Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[TomServo]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Is it wrong of me to wish the NAZis had done what they are accused of.

Uh, yes.

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Is it wrong of me to wish the NAZis had done what they are accused of.

I know what you mean.

At the very least, they should have done what they are being accused off, you know - the gas chambers, the soaps, the lamp shades, the "death" camps, etc. And many-many people on earth today wish that they finished the job.

However, instead of picking on the average J-e-w living in Europe the Nazis should have gone after Zionist institutions. It was the Zionists that sent the J-e-w-ish citizenry to their demise. It was Talmudic J-e-w-s that made people anti-Semitic. I have no problems with the average Shlomo on the street. As far as I'm concerned, its primarily their Zionist/Talmudic kind that I want to see eradicated for good. And in that respects, the Nazis did not do a good job.

Is this statement too harsh?

Well, let's think about it for a moment. Had Zionism not existed, had Talmudic J-e-w-s not existed, there would not have been a Bolshevik revolution in Eastern Europe; there would not have been an Armenian Genocide at the hand of the Young Turks, at least not in the way that it occurred. What's more, there would not have been all the unending wars in the Middle East. There would not be Islamists/Arabist groups blowing themselves up all around the world.

So, with some clarification, what you said does actually make sense.

[TomServo]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Where is Winoman when you need him?

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

An Unreasonable U.S. Concern: Armenian-Iranian Cooperation

Recently, the United States Charge d’Affairs in Yerevan, Anthony Godfrey, indicated that Washington had concerns regarding the degree and direction of Armenian-Iranian cooperation, especially relating to energy resources. For the past 30 years Iran has been the principal adversary of the United States in the Middle East and its client state Israel. Its determination to develop nuclear technology for peaceful or alleged non-peaceful purposes or, again, its support of what is described in the Western media as radical Islamic groups is beyond the purpose of this discussion. However, what is important is that Armenia and Iran enjoy a symbiotic relationship that both nations have assiduously nurtured since Armenia’s independence. It should be noted that there are several hundred thousand Armenians in Iran; most having lived there for generations.

Although the United States has a right to question Armenia’s relationship with Iran, that concern must be evaluated within the context of the close economic and military ties Washington maintains with Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Both Turkey and Azerbaijan, which loom large in the strategic interests of the United States, have adopted policies whose sole purpose is to weaken Armenia. Georgia, a third recipient of United States military and economic largess, maintains a cooperative stance in its relations with Armenia, yet it does not hesitate to enter into agreements with Turkey and Azerbaijan that are inimical to Armenia’s economic interests. Far out weighing any economic and humanitarian aid Armenia receives from the United States are the close ties that bind Ankara, Baku and Tbilisi to Washington’s policy of challenging Russia and Iran for the energy resources of Central Asia and the Caucasus. As a result, Armenia has been left, literally, to its own devices. So much for that.

As one of 44 land-locked countries in the world, Armenia’s relationship with its neighbors must be placed in a special category. Georgia’s interest in Armenia is primarily pragmatic; the type and volume of trade, transit concerns, the degree and purpose of Armenia’s military cooperation with Russia and the political interaction between Yerevan and the Javakhk Armenians. Its economic and political viability does not depend on Armenian cooperation. Armenia, however, has a strategic interest in Georgia. That country represents the only land route to the Black Sea ports of Batumi and Poti through which most of Armenia’s imports and exports pass. Similarly the pipeline that delivers gas from Russia to Armenia transits Georgian territory. It is obvious that there is no parity in their relationship. This lack of symmetry emboldens Georgia to participate in economic ventures without regard for their adverse impact on Armenia. With Armenia excluded, Georgia’s strategic importance to Turkey increases exponentially as the only practical land connection to Azerbaijan and ultimately to Central Asia across the Caspian Sea. One only need look at the route of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline as well as the proposed Kars-Tbilisi-Baku railroad which will replace the existing line that passes through Gyumri in Armenia that Turkey boycotts. Both of these Turkish sponsored ventures were meant to harm Armenia and exclude her from the potential economic benefits that the region will experience.

Paradoxically, economic development in which all countries share is a goal that the United States claims is vital to creating political stability within the region. Yet the pipeline route was supported by the United States knowing that it would have an adverse impact on Armenia. As for the projected railroad, the United States again exerted no pressure on Turkey to reopen the existing line through Gyumri. The tepid response from Washington was that no financial aid would be provided if it by-passed Armenia. With the wealth that Turkey and Azerbaijan have at their disposal, financial support from the United States was never a determining issue.

