreign ‘eco-loon’ regimes that have the openly stated aim of converting the entire world to ‘eco-loonery’’

    Environment, and any number of other pressure groups get overseas funding.

    ‘So your moral relativism is both irrelevant and disingenuous in this context.’

    No, this is not moral relativism. I make no value judgment about the relative merits of Islam and eco-loonery. This is pointing out that your arguments could be applied to just about any school of thought.

    A better argument for you would be to talk about how religion for centuries has acted as a wedge and that the new religion is having the effect, as per Benjamin Barber, of polarising the world. Just you won’t do that because you can’t readily shoehorn immigration into that.

  12. Kismet Hardy — on 12th August, 2010 at 12:36 pm  

    “They should isolate Iran”

    Yeah, isolating North Korea, Burma and Syria really did wonders for its people, didn’t it?

  13. RezaV — on 12th August, 2010 at 12:44 pm  

    Ben-six

    “The worst that Press TV achieves is misinforming its viewers about events inside Iran. That’s intensely loathsome, but poor rationale for censorship.”

    I oppose all censorship. This isn’t about censorship. If a bunch of British citizens, using British funding wish to broadcast anything then, as long as they don’t openly incite violence, they should be allowed to.

    However, Press TV is managed by and funded from Iran. A country that doesn’t allow us to set up a broadcaster on their soil. A country that bans sattelite dishes and jams broadcasts.

    I don’t see any problem with passing laws that prevent foreign regimes or organisations from funding, staffing or setting up ideological bodies in this country, whether they are mosques, ‘study’ centres, broadcasters or otherwise when we are not allowed to do the same on their soil.

    This type of Western-European altruism isn’t seen as a moral example in Arab, Iranian and Islamic culture generally. It is seen as weakness, stupidity and as something to exploit.

  14. douglas clark — on 12th August, 2010 at 12:52 pm  

    RezaV,

    I tend to believe nowt of what I read, and little enough of what I hear. I thought that this was down to some guy called Lou Reed, but apparently it has more of a history than that:

    You are young yet?but the time will arrive when you will learn to judge for yourself. ?Believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see.
    [1845 E. A. Poe in Graham's Mag. Nov. 194]

    It’s a good plan to believe half you see and nothing you hear.
    [1933 ‘R. Essex’ Slade of Yard xix.]

    I listened with the old magician’s warning lively in my mind; believe nothing of what you hear—and only half of what you see!
    [1979 D. Kyle Green River High ii.]

    The Democratic candidates are lined up, and they are making hot and heavy pitches for our votes. But, as the old saying goes, believe half of what you see and none of what you hear.
    [2002 Washington Times 16 Aug. A19]

    It seems to me that you are too close to Islamisists. It seems to me that they exercise your psyche more than they ought to do. I am less worried about them than I am about, say, Conservatives..

    It is your moral relativism that is in question here. Why you care about extremist voices within your own community, or ex-community, is your choice, not mine.

    Me?

    I think this society will give up religion of any stripe soon enough. And that includes God fearing Muslims, Jews and Christians. You only have to look at the statistics….

    Oh, happy day!

  15. Jai — on 12th August, 2010 at 12:58 pm  

    MaidMarian, BenSix, Douglas, Kismet,

    “RezaV” is lying about being an “ex-Iranian ex-Muslim”, and he was comprehensively exposed about this on PP last year when he attempted this charade over a period of several months.

    He’s actually a BNP activist who usually deploys the online username “Dan Dare”, and has prolifically commented on PP using that alias along with variations such as “notDigby”, “Donald”, and most recently “Xtian” (where he pretended to be an Indian Christian) and “Kris”, amongst numerous others.

    He is also a prolific contributor to the neo-Nazi forum Stormfront along with the racist, antisemitic website Majority Rights.

    Therefore, can I request that you all refrain from responding further to any comments he posts on this thread.

  16. RezaV — on 12th August, 2010 at 1:00 pm  

    Maidmarian

    “No one is born Islamic.”

    That’s not actually true. Under Islamic law, if your father is a Muslim then you are a Muslim.

    My father was technically a Muslim. Therefore, I was born a Muslim in Iran. When I decided to re-visit the country of my birth around 10 years ago, I had to apply for an Iranian birth certificate and passport. (Iran doesn’t allow dual nationality). My birth certificate said “Muslim”.

    I visited the Consulate in London and asked for it to be changed. I was told that it was impossible. Indeed I was told to “keep quiet!” I was warned that if I said this in Iran then I would be imprisoned or even executed.

    That’s just Iranian madness” you might say. Well now, all the major schools of Islamic Jurisprudence stipulate the death penalty for converting from Islam. What would they know?

    And take a look at that well-known right wing and ‘Islamophobic’ website, the BBC.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7355515.stm

    Apparently one third of the Vast Majority of Moderate British Muslims™ also believe that converts from Islam should be killed.

    Obviously they just don’t understand Islam as well as multiculturalist lefties do. And thankfully, none of the Muslims Doug’s met support any views like that.

  17. douglas clark — on 12th August, 2010 at 1:02 pm  

    Jai,

    Fair enough. But I was quite enjoying myself :-(

  18. Jai — on 12th August, 2010 at 1:08 pm  

    Douglas, given the circumstances, I suggest that silence is henceforth the most appropriate response.

  19. RezaV — on 12th August, 2010 at 1:12 pm  

    Jai

    I normally don’t get into personal slanging matches, but you really are a complete twat.

    Where on earth did you get that bullshit? “BNP activist”? “Dan Dare”? How on earth did you come to that conclusion? What fucking planet are you on?

    Stop cluttering up these debates with your adhominem and fantasist crap.

    If people want to debate with me then let them. If they don’t then they shouldn’t. If someone wants to delete me or block me then do so.

    I find your accusations deeply offensive. I loathe the BNP. I loathe Nazis. I used to treat you as a bit of a joke and posted messages to you in Farsi.

    No more. Hopefully, people will be able to figure out for themselves that you are a seriously deranged, paranoid and twisted individual.

    One day, I really would like to stick my handsome middle-eastern face in front of yours and call you a twat in person.

    I wish that this blog had an ignore button…

  20. douglas clark — on 12th August, 2010 at 1:18 pm  

    Anyway, are you going to ban him or summat?

    For he is being a wee tad controversial @ 16.

    He bases his ideas on opinion polls. I base mine on people I have met.

    Who knows who has a better handle on the Muslim community in the UK?

    Perhaps the number of Muslims standing as PPC’s for legitimate parties for seats in the UK parliament is indicative.

    But RezaV would assume that they are a fifth column.

    I don’t.

    I think everyone that stood as a lackey for a London centric Party is a sell out. But, you kind of knew that about me anyway, didn’t you? Colour of skin or religious beliefs doesn’t make you a better, or for that matter a worse, person.

    RezaV wants to speak against a group of people that are hardly homogenous…

  21. Kismet Hardy — on 12th August, 2010 at 1:25 pm  

    I went on stormfront and called myself Middle England Crusader, and on Ligali calling myself Afro Dizzy Actor. They both banned me at hello cunts

  22. douglas clark — on 12th August, 2010 at 1:30 pm  

    Kismet Hardy,

    Surely not?

    There is a web site called ‘hello cunts’?

    That is sure a step up from the Vagina Monologues…

  23. Jai — on 12th August, 2010 at 1:34 pm  

    Anyway, are you going to ban him or summat?

    Sunny has moderator privileges for his own threads, and will presumably make a decision in due course about summarily deleting further comments by Dan Dare/Reza along with possibly stripping this thread of his comments so far. He was already formally banned from PP by Sunny shortly before the General Election.

    In the meantime, as I said, everyone else should refrain from responding any further to him.

  24. joe90 — on 12th August, 2010 at 1:53 pm  

    Anyway back to the topic.

    If iran is attacked i would be surprised, especially with an economic crisis about to get worse for the US and Europe.

    With america bogged down in afghanistan and relying on iranian support in containing iraq. Opening a war on a 3rd front with iran is not feasible it would actually be suicidal.

  25. douglas clark — on 12th August, 2010 at 2:07 pm  

    Joe90,

    What has economics got to do with going to war?

    Name me one war-like state that didn’t go to war because of it’s economy.

  26. Kismet Hardy — on 12th August, 2010 at 2:15 pm  

    Not that I’m bored or anything, the anagram for Reza V, Dan Dare, Not Digby and Xtian is:

    ‘I tyrannized X-rated vagabond’

    Now. Where did I put that life of mine?

  27. RezaV — on 12th August, 2010 at 2:34 pm  

    Douglas

    “But RezaV would assume that they are a fifth column.”

    No I don’t. What I say is this:

    1. The majority of Muslims living in the UK support liberal democracy and oppose Islamic government and law.

    2. Muslims who support the establishment of Islamic government and laws are what I, and many others, call Islamists.

    3. Today, most Islamists support the establishment of Islamic government and law through peaceful means, such as incremental changes to laws and society, such as lobbying for only halal food to be served in state schools, preventing the insulting or even depiction of their prophet and through demographic change via immigration and high birth rates. This is not a conspiracy theory. Organisations such as HuT state these aims openly.

    4. A proportion of the Muslim population in the UK supports Islamism. Islamists are active in our universities and mosques.

    5. This proportion, whilst being a minority, is not a ‘tiny minority’.

    6. Countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran are funding and promoting their own brands of Islamism in this country.

    7. As the Muslim population here grows, then so will the number of Islamists within that population.

    8. The more Islamists we have in our country the more problems we will have.

    9. The vast majority of non-Muslims have no idea what Islamism is and how it is a threat to our way of life.

    10. A big problem with Islamism is that many of the ideas behind the ideology are drawn from Islam and have considerable support among many reputable Islamic scholars.

    11. As a result, the left are nervous about confronting or criticising Islamism in case they appear to be criticising Islam.

    12. And as most Muslims here belong to the ‘ethnic minorities’ that would be ‘racist’.
    .
    As for “fifth columns”, if only I was so lucky to be considered as such. I expected my opposition to mass immigration, multiculturalism and Islamificastion to be met with accusations of “racist!” or “fascist!” by the irrational left.

    But being accused of being a BNP activist who pretends to have been born in Iran is pathetic, even for the Stalinist scumbags that now infect the left.

  28. douglas clark — on 12th August, 2010 at 2:39 pm  

    Not that I’m bored either, but it seems to me that there was a lack of a Whig to stand up in Parliament and say:

    “Jenkins looks a damn sight better since he lost an ear. perhaps the Spanish could do us a favour and cut off the other one? And, bye the way, the economy is fucked because of the Black Death or summat, so’s now’s not the time to go to war… Incidentally, history will see us all as a bit silly”

    Never happened, did it?

    Of course there were darker matters at play here, like the right of the British to sell slaves to Spanish colonies…

  29. Refresh — on 12th August, 2010 at 2:48 pm  

    Douglas Clark,

    ‘It also seems to me that this could be resolved by insisting that UN weapons inspectors are sent into Iran, with a proper mandate.’

    Surely they need to go into Israel, that would fit in better with Obama’s (and my) desire for a nuclear free middle east and then the world?

  30. Sunny — on 12th August, 2010 at 2:54 pm  

    Oh look, its RezaV the BNP supporter.

    I worry about how the eco-loons are swamping our democracy, but there you go.

    You don’t like people with different views than you who worry about the destruction of the world you’re living in? How odd. Think that makes you more the loon than them.

  31. Soso — on 12th August, 2010 at 3:00 pm  

    RezaV’s pro-pos on immigration are being echoed by Sarkozy who is now thinking of taking drastic measures to exert a more effective control over immigration.

    Douglas Clark’s total denial of the dangers being cited by RezaV is frightening.

  32. douglas clark — on 12th August, 2010 at 3:03 pm  

    RezaV,

    Unless and until Sunny bans you, I will answer as best I can.

    Friedrich Nietzsche said something along the lines of:

    “If you look into the abyss, the abyss looks back”

    Meaning that we, all of us, are affected by the environment we live in. You will, perhaps, have noticed that the fruit loop commentators on here aren’t actually given the time of day. The madder end of the self identifying commentators – and make no mistake, they are mad – are ‘seen off’ by more reasoned voices. That is how this place works, seems to me.

    It also seems to me that the nutters, the islamicists if you like, or the occasional white birthright lunatic can’t handle the heat here.

    Jai, who I have not had the privilege of meeting yet, took the BNP apart on this very web site. He had me cheering him on. And I am a pasty, white guy. My complexion has nowt to do with my philosophy, and I’d assume, no, I know, that that applies vice versa. There are lots of Asians that comment here that would see a caliphate as an abhorrent contradiction to what they hold dear.

    Once you look into the mouth of the abyss, you are forever changed. For better or for worse…

    Folk that hark back to their roots are the very boring old Uncle at a party.

    So, RezaV, change is coming.

    Seems to me.

  33. douglas clark — on 12th August, 2010 at 3:19 pm  

    Soso,

    Why would I agree with that?

    You probably scare your kids by reading them bedtime stories about being swamped by the immigrants. It is you that is frightening, not me. Folk are just folk when all is done and dusted. Contrary to your jumped up importance, there is nothing particularily special about the UK.

    In principle I’d be in favour of a ‘no borders’ policy, although the practicalities of that are a Gordian Knot.

  34. cjcjc — on 12th August, 2010 at 3:33 pm  

    “Douglas Clark’s total denial of the dangers being cited by RezaV is frightening.”

    Yes it is, although those dangers can also be exaggerated.

    Though since he believes that “there is nothing particularily special about the UK” you can see why he might be rather insouciant about whatever dangers there might be.

    Personally I think the liberal values, the freedoms of the UK, and of the “West” more generally, are rather special.

    That does seem to be rather a minority view sometimes.

  35. MaidMarian — on 12th August, 2010 at 3:51 pm  

    Sunny – ‘You don’t like people with different views than you who worry about the destruction of the world you’re living in? How odd. Think that makes you more the loon than them.’

    Nice try. You don’t people who disagree with your eco-dogma and you wish to ram your morality down the collective throat.

  36. MaidMarian — on 12th August, 2010 at 3:52 pm  

    cjcjc -

    ‘Personally I think the liberal values, the freedoms of the UK, and of the “West” more generally, are rather special.’

    Yep

    ‘That does seem to be rather a minority view sometimes.’

    Can you elaborate on that?

  37. johng — on 12th August, 2010 at 4:12 pm  

    Presumably in a democracy if people promote communism then people make their own minds up. Without supreme guides like RezaV and his wierd totalitarian fantasies.

  38. cjcjc — on 12th August, 2010 at 4:19 pm  

    Hahaha – Respect/SWP supporter johng has the cheek to talk of others’ “totalitarian fantasies”

    “Presumably in a democracy if people promote communism then people make their own minds up.”

    Are they subsequently allowed to change them?

  39. RezaV — on 12th August, 2010 at 4:19 pm  

    Douglas

    “If you look into the abyss, the abyss looks back”

    The thing is, I feel that I am looking into the abyss. It’s not that often I have time to read blogs never mind post comments these days.

    Part of my motivation for doing so is to try to understand what arguments there are to support mass third-world immigration and the subsequent massive demographic change we’re experiencing.

    I want to believe that it will turn out fine. I don’t want to have to leave Britain one day because living here has become intolerable.

    What bothers me, is that there aren’t ANY rational arguments, supported by actual evidence or precedence. All I see and hear from the left is irrationality based upon blind faith. “Multiculturalism is good”. “Diversity is our strength”. I see head-burying, denial, stifling debate and downright insanity.

    These are not the actions of rational human beings but of fundamentalist zealots. Unquestioning ‘believers’. This is a new religion.

    You yourself wrote of me:

    “He bases his ideas on opinion polls. I base mine on people I have met.”

    The fact that you are unable to see the irrationality of that statement is staggering.

    We’re in this situation because for decades, anyone who questioned mass third-world immigration and the ideology of multiculturalism was shouted down as a “racist!” I witnessed this at university, and am ashamed of the fact that at the time I was also an irrational ‘believer’ and didn’t care that those ‘right-wing Tory posh-boys’ were getting slagged-off by my fellow students. I was oblivious to where it would lead.

    Today, it’s not enough to simply shout “racist!”

    As Orianna Falaci wrote, in the past fascists would break the bodies of those who disagreed with them. Today’s fascists seek to break the ‘souls’ of those who disagree with them.

    They’ll accuse you of being a “Nazi”. They’ll accuse you of being an “imposter” or “BNP activist”. They’ll sink to any depth of lies and insults in order to try to discredit you. Because for them, discrediting the person must mean that their argument has no credit.

    They’ll do it to anonymous posters like me. And they’ll do it to right-wing politicians and columnists. Just look at this blog for countless examples of the latter.

    I’m glad Douglas that your ‘faith’ is so strong that you feel that it’s enough to sit back and do nothing and that everything will turn out just fine regardless of the fact that there is no and has never been any tangiable evidence nor precedence to support your ‘faith’.

  40. douglas clark — on 12th August, 2010 at 4:19 pm  

    cjcjc,

    So the West in general is superior? Where do you draw the limits cjcjc? Is South America part of the West or not? How about Australasia?

    That’s four continents that subscribe, to a greater or lesser extent to something you claim is ‘special’. Clearly you could add India into the mix too and you are moving towards a ‘special’ that is in fact quite common.

    The idea that the UK is some sort of extra special case doesn’t.

    You are capable of seeing the difference I take it?

    Perhaps not…

  41. Dean — on 12th August, 2010 at 4:35 pm  

    Too many people dont read or do any real research on the internet and it sickens me…

    Does RezaV or Maid Moron Marian have ANY understanding of what is going on on the ground with the ordinary people of Iran right now? Two times there have been bogus elections, and by that I mean elections like in Burma that can be overturned in a second if the Witches in power don’t want it. The last elections meant a potent defeat of Ahmadinejad, but it meant nothing.

    The people in Iran want a regime change, not missile attacks. The regime needs to be killed by a thousand pin pricks. In actual fact, it IS dying by a thousand pin pricks, keep up the good work. Most Iranians want Secular law, free press and real education.. the only danger is that the Nuclear Bravado is the desperate behaviour of a terminal regime.

    Israel is barely an example of a healthy democracy itself… If it starts a nuclear war, we are all fucked.

  42. Soso — on 12th August, 2010 at 4:47 pm  

    You’ve got it all wrong. That’s not a drumbeat.

    They’re tom-toms!

    If the israelis go in, I do hope they’ll rescue Cyrus The Great’s cylinder.

    His progressive charter of rights and freedoms, including those surrounding religion, puts the present republic in a very bad light, and demonstrates just to what extent Islam renders people stupid and backward.

    The Persians of 2,500 years ago enjoyed far more rights and freedoms than the present inhabitants of Iran

  43. Bill — on 12th August, 2010 at 4:49 pm  

    I also have this radical idea. It involves Israel making significant overtures to its Arab neighbours by stop building illegal settlements, working with the Obama adminstration to build on peaceful steps, and offering Palestinians much more autonomy, aid and land.

    That seems fair enough. And what are your suggestions for the Arabs meeting the needs of Israel? Is there going to be a follow-up post stating them?

  44. RezaV — on 12th August, 2010 at 5:05 pm  

    Dean

    As a (pretend*) Iranian born person I was (pretending*) to be in Iran, visiting my (pretend*) Iranian family just after the disputed elections.

    I stayed in Niavaran, in the North of Teheran. One evening, I went to the roof-top of the apartment block with my aunt and uncles and joined in the anti-government shouting that became a nightly ritual at that time. (We crouched below the parapet as Basiji thugs were rumoured to be driving around trying to photgraph people on the roof tops.

    Ironically, most people simply shouted “Allah-o-akhbaar!” To show opposition to the Islamist regime!

    A couple of times I heard “margh bar dik-ta-tor!” ‘Death to the dictator’ in reference to Ahmadinejad. Once some brave soul shouted “marg bar Khaminei!” ‘Death to Khaminei!’ to an audable hush.

    I was corresponding with HP at the time and they asked me to write a witness account for them about the situation there. I declined because I knew that they wouldn’t be interested in an article that stated that Islamic government has popular support in Iran.

    So yes dude, I do have a (pretend) understanding of the situation in Iran.

    And I would like nothing else but to blame the situation there on a minority of Islamists oppressing the masses. That would certainly give me more ammunition with which to attack Islam, an ideology I’m none too fond of.

    So why do I claim that the regime has popular support? Because, outside of the well-off areas of the main cities, in the countryside, in the poorer areas, Islamic government has a lot of support. I’ve asked shop-keepers in Yazd. I spoken to tea-sellers in Esfahan. I’ve debated with cabbies in Karaj. The massive pro-regime demonstrations in Teheran and throughout the country are not faked. They’re real.

    The truth isn’t always what we want it to be. In my case the truth doesn’t even support my hopes or political ideology. The truth is utterly depressing to me.

    It’s just that I find it impossible to deny the truth, any truth, when I’ve stared it in the face.

    (*In case you were unaware, some idiot here keeps accusing me of being a Nazi activist “pretending” to be an Iranian born ex-Muslim. The cretin.)

  45. Dean — on 12th August, 2010 at 5:08 pm  

    Please could the ninnies read the NY times timeline on the unrest in Iran…. hardly a factional interpretation, kinda fair really.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/25/world/middleeast/20090625-iranelection-timeline.html?ref=iran

    Regarding Israel, well enoughs been said. Any state that is Religiously or Ethnically bound is ultimately a tyranny. In order to find a solution you probably need to acheive one or the other

    a). Create a secular poly-ethnic greater Palestine, more land, autonomy and education to all… ha ha ha…. As if!?!?!?… At least stop those whiny Right wing, SUV driving Jews from seizing more land and bulldozing Palestinians peoples lives in the process.

    b)Destroy the religions of Abraham and you might have a chance.. Sorry but am I not right?!

    or C)
    Exterminate all the Palestinian Arabs… (Ooops I think thats happenning!!!!) or the Jews (Could still yet happen, who knows).

    Ahhh forget it, just blockade all the arms to the middle east…

  46. Desi Italiana — on 12th August, 2010 at 5:16 pm  

    Hi Sunny :)

    “There’s only one option: either Israel attacks or the US does something drastic. The neo-cons have learnt absolutely-fucking-nothing from their previous escapades.”

    Yes, but I also think that the Dems are not all that opposed to neo-con positions when it comes to I/P. Personally speaking, I have been thoroughly been disappointed with the Obama administration’s response to Israel’s actions. And remember, Obama supported the recent “war” on Gaza (I put “war” in quotes cause every one called that episode a “war,” as if warlike tactics are not carried out regularly by the IDF in the Palestinian territories…I guess “war” would be the right term in terms of an upped intensity of warfare…).

    Seriously, as an American, I have been saying this for a long ass time…. CUT THE FUCKING AID TO ISRAEL NOW. That is the first step!

  47. Desi Italiana — on 12th August, 2010 at 5:20 pm  

    @Dean:

    “Any state that is Religiously or Ethnically bound is ultimately a tyranny. In order to find a solution you probably need to acheive one or the other.”

    Totally agree.