The geostrategic interest of the United States in the Caucasus and Central Asia not only benefits Turkey and Azerbaijan, but paradoxically has elevated the importance and strategic role of Iran vis-à-vis Armenia’s national objectives. In March of this year, ceremonies were held at Agarak, Armenia, to inaugurate the opening of the gas pipeline from Iran to Armenia. From Agarak the pipeline connects to the Armenian gas distribution net at Kajaran. This is a major development that should have greater significance in the future. Presently, any gas that is imported from Iran must be used to generate electricity which will then be “sold” to Iran. An ancillary benefit is that the villages in the southern Syunik district will have access to gas for domestic purposes for the first time. In an emergency situation, should deliveries from Russia via Georgia be cut-off, Armenia will be able to draw on this new supply of gas.

On the main highway north from Megri in southern Armenia, any casual observer will notice a steady stream of Iranian trucks which carry an estimated 500,000 to 600,000 tons of goods annually. At an economic summit in Yerevan this July, Armenian and Iranian officials met to discuss a wide range of economic issues. As reported by Armenpress, Iran’s foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki indicated that several joint ventures were being considered. These included building a hydropower facility on the Arax River, a refinery in Armenia to process Iranian oil to gasoline for export to Iran, and a new railroad link between the two countries. He reported that trade between Armenia and Iran had reached $200 million annually with the potential for reaching $1 billion annually.

Although it doesn’t have a contiguous border with Armenia, its fifth neighbor is Russia. Both countries do depend upon each other, but Armenia is the “junior partner” so to speak in this relationship. Presently, Armenia is a “captive” of Russia’s Gazprom: a quasi-state run enterprise that supplies a significant part of its energy needs at prices that are not set at “arms length” negotiations. One can seriously question the desirability of join ventures by the two countries or, especially, the ownership of any segment of Armenia’s economic infrastructure by Russia. The Russian garrison in Armenia does provide a stabilizing influence along the Turkish-Armenian border. Armenia reciprocates by providing Russia with its last foothold south of the Caucasus.

In the long term, Russia and Iran are adversaries both in the Caucasus as well as in Central Asia. However, in the short term their objectives coalesce to prevent Turkey from dominating the Caucasus and extending its influence into Central Asia. Present United States policy seeks to exploit the energy resources of Central Asia and control its movement into international markets. For the present at least, Turkey and Azerbaijan are willing partners.

Armenia has a crucial if passive role to play in thwarting this expansion of Turkish influence. As mentioned earlier, Russian military units stationed in Armenia represent a major deterrent to any ill-advised Turkish military venture. The presence of Russian forces is a reminder that she has not abdicated her historic interests in the region or her support of autonomy for Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia. Additionally, Armenia represents the only route for a potential pipeline for the delivery of Iranian gas to Georgia—an important bargaining chip in future Georgian-Armenian cooperation. An alternative source of gas would lessen Georgia’s future dependence on Russia as well as on Azerbaijan, whose ability to meet her increasing demands is questionable.

Present United States policy is a direct response to the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the transformation of the several Soviet republics into independent nations. To fill the resulting political vacuum, the U.S. Congress passed the Freedom Support Act in 1992. Its underlying purpose, shorn of its altruistic rhetoric, was to challenge Russia in the Caucasus and to extend U.S. influence into Central Asia with its vast deposits of oil and natural gas. Turkey was a key component of this strategy. However, the official objective of the Freedom Support Act was to provide economic and humanitarian aid and to promote democratic institutions in these recently independent countries. This objective ran counter to Russia’s official policy, which was to regain hegemony over its Near Abroad, the former soviet republics.

In recognition of Armenia’s position vis-à-vis Azerbaijan, Title 9, Section 907 of the Act stated that “United States assistance…may not be provided to the government of Azerbaijan until the President determines and so reports to Congress that the government of Azerbaijan is taking demonstrable steps to cease all blockades and other offensive uses of force against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.”