    It’s either a secular state (which is truly democratic, and none of this selective immigration sponsoring one religion over the other, demographic “red line” quotas and talk about another ethnic group being a ticking “demographic time bomb,”) where primacy of religion–and the basis of a state being religion–is scrapped, or else you will have a demographically cleansed state where practices that violate human rights are implemented.

  48. Sunny — on 12th August, 2010 at 5:22 pm  

    Nice try. You don’t people who disagree with your eco-dogma and you wish to ram your morality down the collective throat.

    What morality are we talking about here?

    You’re either denying climate change, or think any action against it is “moralising”. Unless you come up with proper solutions or ideas – you may as well be a ignorant hippy.

  49. douglas clark — on 12th August, 2010 at 5:23 pm  

    Desi Italiana,

    You are one of the people that I would not have met without OGH providing this forum.

    I agree with what you have to say @ 47. (Or 45 as it has now become, regular updates on the weather follow soon after this news item.)

    Especially the last paragraph….

  50. RezaV — on 12th August, 2010 at 5:23 pm  

    Douglas

    “So far, immigration hasn’t been an issue for me. Quite the opposite really.”

    That’ll be because you don’t live in South East London. Your child isn’t going to a school where they are the ONLY ‘white’ kid in the class and make up only 50% of the kids that actually speak English in that class.

    And I won’t waste time providing evidence or statistics. I know you’re not interested in those. I’ll let you have my ‘personal’ experience. I’m close to a supply teacher who teaches in southeast London. That’s the experience she gains in many of the schools she teaches in. The permanent TAs and nursery nurses (of all colours) whisper how it has gone too far, how it is out of control. But no one, not my friend nor the colleagues she works with is brave enough to voice their concerns aloud. That’s the environment we’re living in.

    One day Douglas, I hope your street becomes so ‘enriched’ by Somali immigration that you can enjoy the same, regular ‘vibrant’ experiences of my ex-house keeper, to the point where she had to leave the home she’d grown up in and move as far away from Woolwich that she could afford to.

    Perhaps then, immigration might become more of an ‘issue’ for you.

  51. Brownie — on 12th August, 2010 at 5:26 pm  

    If the inspectors continue to be obstructed and it’s true that sanctions will hurt ordinary Iranians and in fact help to prop up the Iranian regme, what is the great plan to make Iran comply with their obligations as regards coming clean about their nuclear intent? Or are you just not that interested in actually finding a solution?

    I’m asking because, if all other efforts to cajole and persuade Iran fail, I’d like to know if you think it’s acceptable to ask your average inhabitant of Tel Aviv, Arab and Jew, to sit with their fingers crossed hoping that the efforts of the megalomaniacal Ahmadinejad to conceal Iran’s true intent is a big charade that in reality hides nothing? I realise this isn’t a concern that stresses too many bloggers sitting a comfortable few thousand miles away from any potential ground zero in Israel, but do you not think this is something of a big ask of those whose families will be turned to dust in the event your inexpert guesswork turns out to be wrong?

  52. Desi Italiana — on 12th August, 2010 at 5:28 pm  

    @Douglas:

    “(Or 45 as it has now become, regular updates on the weather follow soon after this news item.)”

    Oooooh….we can edit our own comments, I see.

    “You are one of the people that I would not have met without OGH providing this forum.”

    Thanks! What’s “OGH?”

  53. Brownie — on 12th August, 2010 at 5:30 pm  

    Of course, where “Dean” says “Jews” in 43, he actually means “Israelis”. He just forgot himself for one moment.

    I think we need another post on “hate-speech” in the comments boxes at HP. Whaddya reckon, Sunny?

  54. douglas clark — on 12th August, 2010 at 5:39 pm  

    Brownie,

    I think it would be true to say that you are a London based blogger?

    Your concern seems a tad false given the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons right now and delivery systems too.

    The charade, as you call it, is that turning downtown Tehran into a nuclear parking lot is at the behest of the idiots in governance in Israel. I think the citizens of Tehran have more need for sleepless nights than the idiots that voted in the present government of Israel..

    Your mileage may vary….

  55. BenSix — on 12th August, 2010 at 5:41 pm  

    Reza -

    I’m not sure that an-eye-for-an-eye is a valid rationale for proscribing foreign investment. Then again, it’s not a field I’ve thought about at length/any real knowledge of, so perhaps we’ll have to agree to – well – maintain our current thoughts.

    By the way, Hitchens makes a woeful case for “tak[ing] out the regimehere. Unless I’ve misinterpreted the fellow, he’s arguing that invasion is merited because Iran is “menacing“. Well, the United States is hardly easy-going but I won’t clamour for all-out war.

  56. Desi Italiana — on 12th August, 2010 at 5:43 pm  

    @Brownie:

    “Of course, where “Dean” says “Jews” in 43, he actually means “Israelis”.”

    Not to answer for Dean, but I think when he is talking about settlers, it’s not non-Jewish individuals, and in a lot of cases, they are not even Israelis, but people from places like the US (also, Israelis can be both Jewish and non-Jewish–though not not always treated equally and much smaller in percentage–). That is actually the problem–selective immigration based on religion and dispossessing and displacing another set of people and barring them out…I think we already knew this??

  57. BenSix — on 12th August, 2010 at 5:43 pm  

    Sorry but am I not right?!

    No. You’re not.

  58. douglas clark — on 12th August, 2010 at 5:47 pm  

    Desi Italiana @ some number,

    OGH means Our Good Host, means Sunny. He gives us this forum and doesn’t, generally, stop us from chatting…

    He is one of the good guys….

  59. douglas clark — on 12th August, 2010 at 5:53 pm  

    Ben Six @ 54, currently,

    Who were you replying to?

  60. Desi Italiana — on 12th August, 2010 at 5:54 pm  

    @Douglas

    “OGH means Our Good Host, means Sunny. He gives us this forum and doesn’t, generally, stop us from chatting…”

    Oh, OK, got it.

    Well, OGH doesn’t stop *us* from chatting, but he certainly never chats with *me*… :( Sniff sniff

    Anyway, back to my miserable, low-paying, exploitative job.

  61. BenSix — on 12th August, 2010 at 5:55 pm  

    One “Dean”.

  62. douglas clark — on 12th August, 2010 at 6:07 pm  

    Brownie,

    Are you interested in the debate that is happening here or simply a terrible truth mangler?

    You say:

    I’m asking because, if all other efforts to cajole and persuade Iran fail, I’d like to know if you think it’s acceptable to ask your average inhabitant of Tel Aviv, Arab and Jew, to sit with their fingers crossed hoping that the efforts of the megalomaniacal Ahmadinejad to conceal Iran’s true intent is a big charade that in reality hides nothing?

    Arab? Are these not the hostages for the Jewish State?

    You have no idea how pathetic you sound Brownie. Send in the grown ups.

    Is it not the case that your preferred web site, Harry’s Place, has been completely found out as a place for stupid people?

    Just asking…..

  63. Desi Italiana — on 12th August, 2010 at 6:08 pm  

    @BenSix:

    “Hitchens makes a woeful case for “tak[ing] out the regime” here.”

    It’s hard to take Hitchens seriously after the his support of the Iraq invasion. He’s a little too trigger happy who is not all that consistent either (as you point out, the US is arguably a LOT more menacing than the lesser powers put together, but he wouldn’t call for an invasion of the US, would he?).

  64. douglas clark — on 12th August, 2010 at 6:20 pm  

    Desi Italiana,

    I have been commenting on here for bloody ages and Sunny only comments on what I have to say when he agrees strongly or disagrees a lot.

    Which is as it should be if you are going to have the title OGH.

    :-)

    And, maybe, trimmed beard of the year 2010.

    I love the guy.

    I would vote for him if he could work out a party to stand for.

    The SNP is awaiting your call, Mr Hundal!

  65. Brownie — on 12th August, 2010 at 6:21 pm  

    Arab? Are these not the hostages for the Jewish State?

    Every time I think you’ve said the most stupid thing I’ve ever read on the internets, you come along a few minutes later and better yourself.

    Arab Israelis enjoy more rights, freedoms and democracy than any Arab living in any Arab state you could name. Only in Dougie land does anyone suppose Arab Israelis avail themselves of these rights and freedoms under duress.

    You’ve seen too much television Dougie.

  66. Brownie — on 12th August, 2010 at 6:24 pm  

    Is it not the case that your preferred web site, Harry’s Place, has been completely found out as a place for stupid people?

    When should we expect you?

  67. douglas clark — on 12th August, 2010 at 6:47 pm  

    Brownie @ 62,

    You, yes you are treating them as hostages. What other interpretation was anyone meant to make of your pathetic attempt to pretend that Israel cares about it’s Arab community.

    I’m asking because, if all other efforts to cajole and persuade Iran fail, I’d like to know if you think it’s acceptable to ask your average inhabitant of Tel Aviv, Arab and Jew, to sit with their fingers crossed hoping that the efforts of the megalomaniacal Ahmadinejad to conceal Iran’s true intent is a big charade that in reality hides nothing?

    You said it Brownie.

    It is bad enough that Israel has nuclear weapons and pretends it doesn’t. It is ridiculous that they might use them. You are a nuclear conflict sort of guy, living probably in London somewhere.

    A point you have failed to address, because it doesn’t become you to admit that you are as remote from the reality as I hope I am.

    Anyways:

    Every time I think you’ve said the most stupid thing I’ve ever read on the internets, you come along a few minutes later and better yourself.

    The sensation is mutual. I think you are an utter bullshitter on behalf of Israel. Contrary to your stupid, half assed opinions, I am in favour of a mutually tolerant State within the boundaries of Israel. Not, however, your intolerant bullshit. Nor your lies about Iran having nuclear weapons. I thought you idiots would have kept quiet after having been exposed as bullshitters over Iraq’s nuclear capability. Perhaps you see a failed arguement as persuasive. No-one else does.

    You, Brownie, are an escapee from the crash site disaster that used to be ‘Harry’s Place’.

    It is a dead parrot. So are you.

  68. Brownie — on 12th August, 2010 at 7:20 pm  

    I think you are an utter bullshitter on behalf of Israel.

    I hardly ever comment on I/P threads. So your description of me is a bit wayward.

    Nor your lies about Iran having nuclear weapons.

    I’ve never said they did. Reproduce the line that supports your claim.

    I thought you idiots would have kept quiet after having been exposed as bullshitters over Iraq’s nuclear capability.

    I never, ever argued that we had to invade Iraq because it had a nuclear capablity. Ever.

    I haven’t read so many lies since, oh, the last time we spoke.

    Do carry on.

  69. joe90 — on 12th August, 2010 at 7:20 pm  

    post #25

    I said it would be surprising i did not say it was impossible. At a time when our ministry of defence is cutting costs and the US on the tip of the second stage of a recession another war would increases taxes and the debt.

    Afghanistan is a failure and iraq is a complete mess iran would be a step too far in my opinion.

  70. FlyingRodent — on 12th August, 2010 at 7:28 pm  

    @Brownie: …the efforts of the megalomaniacal Ahmadinejad…

    Back to the dictionary, I think – Ahmadinejad is certainly a racist, a crank and a blood-soaked fuckhead, but not a megalomaniac. After all, IIRC, Iran hasn’t attacked anyone since the religious loonies took over in ’79.

    Since then ourselves and the Americans have we’ve been in wars with Argentina, Iraq (twice, US still occupying it), Afghanistan and Serbia; the Yanks have bombed/sent troops to Lebanon, Grenada, Libya, Somalia and Pakistan. In the middle east, well, where to start? The Israelis have invaded and smashed fuck out of Lebanon (twice); bombed Syria and repeatedly invaded and bombed the occupied territories. The Syrians – Lebanon; Iraq has invaded Kuwait and… Iran.