In every year since its passage, President Bush has waived Section 907 which lifted restrictions on U.S. assistance to Azerbaijan. According to the Office of the Press Secretary, U.S. Department of State, the waiver was necessary “…to support United States efforts to counter international terrorism” [and] “…to support the operational readiness of the United States Armed Forces…to counter international terrorism; [it] is important to Azerbaijan border security; and will not undermine or hamper ongoing efforts to negotiate a peaceful settlement between Armenia and Azerbaijan or be used for offensive purposes against Armenia.”

Coupled with these annual waivers, it is instructive to look at President Bush’s latest recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 budget as reported in a press release by the ANCA. Contrary to an agreement struck with Congress in 2001 to maintain parity in U.S. military aid to Armenia and Azerbaijan, the President proposed “…cutting…economic aid to Armenia from…[the 2006] appropriation of $74.4 million to $50 million, a nearly 33 per cent reduction.” For Azerbaijan, the figure was $28 million and $58 million for Georgia. The Foreign Military Financing proposals were $3.5 million for Armenia, $4.5 million for Azerbaijan and $10 million for Georgia.

With respect to the President’s recommendations for International Military Education and Training the figures are $790,000 for Armenia, $885,000 for Azerbaijan and $1,235,000 for Georgia. The President’s fiscal year 2008 budget seeks 20 percent more in military aid to Azerbaijan than to Armenia. So much for parity.

The Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues formed in 1995 has been instrumental in protecting Armenia’s interests. However, the role of the present administration should indicate the importance it places on the Turkish-Azerbaijan-Georgia triumvirate. United States influence within these countries is the key objective in its attempt to counter Russian influence and to achieve its goal to control the exploitation and movement of energy resources to global markets. The $1.5 billion in humanitarian and technical aid received by Armenia since 1992 from the United States masks the inequity between the aid given to the “triumvirate” and Armenia when Armenia is added to the equation.

During this same period, Armenia has endured the adverse economic effects caused by the blockade imposed by Turkey and its ally Azerbaijan, contrary to the requirement that the waiver will not be granted “…until the President determines…that the government of Azerbaijan is taking demonstrable steps to cease all blockades…against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.” Failure to meet this requirement has not dampened the President’s enthusiasm to waive this prohibition each year.

For the United States to ignore the effect of its pro-Turkish policy begs the question as to what should Armenia’s response be with respect to Iran? A key component of Armenia’s economic and political viability depends on maintaining a mutually beneficial relationship with its southern neighbor. Its cooperation with Iran in no way affects United States interests. It could well be that the ideological and strategic objectives of the United States and Iran are so great as to defy any immediate meaningful accommodation. However difficult that may be for the United States, Armenia must be left to develop its relationship with Iran in a manner that enhances its legitimate national objectives. Rather than question Armenian-Iranian cooperation, the United States should reconsider the aid given to Azerbaijan and Georgia and increase its support to Armenia if only because it is the one emerging democratic nation in the Caucasus region, a key objective of the Freedom Support Act.

Source: http://www.hairenik.com/armenianweekly/com08040701.htm

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

West Bugged By Iran’s Independence, Not Anti-Israel Stance

Arab Governments Helping Western Regional Domination

Hezbollah’s resistance against Israeli attacks during the 33-day war introduced a new model for other resistance groups in the region and the world. Unfortunately the Arab regimes, despite their affinities with the Lebanese people, did not help or support Hezbollah’s resistance during the war.

Iran and Syria were the two main supporters of the Lebanese people. Hence, it is necessary for Muslim states to boycott the Zionist regime whose main financial support, not considering the US financial support, is its exports to the regional and Western states. Iran Daily’s Amir Tajik interviewed Gabriel Ash and discussed different aspects of Israel’s boycott issue. Ash is a xxxish anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist activist and political writer who grew up in Israel. He writes because the pen is sometimes mightier than the sword and sometimes not. Excerpts:

Amir Tajik: Why did Israel support the Fatah movement during the current disputes in the Palestinian territories?

Gabriel Ash: The current reading of the situation in Israel is that the conflict cannot be solved; it can only be managed. Therefore, the mainstream international view of Fatah as a ‘pragmatic’ Palestinian faction with which the West and Israel can reach an acceptable agreement is simply false. The support for Abbas, not just from Olmert, but also from the US, Europe and the Arab League has three causes. First, there is the old “divide and rule”. The power struggle within the Palestinian political scene is weakening both Hamas and Fatah and is also very demoralizing for the Palestinian public. When you play “divide and rule”, the first rule is to support the weaker side in order to prolong the crisis as much as possible. This is exactly what Israel and the West are doing by supporting Fatah.