    Of course, Iran’s still a godawful place to live and its government are violently-inclined bastards. The point I’m trying to make here though is that a Briton calling an Iranian a “megalomaniac” is like… What? The pot calling the kettle black? An HP blogger complaining about nasty comments?

  71. Bill — on 12th August, 2010 at 7:31 pm  

    It is bad enough that Israel has nuclear weapons and pretends it doesn’t. It is ridiculous that they might use them.

    As I understood it, Israel refuses to confirm or deny that it possesses nuclear weapons, rather than “pretends it doesn’t”.

    Furthermore, since the unconfirmed nukes have become common knowledge in the late 1970s, Israel has not suffered any significant conventional attack by the militaries of the Arab countries, in contrast to previous decades.

    I’m not sure why this is a situation that can be described as “bad”, unless it’s considered “good” for a conventional war to break out across the Middle East, and I’m certainly confused as to why it’s “ridiculous” to possess weapons that might be used. It would seem more ridiculous to possess weapons that would never be used.

  72. Desi Italiana — on 12th August, 2010 at 7:32 pm  

    @Joe90

    “I said it would be surprising i did not say it was impossible.”

    Yeah, don’t put it past us, we Americans do a lot of stupid irrational ish, recession or not. To enumerate how in an exhaustive list here is…well, exhausting. And depressing. Not to mention disappointing, which leads to disillusionment and resignation. Some days I think it would be better to abolish Congress, bulldoze the current establishment, and start from scratch, see where it leads to…Maybe someone should invade us…just kidding…lol

  73. douglas clark — on 12th August, 2010 at 7:39 pm  

    Brownie,

    Piss off, there’s a good lad.

    You have made comments here that are in your favour

    Do I need to quote them? Well, perhaps I do:

    I’m asking because, if all other efforts to cajole and persuade Iran fail, I’d like to know if you think it’s acceptable to ask your average inhabitant of Tel Aviv, Arab and Jew, to sit with their fingers crossed hoping that the efforts of the megalomaniacal Ahmadinejad to conceal Iran’s true intent is a big charade that in reality hides nothing?

    Are we supposed to assume that he would hit Tel Aviv with roses? Not in the context of your fear or hate. You decide Brownie. It is pretty plain that you are speaking about Armageddon, in the sense of a nuclear conflict. That is what you are playing with Brownie, a fucking nuclear conflict.

    You also said:

    or your lies about Iran having nuclear weapons.

    I’ve never said they did. Reproduce the line that supports your claim.

    I think most folk would think you did Brownie.

    Is that accurate?

    Or perhaps you, Brownie would like to make it as clear as day that you don’t believe Teheran has a nuclear capability. That would be good Brownie.

    I’ve never said they did. Reproduce the line that supports your claim.

    Would that not be a tad contradictory to the first quote?

    You are a slippery customer Brownie, as befits you. Truth appears to be a variable in the Brownie Universe.

    Perhaps that is what a legal training does for you. Ex is Wye and Wye is Zed.

    Explain your inherent contradictions or bugger off.

  74. Sarah AB — on 12th August, 2010 at 7:39 pm  

    Even before Brownie commented I found myself wondering how I’d feel about this issue if I lived in Israel. Answer = stressed, (though I’m neither Arab nor Jewish). I think there’s a bit of a leap from identifying tensions/discrimination within Israel to describing its Arab citizens as ‘hostages for the Jewish state.’

  75. Bill — on 12th August, 2010 at 7:40 pm  

    Since then ourselves and the Americans have we’ve been in wars with Argentina, Iraq (twice, US still occupying it), Afghanistan and Serbia; the Yanks have bombed/sent troops to Lebanon, Grenada, Libya, Somalia and Pakistan. In the middle east, well, where to start? The Israelis have invaded and smashed fuck out of Lebanon (twice); bombed Syria and repeatedly invaded and bombed the occupied territories. The Syrians – Lebanon; Iraq has invaded Kuwait and… Iran.

    Iran has “been in wars” with Saddam’s Iraq. Of course, it was a defensive war waged after Iraq attacked. But so were most of the examples you cite as evidence against Britain, the USA and Israel. I’m not sure why you’ve employed a double standard in your comparison but I can hazard a guess.

  76. Desi Italiana — on 12th August, 2010 at 7:43 pm  

    @Bill:

    “Furthermore, since the unconfirmed nukes have become common knowledge in the late 1970s, Israel has not suffered any significant conventional attack by the militaries of the Arab countries, in contrast to previous decades.

    I’m not sure why this is a situation that can be described as “bad”, unless it’s considered “good” for a conventional war to break out across the Middle East”

    Nuclear deterrence doesn’t work because one has nuclear weapons; that is, it is not cause and effect, but actually, luck. The US and the Soviet Union *were* actually on the brink of a nuclear war, so one state or states having nuclear weapons doesn’t mean that it leads to less conflict and violence.

    In fact, in a lop-sided scenario such as this one (and also, like the US having major nuclear weapons and supremacy of military might) leads some governments to act with impunity. I’m not saying that there needs to be “conventional” warfare as you put it so that people can duke it out; what I’m saying is that nuclear deterrence doesn’t work, and it also grants some the carte blanche to do as they please, knowing that there is, and will be, very little resistance or true opposition. I mean, look at that concept at a microscopic situation within I/P itself: Israel=military might, army and defense, high grade weaponry and Palestinians=no army and defense, de-militarized, whatever weapons they have are like stones compared to Apache helicopters (in most cases, literally), smuggled inferior arms, or homemade stuff. Rockets vs. phosphorus bombs. That kind of thing.

  77. KJB — on 12th August, 2010 at 7:46 pm  

    Yay! Desi Italiana’s back!

    Utterly unsurprised that a push for war with Iran is being made; with neo-cons, it tends to be a matter of ‘when’ rather than ‘if,’ it seems.

  78. Desi Italiana — on 12th August, 2010 at 7:47 pm  

    @Bill

    “But so were most of the examples you cite as evidence against Britain, the USA and Israel.”

    Uh—really? Like for example the bombing of Yugoslavia was self-defense for the US????? This is news to me…

    LOL, are you trolling? I can’t imagine how something like this could be said without it being a spoof…

  79. Desi Italiana — on 12th August, 2010 at 7:48 pm  

    Hey KJB! How have you been?

  80. joe90 — on 12th August, 2010 at 7:48 pm  

    post#75

    You have a very strange world view if you think the likes of invading iraq and the israelis bombing lebanon where defensive wars!

  81. FlyingRodent — on 12th August, 2010 at 7:50 pm  

    I’m not sure why you’ve employed a double standard in your comparison but I can hazard a guess.

    Now there’s a classy argument for you. God only knows what’s going through folk’s minds when they say this kind of thing. Not a lot, I imagine.

    defensive war

    Some, sure. Not all, by a long shot, and damn few as justifiable as fighting to stop the aggressive invasion of your country.

  82. FlyingRodent — on 12th August, 2010 at 7:59 pm  

    While I’m at it, the basic point I’m making here is that the Iranians may be vicious, but obviously they aren’t Hitler.

    Further, the Iranians (vicious) may have all kinds of regional plans – plans to infiltrate and undermine their neighbours, plans to aid and comfort Israel’s enemies… But as best I can tell, they have no plans to invade Tel Aviv. Cruel and repressive, yes, but the Iranian government has no designs on Washington.

    I defy anyone to pretend that the US Congress has no plans for Tehran, though. The point is that, if we’re tossing words like “megalomaniacal” around, maybe we should have a think about how what they mean first.

  83. Brownie — on 12th August, 2010 at 8:02 pm  

    Here’s how my online dictionary defines “megalomania”:

    “A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.”

    In other words, if you physically looked it up in a Collins, you’d probably find a picture of Ahmadinejad…in all likelihood next to his quote about Israel, pages in history, and the aforementioned state no longer appearing in them.

    What does your dictionary say, FR?

  84. Desi Italiana — on 12th August, 2010 at 8:03 pm  

    The thought of yet *another* war somewhere else in the world–which is, given the current economic situation and so many other problems, fragile right now– is fucking insane.

    You know what is depressing is that even if that Atlantic article proves to be true, what could people *do* to stop the war machine in its tracks? Nothing. I don’t mean to be a pessimist, but past examples have shown that no amount of protesting and opposition by people will change what governments decide to do.

  85. Brownie — on 12th August, 2010 at 8:04 pm  

    While I’m at it, the basic point I’m making here is that the Iranians may be vicious, but obviously they aren’t Hitler.

    That noise you just heard was the collective sigh of relief from the population of Israel.

  86. Desi Italiana — on 12th August, 2010 at 8:08 pm  

    Didn’t the author of this article, Jeffrey Goldberg, argue for the invasion of Iraq?

    UPDATE:

    He did:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2071670/entry/2071900/

    http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/03/25/020325fa_FACT1

    Anyway.

  87. FlyingRodent — on 12th August, 2010 at 8:10 pm  

    Fair enough – mine (oed) says “Obsession with the exercise of power”. I know people like that, but Mea culpa – I was thinking of the Hollywood, Hitleresque version.

    That noise you just heard was the collective sigh of relief from the population of Israel.

    It sounded a lot more like a disingenuous attempt to concern-troll the idea of a catastrophically misjudged attack on Iran until it seems non-insane, to me.

  88. douglas clark — on 12th August, 2010 at 8:15 pm  

    Well, here we have brain dead Israelli supporter Brownie out in all his stripes:

    In other words, if you physically looked it up in a Collins, you’d probably find a picture of Ahmadinejad…in all likelihood next to his quote about Israel, pages in history, and the aforementioned state no longer appearing in them.

    Probably not.

    Could Brownie use better analogies?

    Just asking, lest he looks like a fool.

  89. Bill — on 12th August, 2010 at 8:48 pm  

    The US and the Soviet Union *were* actually on the brink of a nuclear war, so one state or states having nuclear weapons doesn’t mean that it leads to less conflict and violence.

    Curious. The US and the USSR backed down from their confrontation over Cuba — which didn’t actually lead to shots being fired by either side — when it became clear that nuclear weapons would become involved if hostilities broke out. I’m not sure how you spin that as an example of nuclear weapons not preventing a conflict, when a conflict was actually prevented — perhaps some kind of blog logic I haven’t fully grasped yet.

    look at that concept at a microscopic situation within I/P itself: Israel=military might, army and defense, high grade weaponry and Palestinians=no army and defense, de-militarized

    I quite carefully stated that conventional warfare between the militaries of established states had not occurred since the Israeli nukes became a fact, so your counter-point widely misses the mark.

    God only knows what’s going through folk’s minds when they say this kind of thing. Not a lot, I imagine.

    You are free to imagine anything you like. While you are at, perhaps you might like to think up a counter-argument to my point that you employed a double standard in your comparison that rendered it invalid if not outright dishonest.

    Further, the Iranians (vicious) may have all kinds of regional plans – plans to infiltrate and undermine their neighbours, plans to aid and comfort Israel’s enemies… But as best I can tell, they have no plans to invade Tel Aviv.

    Hamas do have such plans, and Iran offers material support to them. Someone should send an urgent telegram to Ahmadinejad pointing out that this support is undermining Iranian plans to not invade Tel Aviv.

    I defy anyone to pretend that the US Congress has no plans for Tehran, though.

    Where can we find out more about these plans of the US Congress for Tehran? The deliberations of that august body are in the public domain; feel free to point us at a reference.

  90. Bill — on 12th August, 2010 at 8:53 pm  

    Like for example the bombing of Yugoslavia was self-defense for the US????? This is news to me…

    It was in the defense of the Kosova Albanians, authorized by the United Nations, in which countries beyond the US and UK played a supporting role. Is the US and UK to be condemned for acting to stop genocide?

  91. Refresh — on 12th August, 2010 at 9:44 pm  

    Desi Italiana

    Just dropped in to say hello. Hope all is well in your world.

  92. Brownie — on 12th August, 2010 at 10:09 pm  

    FR,

    I’m certainly not advocating war on Iran. Not yet, at least. However, it would be intresting know a little more about the grand ideas for forcing Iran’s hand in the event the obstruction of inspectors continues and sanctions are opposed and/or it’s determined they do more harm than good. I realise there are some people with nothing to lose – I mean literally nothing to lose, as in, they live a safe distance from Tel Aviv – who will happily live in hope that Ahmadinejad isn’t quite the looney toon most imagine him to be and/or that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are non-hostile, but you don’t need to be paid up member of AIPAC to understand why Joe Schmoe in Israel might be a tad nervous about such a situation. Do you?

    I mean, let’s be straight here: if Iran does turn out to be a beligerent nuclear power, there’s not a Briton, a Yank, an Egyptian, or even an Iraqi these days who will so much as cop a bruise. On the other hand, there are approximately 7.5 million Israelis, roughly a quarter of whom are Arabs, who probably need to start digging family-sized holes in their gardens.

    I’m trying to think of the moral or logical justification for demands that any Israeli government sit with its thumb up its arse in perpetuity on the off-chance that Iran turns out to be all anti-Semitic mouth and no nuclear trousers, made as they are by the people who most assuredly will not die if said gamble does not pay off.

    Since when was being prepared to give the Iranian regime the benefit of the doubt the prerogative of those whose families will not be incinerated in the event this is shown to be one of the biggest fucking mistakes in the history of mankind?

  93. douglas clark — on 12th August, 2010 at 10:24 pm  

    Oh for fucks sake,

    The Brownie has this to say:

    I’m certainly not advocating war on Iran. Not yet, at least.

    How many directions can a man point in at any one time?

    Is it any wonder that Harry’s Place imploded with this sort of shit for brains?

  94. douglas clark — on 12th August, 2010 at 10:39 pm  

    I am pretty reassured that Brownie lives in London and is, in fact, in as little direct danger for the policies he advocates as I am. For he hasn’t denied it. Which would be a Harry’s Place criteria.

    There has been no denial of that idea, for Brownie is quite frankly a keyboard warrior of the first rank of Harry’s Place’s best.

    Perhaps a Keyboard warrior, exemplary.

    Which would suggest that Harry;s Place shouldn’t release their best on the rest of the internet, lest the be shown up for the fools they undoubtedly are.

    The difference between him and I is that he is a warmonger and I am not.

    Still, the longer he hangs around here, the bigger the fool he will make of himself. I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies…

  95. MaidMarian — on 12th August, 2010 at 10:49 pm  

    Brownie – For what it’s worth, the questions about Iran’s stance with respect to Israel are, for me, by some way the most compelling argument for suspicion about Iran.

    I suspect that Iran is a paper tiger. That having been said, the Iranian leadership has made hostility to Israel a very unpalatable part of Middle East politics.

    I would add that North Korea is a much bigger worry for me than is Iran, but no one ever seems to want to talk about that.

  96. FlyingRodent — on 12th August, 2010 at 10:54 pm  

    Brownie,

    There is probably no way – military, political, economic or diplomatic – to stop the Iranians developing nukes, if they’re determined to get them. It would make more sense for them to sit on the cusp of achieving nuclear weapons, which gives them a big bargaining chip, but they may just bash ahead. Either way, we can’t predict and I’ll remind you that the current situation according to US intelligence is that there is no current nuclear weapons programme. That report wasn’t written by pinkos, you know.

    If the Iranians do get nukes, it’s a godawful thing to happen, but there’s no reason to believe that it’ll instantly result in a nuclear war. Nuclear deterance does have a good record and the Iranians may be racist, religious headbangers, but if there’s one thing they’ve shown in the past two decades, it’s that they’re not gung-ho, fire-now-and-fuck-the-consequences idiots. That description better fits us than them.

    Let’s be clear here – the greatest vendors of OMG Israel will be destroyed! stories are the Israeli political class themselves. No doubt the Israelis will be very, very alarmed if Iran gets a couple of nukes, but an Israeli attack on Iran could be an utter catastrophe.

    Bluntly, it would put white uniforms with natty red crosses on every American, British and Israeli soldier in the region. We could be looking at total war and economic meltdown in days. It’d be unpardonable lunacy. I think that a cold war would be terrible, but a hot war would probably turn genocidal sooner rather than later.

  97. douglas clark — on 12th August, 2010 at 11:02 pm  

    Flying Rodent,

    Why do you think Brownie cares about your analysis? Brownie wants to drop bombs.

    I refer you to this comment by the worlds leading global strategist:

    I’m certainly not advocating war on Iran. Not yet, at least.

  98. FlyingRodent — on 12th August, 2010 at 11:19 pm  

    I doubt he does care. Nonetheless, there’s a lot – and I mean a lot – of bullshit gets slung around on this issue, and it’s worth pointing out the silliest parts of it.

  99. cris — on 12th August, 2010 at 11:29 pm  

    I’m a romanian and i’m so so angry on our president that said tonight that Romania will support Israel in a war with Iran.We don’t need wars,Iraq was for nothing,this is just propaganda ,and a reason to take the oil and control the arab countries.They are not all terorist,this is just a word to scare the stupid ones.Of cours they strike back if someone attack them,wich is a fair thing to do.Leave Iran alone or will be a world war 3.

  100. Bill — on 12th August, 2010 at 11:30 pm  

    Nuclear deterance does have a good record and the Iranians may be racist, religious headbangers, but if there’s one thing they’ve shown in the past two decades, it’s that they’re not gung-ho, fire-now-and-fuck-the-consequences idiots.

    That I actually would agree with.

    That description better fits us than them.

    Given the very foolish wars of choice the have been launched by Bush and Blair, I would say you have a point here as well. The Afghan War should have lasted just long enough to topple the Taliban and instill fear and respect in their fellow barbarians; the Iraq War should never have happened at all. “It was worse than a crime — it was a mistake.”

    Let’s be clear here – the greatest vendors of OMG Israel will be destroyed! stories are the Israeli political class themselves.

    Which is natural and should be perfectly understandable, especially given the history of the persecution of the Jews. You can expect those directly in the firing line to shout the loudest about it whether they are members of the political class or not.

    Bluntly, it would put white uniforms with natty red crosses on every American, British and Israeli soldier in the region. We could be looking at total war and economic meltdown in days. It’d be unpardonable lunacy. I think that a cold war would be terrible, but a hot war would probably turn genocidal sooner rather than later.

    I’m not sure what you mean — a genocide by who against whom? I think it would be very rash for any Middle Eastern state with a handful of atomic weapons to directly threaten one of the nuclear-armed Western countries (and I do mean the countries, not the bases in the ME). The political climate in the West is likely to turn on a dime in a direction extremely unfavorable for that ME country if it did so. I guess it depends how seriously we take the Iranian leadership’s flamboyant support for those committed to martyrdom. Do they really believe the crap they spout, or are they really like the elites we are more familiar with in the West, who don’t really believe in very much at all, at least in private?

  101. Brownie — on 13th August, 2010 at 12:07 am  

    The difference between him and I is that he is a warmonger and I am not.

    Me am most certainly not a warmonger, Doug. Me am absolutely certain about that.

    FR, I’m not sure I’m convinced that Iran would ever live out its fantasies for wiping Israel from the pages of history even if it did develop a nuclear weapons capability, but I don’t think too much can be read into its failure to directly engage Israel to date. They would have had their arses handed to them if they’d tried, and anyway why should they bother when their Hezbollah proxies are ready and willing to do the grunt work for them?

    But I’m still seeing no answer to the direct question of how we force Iranian compliance on inspections in the event of continued obstruction and assuming it is agreed sanctions are counter-proiductive? In fact, I’m still not clear whether you accept there is a problem that needs to be solved? Is there a plan B, or do you propose – as your last comment seems to imply – that we adopt the que sera view? If the latter, and whatever misgivings you personally might have about pre-emptive strikes by Israel, I assume you don’t find it *that* hard to appreciate why many non-headbanger Israelis might regard that as, if not unutterably reckless, then something of a risk too far? I’m not talking about an invasion of Iran, rather targeted strikes designed to incapacitate or destroy suspected nuclear facilities.

    No doubt the Israelis will be very, very alarmed if Iran gets a couple of nukes, but an Israeli attack on Iran could be an utter catastrophe.

    It could be, but I don’t believe a strike of the sort I describe would necessarily lead to the sort of nightmare conflagration scenario you outline. Of course, such an Israeli attack could also prevent a different sort of catastrophe taking place on the streets of Tel Aviv. I guess it all depends on who turns out to be right in the high-stakes game of international poker played with Israeli lives.

    For the record, I’ve long since been of the view that before things get better in the ME, they’ll have to get a lot worse. I think a major conventional conflict involving Israel, Syria and/or Iran plus others is more or less inevitable at some point in the next 20 years. Once the dust settles, chances of a enduring peace will improve, but there’ll be a lot of blood on the sand before we get there, unfortunately.

  102. Kismet Hardy — on 13th August, 2010 at 12:26 am  

    “Ironically, most people simply shouted “Allah-o-akhbaar!” To show opposition to the Islamist regime!”

    come again?

  103. Kismet Hardy — on 13th August, 2010 at 12:29 am  

    Allah-u-akbar (an Iranian would know how to spell this for fuck’s sake) is the call of Allah’s followers the world over, you fake twat.

    J’accuse. I claim my 5 euros.

  104. FlyingRodent — on 13th August, 2010 at 12:42 am  

    I’m still seeing no answer to the direct question of how we force Iranian compliance on inspections in the event of continued obstruction…

    Because there is no answer. Nothing short of total war and occupation are going to force the Iranians to comply, not even air strikes. The options are a) World War 3 or b) just putting up with it or, the still-possible c) Iran not actually building nukes.

    The US and the Israelis may find this terrifying, but they’re probably just going to have to lump it.

    For the record, I’ve long since been of the view that before things get better in the ME, they’ll have to get a lot worse.

    I’m of the view that a war between Israel and Iran with the US dragged in will be a catastrophe on a global scale. Anyone advocating opening this Pandora’s box is a dangerous lunatic who needs to be restrained and injected with gallons of thorazine.

  105. Sunny — on 13th August, 2010 at 1:15 am  

    I’m certainly not advocating war on Iran. Not yet, at least.

    Heh. What a get-out clause. This is simply a matter of time.

    I’m still seeing no answer to the direct question of how we force Iranian compliance on inspections in the event of continued obstruction…

    There are plenty: for a start get Israel to comply with the NPT too – so it doesn’t look like a hypocritical bully.

    Then you isolate Iran by getting Israel to have closer relations with others part of the Middle East (as I point out in my blog post).

    But you’re not interested in that. You and the rest of the neo-cons will continually say that no one is making viable suggestions, which obviously leads you to support war.

  106. Brownie — on 13th August, 2010 at 2:14 am  

    Heh. What a get-out clause. This is simply a matter of time

    Sunny, unless you are prepared to volunteer that there are not now and never will be any circumstances in which you would countenance war with Iran, then the inherent logic of “I’m not advocating war on Iran. At least, not yet” applies to you equally. It’s something of a stretch, but I can just about envisage a situation where war with Belgium ought to be countenanced. So it is with Iran also.

    And I’m struggling to see how Iran could be more isolated than it is currently? There is no queue of Arab countries lining up to support Iran’s right to develop a nuclear capability, you know? Can you be more specific about the countries currently friendly with Tehran whom we should be persuading – or whom Israel with changes in policy could persuade – to disown Iran?

    As it is, I really don’t get the sense Ahmadinejad cares a whole lot for how isolated Iran is currently or the marginal increments of isolation it might possibly endure in the future.