Second, supporting Abbas is good propaganda. Israel, the US and Europe are all able to describe their support for Abbas as working for the cause of peace and against the ‘militant’ Hamas. This is very important because Western publics expect their governments to be committed to peace. Even in Israel the prospect of eternal war is unwelcome to most. Third, Hamas provides a model of resistance that threatens all Arab governments in addition to Israel. Hence undermining Hamas is a common goal of the West, Israel and the client Arab states — chiefly Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Of course, the ‘peace’ strategy must look believable. So there might be a new ‘peace’ dynamic, but the conditions for peace are absent.

Amir Tajik: How will Europeans’ boycott of Israel harm the regime’s economic and political structure?

Gabriel Ash: Israel is a small country with large military expenses. In order to maintain relatively first-world living standards, Israel’s economy depends on exports, foreign investment and non-commercial support. Clearly, a full EU trade boycott of Israel will cause severe damage to the Israeli economy. The EU is Israel’s largest trading partner, and Israel exports to the EU are over $10 billion a year. Let us, however, not deceive ourselves. There is no chance for such a trade embargo to happen in the foreseeable future.

Nevertheless, grassroots boycotts can have a cumulative impact. Increased public awareness to Israel’s criminal politics can translate into lower sales for brands associated with Israel, lower investment in Israel, and pressure on EU governments to stop some of their more directly damaging involvement in the region, including buying Israeli weapon systems, selling weapons to Israel, subsidizing the Israeli occupation and helping Israel fight Palestinian resistance. The most important role of grassroots boycott initiatives is educational and moral. They expose Israel for the kind of country it really is: a racist, brutal colonial outpost. And they undermine the mainstream media whitewashing job. Grassroots boycotts can thus repeat the dynamics that made Western support for Apartheid South Africa untenable.

Amir Tajik: Could Israel get rid of the legal consequences of the boycott?

Gabriel Ash: Boycotts do not change the legal situation. Israel is in breach of every UN resolution that mentions it and then some. It is in breach of the UN charter, the Fourth Geneva Convention, The Fourth Hague Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The International Court for Justice, etc. etc. Furthermore, all these breaches are not merely technical, but massive and substantial. With regards to international law, Israel is a major scofflaw.

International law, however, cannot simply be called upon for redress, because there is no world government with enforcement powers. International law represents the stage of the enlightened opinion of humanity with regards to how states should behave. But only the application of pressure by other states can force states to obey the law, should their own residents be unable or unwilling to demand such obedience.

Amir Tajik: Why don’t Arab regimes initiate a serious boycott against Israel?

Gabriel Ash: There is an expectation that Arab governments would support the Palestinians and be against Israel. It is historically baseless. Arab regimes are part of the problem. Their concern is how to maintain their power domestically. The major struggle in the Middle East is between the indigenous population and capitalist imperialist and colonialist enterprises, not between Arabs and xxxs. Arab governments are not on the side of the Arab indigenous people. Palestinians, for example, are not just oppressed by Israel. They are oppressed by many Arab states.

Arab governments are key elements of the Western domination of the Middle East. The very states most of them govern represent arbitrary lines drawn in the sand by colonial envoys. This is true of Israel, but equally so of Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, etc. These states exist by the grace of the colonial powers, and their local elites benefit from the plundering and killing of their people. Some of these states do make a show of boycotting Israel. But it is a charade. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Israel are all on the same side. They are all US client states. So let’s not wait for salvation to come from Arab governments.

Amir Tajik: If Iran were to stop its anti-Israel policy, would the West stop bothering Iran?

Gabriel Ash: There might be an easing, but the West didn’t become the dominant force on the planet through a policy of non-interference.

There is an imperial world system, global capitalism. States must somehow fit in. The global system is the context within which every governing formation must choose its strategies for political survival and economic advancement. The system defines a number of generic templates that local elite can follow, adapt, negotiate or challenge. The most typical template for a third-world country, however, is the raw materials provider, a template that usually includes Western ownership of the means of production, an unemployed majority left to rot in slums, barely existing local industry and minimal domestic consumption, except for a small elite that consumes imported luxury goods and works mostly in government. With local variations, this is the typical template in South America and the Middle East.