    Re Israel’s actions, I don’t need to be convinced that there are steps Israel could and should take that would, I think, lead to better relations with some ME players. A cessation to settlement building in east Jerusalem would be an example of such a step. Where I part company with you is the fanciful notion that Israel can do anything – short of pushing itself into the Med – that would mollify Iran’s theocratical fruitloops. I don’t, for example, think Tehran gives a rat’s ass about the Palestinians.

    All in all, where you say there is “plenty” more we can do to force Iranian compliance peacefully, I’m struggling to both see any evidence of this “plenty” and be convinced of the efficacy of the very small part of this “plenty” you articulate.

    You and the rest of the neo-cons

    Sunny, you wouldn’t know neo-conservatism if it marched into your bedroom dressed as Richard the Lionheart and started to build a Christian enclave in your sock drawer.

  107. douglas clark — on 13th August, 2010 at 8:17 am  

    Brownie,

    Most folk that comment here do so in good faith. So I’ll extend the same courtesy to you. The whole point about the EU is that it is a mutual non-aggression pact of democracies. There are no conceivable circumstances in which the UK would attack Belgium. You are having a laugh.

    Should we be prepared for the unexpected?

    Well, yes we should. I don’t think very many people expected us to have to go to war with Argentina, so to that extent you are right.

    Where you are fundamentally hypocritical is in saying this:

    Me am most certainly not a warmonger, Doug. Me am absolutely certain about that.

    on the back of that:

    I’m certainly not advocating war on Iran. Not yet, at least.

    If you prefer it, maybe I should have been more specific Brownie. You are a delayed ejaculation war monger, does that suit you better?

    I cannot get past the entire lunacy of the decent left in advocating killing folk, left right and centre as a strategy for a better world. Seems insane to me.

    What do you think Brownie?

    Perhaps you should consider the post flash moment. Where do you go from there? OK Teheran is obliterated and the immediate threat is eliminated. What’s next in your philosophy Brownie? Or are you of the George Bush school of not considering consequences.

    I think we should be told.

  108. organic cheeseboard — on 13th August, 2010 at 9:47 am  

    Even before Brownie commented I found myself wondering how I’d feel about this issue if I lived in Israel. Answer = stressed, (though I’m neither Arab nor Jewish). I think there’s a bit of a leap from identifying tensions/discrimination within Israel to describing its Arab citizens as ‘hostages for the Jewish state.’

    conversely, how would you feel about it if you lived in Iran? You’ve had senior American politicians singing ‘bomb Iran’ – you’ve got the ultra-loud aditation from successive Israeli governments.

    That’s two nuclear-armed powers where major political figures have been consistently agitating for military attacks on Iran.

    I’m not sure why the Israeli worries about possible nuclear attacks on their country from somewhere that as yet has no nukes are any less important than Iranian worries about possible nuclear attacks on their country from two of the largest military and nuclear powers in the world.

    I’m sure that both Iranians and Israelis are worried.

    I’m sure i might think differently if i lived in either place. but this isn’t a very productive place to be, in terms of debate.

    2 little extra things:

    I don’t, for example, think Tehran gives a rat’s ass about the Palestinians.

    I’m sure that at root they don’t. But being highly supportive of the palestinian cause is a votewinner across the arab world, for good reasons or bad.

    There are plenty: for a start get Israel to comply with the NPT too – so it doesn’t look like a hypocritical bully.

    This, times a million. Iran has the easiest get-out clause of all if Israel obfuscates over its own nukes.

  109. Brownie — on 13th August, 2010 at 9:58 am  

    Doug,

    Okay, it’ a little late in the day, but I’ll accept your invitation to discuss in good faith at face-value.

    Where I say:

    “I’m certainly not advocating war on Iran. Not yet, at least.”

    I’m simply being trutful. There is no hypocrisy.

    Do I think we’ve reached a point where we ought to be bombing Iran? No, I certainly don’t. Am I prepared to countenance the possiblity that we may, ultimately, have little choice but to opt for targeted airstrikes (no-one is suggesting razing Tehran) because the risk of not knowing whether and to what extent Iran has developed a nuclear weapons capability is too great? Yes, I am. That might be in 12 months time, 24 months or longer…or maybe shorter.

    To be frank, Doug, I fail to understand why anyone would pre-emptively rule out, forever and in all circumstances, even the remotest possibility of using force to secure Iran’s compliance with inspections. Such a strategy suggests to me that such people don’t place significant value on knowing whethere one of the world’s most unstable and (rhetorically at least) belligerent leaders has a bloody big nuke at his disposal. At that point, I’m inclined to suspect that such people don’t live in Israel.

    I hate to do it, but there are similarities with Iraq. Leaving aside the wrongs and rights of the war, I always felt it was next-to-impossible to get a straight answer out of those who opposed war when they were asked what their strategy was – absent the use of military force – to secure Saddam’s compliance. I was always left with the distinct impression that they didn’t regard securing his compliance as being remotely important.

    This is the crux: if we don’t agree that Iran’s compliance is necessary/valuable to be begin with, we’re hardly likely to agree about the measures required to secure it. So I would ask: do you at least start with the premise that forcing Iran to accept full inspections is important? And even if you don’t, can you at least understand why an Israeli – even one that has never agreed with a thing Netanyahu has said or done – might take a different view?

  110. Brownie — on 13th August, 2010 at 10:19 am  

    conversely, how would you feel about it if you lived in Iran?

    If I lived in Iran, I think I’d be rather hoping Ahmadinejad granted the access to the inspectors that the UN has asked for. Obviously, I’d be somewhat circumspect in my willingness to articulate this too loudly, but I’m neverthelss fairly certain this is how I would “feel”.

    If, on the other hand, I were one of the few Iranians who believed Ahmadinejad was a statesman of toweinrg intellect who was the best thing to happen to Iran in a generation, then I’ve already have reconciled myself to increased nervousness at what Israel/the west might do and determined it’s a price worth paying for Iran’s emergence as a nuclear superpower.

    Additionally, I don’t think there’s a commenter on this thread who seriously believes that Israel/the west is contemplating invasion of Iran and/or a bombing campaign against Iranian cities, much less the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. There’s a possiblity of targeted strikes against installations believed to play a role in Iran’s development of a nuclear capability, but not much else. This may be bad enough, but the point is that yer average Joe in Tehran has in all likelihood very little to fear even in the event the worst comes to the worst for Iran.

    Compare and contrast with the nightmare scenario as it applies to, say, Tel Aviv.

  111. douglas clark — on 13th August, 2010 at 10:19 am  

    Brownie @ 109,

    Well at least you are trying…

    And I respect that.

    However:

    To be frank, Doug, I fail to understand why anyone would pre-emptively rule out, forever and in all circumstances, even the remotest possibility of using force to secure Iran’s compliance with inspections. Such a strategy suggests to me that such people don’t place significant value on knowing whethere one of the world’s most unstable and (rhetorically at least) belligerent leaders has a bloody big nuke at his disposal. At that point, I’m inclined to suspect that such people don’t live in Israel.

    I suspect you don’t live in Israel either, Brownie. Could we at least try to keep it real?

    It is the case, is it not, that Israel has nukes? And the ability to deliver them?

    Sure, Teheran would be an unlikely target, the alleged nuclear weapons development places would be far more likely. But you can’t drop nuclear weapons without a collateral effect.

    It is the notion that the only solution to your issues is to drop, or by proxy, drop, nuclear bombs on folk that I utterly reject.

    That is my position, Brownie. It will not shift.

    You are doing the neo-con dance of assuming that your average Iranian wants to die for a cause they, probably, don’t care less about.

    Frankly, I find you a bit scary. You are Oliver Kamm lite.

    Seems to me.

  112. Brownie — on 13th August, 2010 at 10:29 am  

    But being highly supportive of the palestinian cause is a votewinner across the arab world, for good reasons or bad.

    I wouldn’t disagree, but the issue is whether Israeli moves designed to accommodate a Palestinian state on its border would do anything to help bring about a change in the policy of the Iranian regime towards Israel. I don’t think it would and I see no evidence supporting the contention that it would.

    I would go further and suggest the closer we got to a final settlement of the I/P issue, the more active Hezbollah’s Iranian proxies would become. A desire to see peace between Israel and the Palestinians necessarily implies an acceptance of the continued existence of Israel, about which Ahmadinejad has had plenty to say in the past.

  113. Brownie — on 13th August, 2010 at 10:33 am  

    Sure, Teheran would be an unlikely target, the alleged nuclear weapons development places would be far more likely. But you can’t drop nuclear weapons without a collateral effect.

    Well I thought it was implicit in what I’d written previously, but I’m happy to clarify that I don’t now and can’t countenance the possibility in the future of supporting a nuclear strike on Iran by Israel.

    I can, however, conceive of the possibility of supporting some form of conventional, targeted strike by Israel/the west. You, apparently, cannot.

  114. Anaximanders other Sandal — on 13th August, 2010 at 10:37 am  

    Peace in our time.

    Wow I always wondered where the fascist appeasing Leftist imbeciles who had been disowned by the really really cretinous fascist appeasers hung out, now I know.

    Maybe you Iranian fascist appeasers will let hang around dopey leftist site for a while, what do you say boys, got the balls or is this just another leftist fascist appeasing site that cries “troll” in the typical Stalinist leftist manner and delete any opposing view.

    “neo-con”

    Really boys you need to grow up a bit, that one is has become as ridiculous as “Islamophobe”.

  115. saeed — on 13th August, 2010 at 10:39 am  

    There’s a possiblity of targeted strikes against installations believed to play a role in Iran’s development of a nuclear capability, but not much else

    if any more proof needed of the absolute idiocy of HP/Decent left thinking here it is…

  116. Anaximanders other Sandal — on 13th August, 2010 at 10:51 am  

    I hope you aren’t typing about me there seead.

    Incidentally you’re not the same Jew hating Islamonazi “saeed” who spouts his Jew hating bullshit over at HPs are you?

    Just asking like, because you do have the same style of writing as the Jew Hating Islamonazi imbecile who visits HPs on occasion.

  117. organic cheeseboard — on 13th August, 2010 at 11:04 am  

    cheers for the response brownie. Though I’m far from sure you’re approaching your ‘if i lived in’ ideas in the same way.

    If I lived in Iran, I think I’d be rather hoping Ahmadinejad granted the access to the inspectors that the UN has asked for.

    given that the country has been threatened by two nuclear-armed states – one of which was allowed by the west to covertly develop nuclear weapons – I’m far from sure that you’re actually putting yourself in the shoes of an Iranian (that’s before we get to its govt’s propaganda). I think you’re making this stuff up to fit in with your view more generally. If Israelis are allwoed to be in fear, why wouldn’t Iranians be likewise? After all, we’ve seen how the Israeli govt ‘targets’ munitions – in Lebanon that was by, um, not just blowing up weapons stores but also blowing up airport runways and lighthouses, in Gaza by blowing up power stations.

    to use the other example, if I were an israeli – say one who’d emigrated recently – i’d undoubtedly be worried about this, but I’m less sure that i’d be agitating for a draw-back in west bank settlements, a full disclosure of my country’s nucealr weapons, etc. public opinion in israel is pretty hardline – the majority would be on the more barking side of an HP Sauce comments thread. Ditto, public opinion in Iran – Ahmedinejad is a lot more popular than you seem willing to admit.

    Compare and contrast with the nightmare scenario as it applies to, say, Tel Aviv.

    I’m still not 100% convinced that you’re approaching both countries consistently. the Iranian nightmare might be less securely tethered in fact that the Israeli one, but i don’t really think you’re willing to put yourself fully in the shoes of residents of both countries. As such I don’t think it’s a convincing debating tool.

    We’ve seen this before, of course – lots of mentions of the undoubted horror of living in Sderot under the threat of rocket attacks, mercifully little about what it must feel like to live in Gaza.

  118. BenSix — on 13th August, 2010 at 11:06 am  

    Really boys you need to grow up a bit, that one is has become as ridiculous as “Islamophobe”.

    Says the fountain of phlegm that’s been spraying charges of “Islamonazi[sm]“, “Jew hating“, “Stalinis[m]” and “fascist appeas[ement]“. Self-awareness failure? Yes.

  119. Anaximanders other Sandal — on 13th August, 2010 at 11:12 am  

    Wow the Flying Leftist rat rodent hangs around here too, this is obviously where all the really big leftist dicks hang out.

    Oh please let me stay, I promise to go easy on you dolts, honest, cross my heart and hope not to die.

    Hey while you assholes are on the subject of the dark age Ilamofascists of Iran, have they executed that woman yet?

    You know, the one who is soon to subjected to that really progressive law of the clerical fascists of Iran you know the one boys, the death sentence for adultry (sick) one.

  120. Kismet Hardy — on 13th August, 2010 at 11:18 am  

    “assholes”

    Cretin alert.

  121. douglas clark — on 13th August, 2010 at 11:23 am  

    It is an absolute joy, orgasmic even, to the have the spats on Harry’s Place re-iterated here by the likes of Aximanders other Sandal @114.

    Who is a bully and another untruth merchant.

    Is Harry’s Place truly dead? Are idiots like this released onto the rest of the internet?

    Well, we can do without them, I think…

    However, Aximander displays an incredible intelligence, doesn’t he?

    I mean:

    Wow I always wondered where the fascist appeasing Leftist imbeciles who had been disowned by the really really cretinous fascist appeasers hung out, now I know.

    Maybe you Iranian fascist appeasers will let hang around dopey leftist site for a while, what do you say boys, got the balls or is this just another leftist fascist appeasing site that cries “troll” in the typical Stalinist leftist manner and delete any opposing view.

    “neo-con”

    Really boys you need to grow up a bit, that one is has become as ridiculous as “Islamophobe”.

    What wit and wisdom.

    Just saying.

  122. Anaximanders other Sandal — on 13th August, 2010 at 11:33 am  

    “cretin alert” wonderful.

    This site has the very real potential to be a comedy goldmine, it’s inhabitants seem to be an intellect that is a few orders of magnitude lower than your average imbecilic Leftist site.

    This is without a doubt my lucky day, so many of the idiot left in such a small place, fantastic.

    Maybe one of you “cretins” could clear something up for me?

    I heard that the leaders of Iran changed it’s name from Persia in the 40′s as a tribute to Hitler,that’s not true is it?

    No?

  123. BenSix — on 13th August, 2010 at 11:38 am  

    “No?”

    No. It was changed in the mid-1930s, and “Iran” had been used by natives since Zoroastrian times.

    What’s this? Anaximander has to be corrected by an “idiot leftist“? What does that make him/her?

  124. Anaximanders other Sandal — on 13th August, 2010 at 11:41 am  

    Ah I see the problem, my comments from my imperialist phone are coming out a bit sketchy, no matter I will return once I regain access to my imperialist computer.

    “a bully”

    Am I really, well that shouldn’t bother you imbeciles should it, afterall you pricks almost ejaculate over Islamofascist bullies everytime they complain about a bacon sandwich or a guide dog don’t you.

  125. Anaximanders other Sandal — on 13th August, 2010 at 11:55 am  

    Ha ha ha ha, wonderful obtuseness, a veritable goldmine of defective leftist imbecility.

    If I wasn’t a committed Atheist I would thank the big old sky fairy for my good fortune re discovering such a rich vein of leftist imbeciles.

    Man I just love you idiot Lefties.

    Ps please don’t send me to to virtual Siberia I can sense a long and fruitful relationship developing here and who knows, maybe you doped might aactually make some real “Progress”

  126. Anaximanders other Sandal — on 13th August, 2010 at 12:01 pm  

    Sorry lefties but this phone is cramping my “bullying” ” cretinous” Style.

    I’ll be back.

    Don’t go away now will boys.

  127. Brownie — on 13th August, 2010 at 12:06 pm  

    given that the country has been threatened by two nuclear-armed states

    Hmm, I think what those two states are threatening (which, despite what you say, is currently not very much) is somewhat more relevant than what those two states are armed with.

    If Israelis are allwoed to be in fear, why wouldn’t Iranians be likewise?

    Oh but they are, and I’m not interested in giving any impression that I deny an Iranian’s right to be fearful of something/anything Israel or the west might do. But in terms of which policy I, were I an Iranian, would support (allowing for my fear of reprisals and all), it would be for Iran to reign in the wipe Israel from the pages of history rhetoric whilst complying with UN inspections demands. I’m assuming, of course, that I’ve yet to be brainwashed by my country’s anti-Semitic propaganda that encourages me to think of Jews as pigs and dogs. If that were the case, I might consider Ahmadinejad the greatest ever Iranian and support the drive to nuclear weapons capability and gladly shoulder the fear of anything Israel/the west might do to prevent that.

    After all, we’ve seen how the Israeli govt ‘targets’ munitions – in Lebanon that was by, um, not just blowing up weapons stores but also blowing up airport runways and lighthouses, in Gaza by blowing up power stations.

    Well it was clear to me at the time that Israel was engaged in a degree of collective punishment in Lebanon for what it regarded as Lebanese complicity in allowing Hezbollah to operate unchecked within its borders. I criticized what I regarded as a disproportionate response at the time and entirely accept that the same could happen in Iran, although the pretext for such a disproportionate response does not exist there and is consequently less likely. But even if it did happen, we’re not in same ballpark as anything Israelis have to fear in the event Iran develops the bomb: a nuclear-equipped, virulently anti-Semitic theocracy led by a demented ideologue who has openly expressed his wish to see Israel and Israelis eliminated.

    public opinion in israel is pretty hardline – the majority would be on the more barking side of an HP Sauce comments thread.

    This is interesting. On the question of Iran, I think Israeli public sentiment does more or less speak with one voice. On everything else, I’d suggest the picture is a fair bit more mixed and complex than you suggest.

    Ditto, public opinion in Iran – Ahmedinejad is a lot more popular than you seem willing to admit.

    Really? How would you know?

    We’ve seen this before, of course – lots of mentions of the undoubted horror of living in Sderot under the threat of rocket attacks, mercifully little about what it must feel like to live in Gaza.

    Really? I guess truth is 90% perspective. For my part, it’s always very much seemed that there’s no shortage of column inches about the (admittedly) appalling situation in Gaza, whislt Israel and apparently Israel alone, ought to endure having rockets fall on its southern towns and having to send its schoolchildren to underground shelters a couple of times a day – even after it has removed the last soldier and settler from Gaza.

    It’s almost as if many regard this as the minimum price Israel should have to pay for simply wanting to exist.

  128. FlyingRodent — on 13th August, 2010 at 12:16 pm  

    Having seen the sucker in action on numerous occasions, I can confirm that when AOS calls people thick and waffles about appeasing the Islamofascists etc., he actually believes that he’s landing logical bodyblow after bodyblow on the people he’s speaking to. I’ll let that sink in, before inviting you to wonder how the man can put his trousers on the right way round, let alone type.

    Call it the argumentum ex retardum, if you like. It’s a surprisingly effective technique, for reasons laid out in this video… http://tinyurl.com/ykxep47

  129. Anaximanders other Sandal — on 13th August, 2010 at 12:24 pm  

    “No. It was changed in the mid-1930s,”

    Yes of course it was, how cretinous of me, Iranians themselves confirm it, here for instance.

    “Persia or Iran, Persian or Farsi
    Ehsan Yarshater

    IRANIAN STUDIES, VOL. XXII, No.1, 1989

    In 1935 the Persian government requested countries with which it had diplomatic relations to call Persia Iran, which is the name of the country in Persian. This was a grievous error based on a misdirected sense of nationalism. The suggestion for the change is said to have come from the Persian ambassador to Germany, who came under the influence of the Nazis. At the time Germany was in the grip of racial fever and cultivated good relations with nations of Aryan blood. It is said that some German friends of the ambassador persuaded him that, as with the advent of Reza Shah Persia had turned a new leaf in its history and had freed itself from the pernicious influences of Britain and Russia, whose interventions in Persian affairs had practically crippled the country under the Qajars, it was only fitting that the country be called by its own name, Iran. This would not only signal a new beginning and bring home to the world the new era in Persian history, but would also signify the Aryan race of its population, as Iran is a cognate of Aryan and derived from it.”

    One thing still puzzles me however, why didn’t they change it back again?

    I mean who want’s to be associated with Jew hating, holocaust denying nazis these days?

    Not me.

    Then again the lunatic president of Zoroastrian Iran is a bit of a holocaust “doubter” isn’t he?

    Or is he just a misunderstood theocratic Islamist socialist anti-imperialist anti-zionist mahdi’s return believing progressive?

  130. Anaximanders other Sandal — on 13th August, 2010 at 12:36 pm  

    Flying Leftist rat rodent, how do you know I wear trousers?

    I could be an Skirt wearing “scotsman” for all you know.

    PS Flying etc etc, it’s really really good to see you too, because having seen you “in action on numerous occasions” I can be 100% certain that I have come to the right place, how i missed you wankers for so long is, I grant you, a gross dereliction of my “neo-con” duty and one that I certainly hope the central committee dudes of this site allow me to remedy,

    Just think of all the fun you Leftist imbeciles will have ridiculing little old “dopey” “cretinous” “neo-con” “imperialist” “islamophobic” me.

    Ah go on, let me stay for just a little while, the HP upper echelon have been dying to get rid of me for ages, I am sure they would be very grateful, you would be doing them a great favour by taking me off their hands.

    What do say boys, deal or what?

  131. Brownie — on 13th August, 2010 at 12:46 pm  

    Ah go on, let me stay for just a little while, the HP upper echelon have been dying to get rid of me for ages

    I can happily confirm this.

  132. Anaximanders other Sandal — on 13th August, 2010 at 12:49 pm  

    “I can happily confirm this.”

    There you go, straight from the horses mouth.

  133. douglas clark — on 13th August, 2010 at 1:21 pm  

    FFS,

    Someone that is considered a retard on Harry’s Place, which I would have thought impossible, comes here?

    AOS, have you anything worthwhile to contribute?

    On the evidence so far:

    I could be an Skirt wearing “scotsman” for all you know.

    As a scotsman who has never taken to the kilt, this is just an ignorant calumny. Only folk that are trying to make a living off tourists, and the occasional stag night, meet your criteria. Oh! and folk going to Scotlands’ football matches.

    If you are as ignorant of the Scots, who are you next door neighbours, it is quite likely that you have nothing worth saying about anything at all.

  134. douglas clark — on 13th August, 2010 at 1:40 pm  

    Anyway,

    I quite like what Flying Rodent has to say.

    He is not hereabouts known as a “Flying Leftist rat rodent”.

    That would be what some folk see as a cheap dig, AOS.

    Still, it seems to me to be your modus operandi.

    Try to argue your case, if you have one…

    I suspect you don’t. Harry’s Place is an infection of the brain, which is a bit obvious when it’s denizens appear in the light.

    Look at how Brownie assumes that the values and opinions on Harry’s Place will survive a fucking second outwith their protected status on his favourite site. They don’t, and he just looks like a loon when he posts here.

    So AOS, try to incorporate some sort of reality into you posts if you want to be taken seriously.

    Frankly, I think you are incapable of that, but who knows, perhaps you have something to contribute.

    I am not hanging around awaiting though….