Iran was squeezed into this template between 1953 and 1979. Then there is the outpost state, which is supported by the West for its role as a weapon platform and/or as a tool for putting pressure on other states to conform to a desired template. Israel, Taiwan, Japan, Apartheid South Africa, and Turkey are all local variants of this template. In many ways, this is the most enviable position, at least economically, since outpost states are often used as positive examples that advertise the benefits of submission, and are therefore allowed to attain relatively high levels of development.

Finally, there is the worse template of all, the battleground state. Battleground states are states that provide the West a place to destroy overcapacity and justify the existence of its military industry and repressive technologies. The battleground template can come about from the failure of local elites to impose a desired template, as in Colombia, Somalia or Vietnam, or it can come about as a deliberate choice, as in Iraq. Countries that refuse to follow an acceptable template are good candidates for the battleground category. Iran is one such candidate.

The West’s problem with Iran is not its anti-Israel rhetoric, but the general independence of its foreign policies and economy, which is particularly annoying given Iran’s size and strategic location. Regardless of the template, no country within the global order is supposed to have independent foreign policies, and the worse offense is helping other countries resist Western imposed integration, as Iran does. Iran is also a state created in a revolution against a Western imposed template. It is a reminder that Western domination can be rejected. Therefore, like Cuba, the destruction of Iran is never going to be completely off the table. They are afraid that defeat and withdrawal from Iraq would deal a severe economic blow to the arms industry in the US. A confrontational Iran serves them well.

Iran has two possible paths. Either it renounces its geopolitical independence and opens itself up to Western capital, or it prepares for escalation by building up its defenses, extending its alliances and strengthening its society. A crucial asset for Iran is the rise of newly balancing powers: China and Russia. But there is a danger of getting to the party too soon, as these emerging global powers are still unsure of their footing. Iran’s government’s verbal provocations against Israel are not the cause of Western hostility, but they are a wonderful excuse. Holocaust denial and other such inflammatory language help the West justify its ‘concern’ about Iran.

Source: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/0...israel-stance/

[skhara]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Is this the US Navy in the Persian gulf?

The Battle of Carrhae

From the Life of Crassus, by Plutarch

http://www.caama.ca/carrhae.html

The Battle of Carrhae in 53 BC is one of the most significant archery battles of history, it pitted a Roman army under Crassus of 35,000 infantry and about 500 horse against 10,000 Parthian horse, mostly light archers.

Most of the commanders were of the opinion that they ought to remain there that night, and to inform themselves as much as possible of the number of the enemies, and their order, and so march against them at break of day; but Crassus was so carried away by the eagerness of his son, and the horsemen that were with him, who desired and urged him to lead them on and engage, that he commanded those that had a mind to it to eat and drink as they stood in their ranks, and before they had all well done, he led them on, not leisurely and with halts to take breath, as if he was going to battle, but kept on his pace as if he had been in haste, till they saw the enemy, contrary to their expectation, neither so many nor so magnificently armed as the Romans expected. For Surena had hid his main force behind the first ranks, and ordered them to hide the glittering of their armour with coats and skins. But when they approached and the general gave the signal, immediately all the field rung with a hideous noise and terrible clamour. For the Parthians do not encourage themselves to war with cornets and trumpets, but with a kind of kettle-drum, which they strike all at once in various quarters. With these they make a dead, hollow noise, like the bellowing of beasts, mixed with sounds resembling thunder, having, it would seem, very correctly observed that of all our senses hearing most confounds and disorders us, and that the feelings excited through it most quickly disturb and most entirely overpower the understanding.

When they had sufficiently terrified the Romans with their noise, they threw off the covering of their armour, and shone like lightning in their breastplates and helmets of polished Margianian steel, and with their horses covered with brass and steel trappings. Surena was the tallest and finest looking man himself, but the delicacy of his looks and effeminacy of his dress did not promise so much manhood as he really was master of; for his face was painted, and his hair parted after the fashion of the Medes, whereas the other Parthians made a more terrible appearance, with their shaggy hair gathered in a mass upon their foreheads after the Scythian mode. Their first design was with their lances to beat down and force back the first ranks of the Romans, but when they perceived the depth of their battle, and that the soldiers firmly kept their ground, they made a retreat, and pretending to break their order and disperse, they encompassed the Roman square before they were aware of it. Crassus commanded his light-armed soldiers to charge, but they had not gone far before they were received with such a shower of arrows that they were glad to retire amongst the heavy-armed, with whom this was the first occasion of disorder and terror, when they perceived the strength and force of their darts, which pierced their arms, and passed through every kind of covering, hard and soft alike. The Parthians now placing themselves at distances began to shoot from all sides, not aiming at any particular mark (for, indeed, the order of the Romans was so close, that they could not miss if they would), but simply sent their arrows with great force out of strong bent bows, the strokes from which came with extreme violence. The position of the Romans was a very bad one from the first; for if they kept their ranks, they were wounded, and if they tried to charge, they hurt the enemy none the more, and themselves suffered none the less. For the Parthians threw their darts as they fled, an art in which none but the Scythians excel them, and it is, indeed, a cunning practice, for while they thus fight to make their escape, they avoid the dishonour of a flight.

However, the Romans had some comfort to think that when they had spent all their arrows, they would either give over or come to blows but when they presently understood that there were numerous camels loaded with arrows, and that when the first ranks had discharged those they had, they wheeled off and took more, Crassus seeing no end of it, was out of all heart, and sent to his son that he should endeavour to fall in upon them before he was quite surrounded; for the enemy advanced most upon that quarter, and seemed to be trying to ride around and come upon the rear. Therefore the young man, taking with him thirteen hundred horse, one thousand of which he had from Caesar, five hundred archers, and eight cohorts of the full-armed soldiers that stood next him, led them up with design to charge the Parthians. Whether it was that they found themselves in a piece of marshy ground, as some think, or else designing to entice young Crassus as far as they could from his father, they turned and began to fly whereupon he crying out that they durst not stand, pursued them, and with him Censorinus and Megabacchus, both famous, the latter for his courage and prowess, the other for being of a senator's family, and an excellent orator, both intimates of Crassus, and of about the same age. The horse thus pushing on, the infantry stayed a little behind, being exalted with hopes and joy, for they supposed they had already conquered, and now were only pursuing; till when they were gone too far, they perceived the deceit, for they that seemed to fly now turned again, and a great many fresh ones came on. Upon this they made a halt, for they doubted not but now the enemy would attack them, because they were so few. But they merely placed their cuirassiers to face the Romans, and with the rest of their horse rode about scouring the field, and thus stirring up the sand, they raised such a dust that the Romans could neither see nor speak to one another, and being driven in upon one another in one close body, they were thus hit and killed, dying, not by a quick and easy death, but with miserable pains and convulsions; for writhing upon the darts in their bodies, they broke them in their wounds, and when they would by force pluck out the barbed points, they caught the nerves and veins, so that they tore and tortured themselves. Many of them died thus, and those that survived were disabled for any service, and when Publius exhorted them to charge the cuirassiers, they showed him their hands nailed to their shields, and their feet stuck to the ground, so that they could neither fly nor fight. He charged in himself boldly, however, with his horse, and came to close quarters with them, but was very unequal, whether as to the offensive or defensive part; for with his weak and little javelins, he struck against targets that were of tough raw hides and iron, whereas, the lightly-clad bodies of his Gaulish horsemen were exposed to the strong spears of the enemy. For upon these he mostly depended, and with them he wrought wonders; for they would catch hold of the great spears, and close upon the enemy, and so pull them off from their horses, where they could scarce stir by reason of the heaviness of their armour, and many of the Gauls quitting their own horses, would creep under those of the enemy, and stick them in the belly; which, growing unruly with the pain, xxxxxled upon their riders and upon the enemies promiscuously. The Gauls were chiefly tormented by the heat and drouth, being not accustomed to either, and most of their horses were slain by being spurred on against the spears, so that they were forced to retire among the foot, bearing off Publius grievously wounded. Observing a sandy hillock not far off, they made to it, and tying their horses to one another, and placing them in the midst, and joining all their shields together before them, they thought they might make some defence against the barbarians. But it fell out quite contrary, for when they were drawn up in a plain, the front in some measure secured those that were behind; but when they were upon the hill, one being of necessity higher up than another, none were in shelter, but all alike stood equally exposed, bewailing their inglorious and useless fate. There were with Publius two Greeks that lived near there at Carrhae, Hieronymus and Nicomachus; these men urged him to retire with them and fly to Ichnae, a town not far from thence, and friendly to the Romans. "No," said he, "there is no death so terrible, for the fear of which Publius would leave his friends that die upon his account;" and bidding them to take care of themselves, he embraced them and sent them away, and, because he could not use his arm, for he was run through with a dart, he opened his side to his armour-bearer, and commanded him to run him through. It is said Censorinus fell in the same manner. Megabacchus slew himself, as did also the rest of best note. The Parthians coming upon the rest with their lances, killed them fighting, nor were there above five hundred taken prisoners. Cutting off the head of Publius, they rode off directly towards Crassus.