  135. Anaximanders other Sandal — on 13th August, 2010 at 1:46 pm  

    “AOS, have you anything worthwhile to contribute?”

    Oh absolutely my non skirt wearing jock.

    Here’s something.

    Iran is controlled by Jew hating Islamist maniacs who not only murder children for the “crime” of being gay but they also further degrade the Human race by murdering women for the “heinous crime” of “adultery”

    And you socialists, by both your appeasement and your servile apologetics for said inhuman Islamist maniacs are, in my humble opinion, no better than the theocratic savages that are oppressing and indeed murdering the people of Iran.

    Now I know from many many years of pointing this out to socialists, that malignant socialists don’t like to hear the truth of what you people represent but that is simply the fact of the matter, anyone, and I do mean anyone, who supports the nazi like Iranian regime is no better than those who gave similar succor and support to the national socialists of yesteryear.

    I consider My “contribution” as being one of showing the Left not what they THINK they are but what they actually are.

    Is that wrong?

  136. douglas clark — on 13th August, 2010 at 2:02 pm  

    AOS,

    Who said I was a socialist? I am a self defined anarchist. Well, sometimes. Given that I am also an SNP member.

    This is a ridiculous debate, based on assumptions, by you, that you know or understand me.

    You don’t, AOS.

    It is true enough that I have a ridiculous loyalty to the folk that run this site. I consider this to be an open forum for all sorts of folk to post their thoughts and opinions. Usually they say what they think without the bombast that seems to be a feature of people that appear here from ‘Harry’s Place’

    Just saying…

    So, AOS, to answer your question, you are in the wrong.

    Debate is good, perhaps you’d like to engage in it?

  137. Anaximanders other Sandal — on 13th August, 2010 at 2:15 pm  

    “I am a self defined anarchist.”

    You’re joking surely?

    An Anarchist and an SNPer.

    Let me just pinch myself a moment, yep I am still awake.

    douglas clark, the SNP anarchist who quite likes “what Flying Rodent has to say.”

    This is indeed my lucky day I will have to go and have a lay down now doug but believe me when I say this, I can’t wait to begin “debating” with you boys.

  138. douglas clark — on 13th August, 2010 at 2:44 pm  

    AOS,

    After you’ve had your wee lie down, on a sofa provided by these nice folk on Harry’s Place, no doubt, feel free to try your hand.

    Try to stop assuming the worst of people you discuss things with though. That would be good. But a bit beyond you, perhaps?

    For AOS is about aggression and stuff, ain’t he? Would that be correct? Somewhere behind the logo there is a daft wee boy. Hiding behind a user ID like AOS. That is what we have to put up with. An assumed identity and a tit to boot.

    Jolly good!

  139. bluepillnation — on 13th August, 2010 at 3:53 pm  

    Brownie @ 109

    “I always felt it was next-to-impossible to get a straight answer out of those who opposed war when they were asked what their strategy was – absent the use of military force – to secure Saddam’s compliance.”

    Er, he *was* complying. Saddam said he had no WMDs, Blix said he couldn’t see any evidence of WMDs, and when the NATO forces finally pull out, not a single WMD will have been found. What part of the Downing Street Memo did you not understand?

  140. Brownie — on 13th August, 2010 at 4:38 pm  

    Er, he *was* complying. Saddam said he had no WMDs, Blix said he couldn’t see any evidence of WMDs, and when the NATO forces finally pull out, not a single WMD will have been found. What part of the Downing Street Memo did you not understand?

    Jaysus, you mean there really are still people prepared to comment on this specific issue who haven’t read a single word of the various UNSCRs which document Iraq’s obligations?

    No WMD deos not equal compliance. How many times does it need to be said? 1441 received the unanimous support of the UNSC and found Iraq to be in continued non-compliance by dint of Saddam’s refusal to provide unfettered and unobstructed access to inspectors. Regardless of anything else Blix said then and says now, he never did – because he couldn’t – decalre Iraq compliant for the very simple reason that until the very end, it refused to provide the full cooperation on inspections that was the sine qua non of compliance.

    I’m very sorry, bluepillnation, but more than 7 years after the start of the war, it’s probably time you acquainted yourself with the bare facts of Iraq’s required compliance.

  141. joe90 — on 13th August, 2010 at 6:12 pm  

    post #127

    your claim that everyone under the sun must be anti Semitic, must have blinded you to the fact that israeli right wing government is obviously anti Semitic itself towards the Palestinians blockade and operation cast lead ring any bells?

  142. Brownie — on 13th August, 2010 at 6:16 pm  

    A cursory check of my comments shows that the only people I’ve called anti-Semitic are Ahmadinejad and the theocrats who help to run Iran. And I’m right, they are.

  143. KJB — on 13th August, 2010 at 11:46 pm  

    Desi – Overwhelmed by the writing of a Master’s dissertation. Yourself? You seemed to have disappeared without trace!

  144. Desi Italiana — on 16th August, 2010 at 3:25 pm  

    Hey Refresh and KJB!

    KJB–Yup, I bounced, cause I have been busy, what with a move across the US, hopeless job situations that saw me go through a bunch of gigs, etc. It’s also really hard to keep up with the back and forth that comes with commenting on blogs!

    Good luck on writing your MA dissertation. I myself felt relieved and as if a big burden had been lifted off my shoulders when I finished mine. The end is in sight—keep pushing!

    If you don’t mind my asking, what’s your MA diss. on?

  145. KJB — on 17th August, 2010 at 1:02 am  

    It’s also really hard to keep up with the back and forth that comes with commenting on blogs!

    Urgh, so true.

    Thank you. It’s about nationality, gender and sexuality in R.K. Narayan – I’ve looked at mental illness in The Dark Room, the treatment of women in The English Teacher and the influence of Tamil nationalism in Waiting for the Mahatma. I basically have re-emphasised the political context (nationalism/anti-colonialism) and played about with the idea of him as a ‘Gandhian’ novelist, and tied all the other stuff to that. I wanted to look at The Painter of Signs as well, but it was really pushing it on the word count, (and I was having huge moral problems with it) so I just let it go.

  146. douglas clark — on 17th August, 2010 at 2:04 am  

    This has become, absent the last couple of posts, a typical Harry’s Place spillover.

    We have complete mental cases likes OAS, who hits and runs. I’d quite like to know what Aximanders’ Other Sandal actually thought he was saying. The ad hominem from a jerk like that don’t hurt at all. The idea that he can be that aggressive and then just run away from his comments is a tad irritating though.

    And what are we to take of it if he is just here for the aggro?

    I think we all should told, for the wee idiot is not here anymore…

    _____________________

    Anyway, his masters’ voice, Brownie, denies any belief whatsoever in warmongering.

    I quote:

    Me am most certainly not a warmonger, Doug. Me am absolutely certain about that.

    Well, Brownie is that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

    You speculate on the possibility of war here:

    I’m asking because, if all other efforts to cajole and persuade Iran fail, I’d like to know if you think it’s acceptable to ask your average inhabitant of Tel Aviv, Arab and Jew, to sit with their fingers crossed hoping that the efforts of the megalomaniacal Ahmadinejad to conceal Iran’s true intent is a big charade that in reality hides nothing?

    And that is supposed to be the opinion of, what?

    A war non monger?

    Or a war monger?

    It is up to folk to decide whether you, yes, you, Brownie are the encapsulation of the ‘have you stopped beating your wife yet?’ conundrum.

    I suspect you are exactly that sort of moral dichotomy arsehole.

    Or, if you prefer, a warmonger…

  147. earwicga — on 17th August, 2010 at 2:09 am  

    douglas – I’ve really admired your work on this thread. Good man!

  148. douglas clark — on 17th August, 2010 at 2:33 am  

    Cheers earwicga,

    It is what I have always tried to do on here.

    _________________________

    And I do not want – no I really don’t want, I value it too much – this place to completely taken over by Harry’s Place runts.

    This is a place where people of all sorts of backgrounds should ought be able to talk to each other. On a fair and equitable understanding.

    I am very fond of numerous folk that write here.

    ____________________________________

    I will not seen them easily bullied by our ‘new friends’. For they are not our chums.
    ______________________

    My arguement against the forces of darkness – the likes of Brownie – is that we should, and ought to, argue him into the ground. And that is easy…

    Just saying.

    Brownie couldn’t argue his way out of a wet paper bag, yet he comes here and no-one says:

    “get on you bike?”

  149. douglas clark — on 17th August, 2010 at 8:29 am  

    Ahem,

    get on your bike

    That is what I meant :-(

    Brownies sexual orientation is the least of my worries about the takeover bid.

    I’d have thought that folk that supported a totally discredited place like what Harry runs might have been a bit more, I dunno, less gung ho maybe? When they posted elsewhere.

    Apparently not.

    There has always been something a bit wrong about Harry’s Place. The absolute joy in appearing in the press over ‘muslim swimming sessions’, or having an orgasm over chasing some astronomer out of his position just because he thought there was a debate around the details of the haulocaust, and so on and so forth.

    Harry’s Place is not Pickled Politics, nor vice versa.

    However, some Harry’s Place acolytes seem to be here with the sole intent of ‘educating’ us into the true Euston Manifesto agenda.

    This would be the busted flush of ‘non-liberal’ interventionism, would it not?

    (We love invasion of Afghanistan because, err…

    Just because.

    And it’s a democracy now, so everything that happens is A-OK with us.

    Fools.)

    Which has set the idea of ‘liberal’ interventionism back a hundred years, or so. Something I am generally in favour of – the responsibility to protect idea has been utterly raped by these irresponsible fools.

    It is small wonder that the likes of Conor Foley, someone I completely admire, finds them anathema.

    A good idea taken to extremes and right royally fucked.

    That, it seems to me, is what these people now make their internet ‘living’ out of. A bankrupt moral philosophy, now backed up with something approaching contempt for anyone that disagrees.

    You can fuck up a lot of things through stupidity with the wine, as I know, as does one of their leading lights Nick Cohen. But they take the biscuit for chutzpah.

    Chutzpah, yes, sense, no….

    Anyway, they run away like cowards when challenged.

    For they have no answer.

    Only a vague anti-muslim patina on their comments, which they enjoy denying. Yet elsewhere, see Harry’s Place, it is neither vague, nor a patina.

    I happen to know one of their attack subjects a little, and he is not the caricature they would try to make him out to be. It was that, along with the fact that he was obviously scottish, more than asian, more that muslim, that drives my utter contempt for the whole Harry’s Place ethos. For they play a game of witchunter general, and it is not a ‘nice’ game

    I refer you to ‘The Crucible’ which makes the point better than I can.

    Anyway, according to them, there is no good muslim – except perhaps a dead one – that they would see as valid.

    Well, fuck that!

    I am not saying I know a huge number of muslims, but those I do know are all pretty decent people. So, what am I supposed to make of my life?

    That the people I actually know are worth hee haw, just because a daft web site says so?

    Well, no.

    I don’t work like that, and, frankly, I doubt most of the readers of this post would think like that either.

    I do not like these people – the lost and the lonely from Harry’s Place – OK?

    And before ‘muslim’ comes to vent his points, I do not like his extremism either.

  150. Desi Italiana — on 19th August, 2010 at 6:23 pm  

    @KJB:

    “It’s about nationality, gender and sexuality in R.K. Narayan”

    Oooh, interesting. Have you read The Guide? It’s incredibly rich with the themes you’ve delineated here. Plus, it was pretty funny, too.

  151. KJB — on 19th August, 2010 at 7:12 pm  

    Desi – not yet, maybe once I’ve got a safe distance from Narayan, I will do. I’ve had about enough of him for now. My disso’s due Monday and I’ve been working on it pretty much constantly – I’ll be glad to leave off critical reading for a while.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.