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Another serious political blow to Zionist and Globalist aspirations in Lebanon. The Syrian-backed opposition claims victory in the parliamentary elections in Lebanon. The margin of victory of the election, which essentially split the Christian vote, is said to have been small. Interestingly, Armenians of Lebanon under the leadership of the Dashnak party have played a pivotal role in helping elect the pro-Syrian Christian candidate, Michel Aoun, by not participating in the elections. As a result, the Western/Israeli-backed Phalage party leadership has resorted to blaming the Armenians of Burjhamud, an Armenian enclave in Beirut, for loosing the election. Once again, Armenians of Lebanon, specifically the Dashnaktsutyun, have show political maturity by not falling victim to Western and Zionist manipulations. And I'm sure that this is welcome news both in Damascus and Tehran.

Armenian

Syrian-backed opposition claims victory in Lebanon poll



Lebanon's Western-backed ruling majority was dealt a blow on Monday in by-elections that split the country's Christian camp in two and boosted the Syrian-backed opposition ahead of a presidential poll. Official results showed the candidate representing opposition leader Michel Aoun winning by a slim margin of 418 votes over former president Amin Gemayel, who was supported by the ruling Western-backed coalition.

Camille Khoury won 39,534 votes as against 39,116 for Gemayel. Aoun and Gemayel both made separate calls for unity after the results were announced but bickered over who has the mandate to represent their community. "These elections have shown that the solution to the Lebanese crisis is found in respect for institutions. This is why I am calling for reconciliation between Christians... so that presidential commitments can be respected," Gemayel told a news conference.

"These elections were effectively a test. They have shown that General Aoun's support is in broad decline in Christian regions because of the policies he has followed." Aoun seemed to strike a conciliatory note in a subsequent news conference of his own, but also claimed support from all Christian confessions as well as Sunni and Shiite Muslims. "Gemayel has spoken of a reconciliation under the aegis of the Maronite (Christian) patriarch. We are in agreement on this and I extend my hand," he said.

"But I dispute his analysis that I am not representative of Christians. Maronites are not the only Christians," he added. Aoun called the Metn region where Sunday's vote took place a "microcosm" of Lebanese society: "There are Maronites, Orthodox, Armenians, Shiites and Sunnis. We won in a diverse constituency, which means we are popular in all the communities."

The by-elections were to replace two murdered anti-Syrian MPs, the latest in a spate of politically linked killings that have rocked the country since the 2005 assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri. The outcome of the vote was important as it showed which way the country's divided Christian community was leaning ahead of a presidential election scheduled for next month. Lebanon's president is traditionally a Maronite Christian who is chosen by parliament.

Gemayel was vying to replace his son Pierre, a Christian cabinet member and lawmaker who was shot dead last November. In Beirut, the vote was to replace Walid Eido, a Sunni Muslim lawmaker who was killed in a car bomb in June. Eido's seat was easily won by pro-government candidate Mohamad Amin Itani. Several Lebanese newspapers on Monday said that although Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement emerged the winner in the weekend poll, the party had nonetheless been weakened politically as it only clinched a narrow victory.

"A difference of 418 votes: a fake victory," blared a headline in the pro-government French daily L'Orient Le Jour. The paper said that had it not been for the support of the Armenian community in one district, where Gemayel alleged vote-rigging, Aoun's party would have been xxxxxled in the polls. But the opposition newspaper Al-Akhbar said that although Aoun won by a slim margin, the results put to rest claims by the ruling majority that he no longer represented the Christian community.

"Even though his victory was not overwhelming, Aoun came out the winner," it said. "He has answered to those who pretend that he is no longer the leader of the Christian community."

The movement of Aoun, a declared presidential candidate, garnered most of the Christian vote in 2005 legislative polls, but his popularity has waned since he forged a shock alliance last year with the Iran- and Syria-backed Shiite militant group Hezbollah. Parliament's challenge now is to elect a new president to succeed pro-Syrian incumbent Emile Lahoud by a November 25 deadline. While the majority controls enough seats to elect a president, it needs the opposition to take part for the two-thirds quorum required for parliament to convene.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070806...I1XpykRqeGOrgF

Hoss: Metn polls prove democracy in Lebanon is an 'illusion' Politicians, newspapers continue to debate implications of by-elections'

BEIRUT: Former Prime Minister Salim al-Hoss said Monday "the Metn by-election ended politically without a victor and a vanquished." "There was a loser, but there was no winner," Hoss said in a statement. "If the contest was a contest of sizes, then both competitors were effectively downsized," he added. Hoss said the polls had proven again that "democracy in Lebanon is an illusion where money and emotions rule." Higher Shiite Council Vice President Sheikh Abdel-Amir Qabalan said "the achievement of the Metn and Beirut by-elections showed that the Lebanese people are wide-awake while dealing with controversial national issues."

Qabalan called for the formation of a national-unity government which he said, "should be a good reference to all conflicts and problems." The Armenian Tashnag Party voiced regret Monday that an "electoral battle over one parliamentary seat has turned into an attempt to settle accounts with a party that has never known extremism." "The irrational and heated statements delivered by some Lebanese leaders are nothing but an outburst of anger that showed the hatred they have been hiding for decades," said a Tashnag statement. "Once they lost their temper they expressed their rancor very clearly."

Meanwhile, former MP Gabriel Murr clarified on Monday that his comments in a televised interview a day earlier were targeting the administration of the Tashnag Party and not the Armenian community. "My friendship with the Armenian community and my respect for it are unlimited," the former MP said. Murr urged Armenians to change the Tashnag administration, and the Tashnag to change the way it deals with elections.

Aram I, Catholicos of the House of Cilicia, said Monday the results of the by-elections are secondary while what is worrying are divisions among the Christians in Lebanon in general and the Metn in particular. "No one should be happy with his victory ... because the Christian unity has been defeated by partition [of its members]," he said in a statement. The catholicos also said "we do not accept at all unfounded accusations targeting the Armenian sect." "The Armenian community is an example of patriotism," he added.

Meanwhile, Loyalty to the Resistance bloc MP Hussein Hajj Hassan lashed out at the March 14 Forces for criticizing in their electoral campaigns in the past few days the agreement between Hizbullah and the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM). "How did [their] 10 MPs win in Baabda-Aley [in 2005]?" Hajj Hassan asked during a Hizbullah rally in Baalbek. "Wasn't it for the votes of the members of the quadripartite alliance?" "If they blame the FPM for its agreement with Hizbullah then why don't they submit the resignation of their MPs in Baabda-Aley?" he added.

Separately, Hizbullah and the Amal Movement said Monday the establishment of a national-unity government is a "national right" and a "bridge" toward the solution of all problems. In a statement issued after a joint meeting in the South, both parties stressed the need to hold the presidential polls on time and in accordance with the Lebanese Constitution and laws. "Any link between the election of a new president and the formation of a national unity government is a cheap blackmail and waste of time," it said. March 14 Forces MP Butros Harb described Sunday's electoral battle in the Metn as a "victory for democracy."

"Lebanon is more important than any political post and the Lebanese people's interests are more important than winning a seat," Harb said after meeting with former President Amin Gemayel, calling on all parties to hold dialogue in a bid to solve the country's pending issues. Headlines in Lebanese newspapers on Monday reflected partisan interpretations of the result in the Metn. The pro-government Al-Mustaqbal newspaper, contending that Armenian voters had swung the vote Aoun's way, wrote Monday: "Two-thirds of Maronites vote for Gemayel, their seat goes to Aoun by 418 votes."

The pro-opposition As-Safir said "the Metn democratically defeats Amin Gemayel and with him the 'majority.'" Other newspapers said although Aoun's FPM emerged the winner in the weekend poll, the party had nonetheless been weakened politically as it only clinched a narrow victory. "A difference of 418 votes: a fake victory," blared a headline in the pro-government French daily L'Orient Le Jour. But pro-opposition Al-Akhbar said although Aoun won by a slim margin, the results put to rest claims by the ruling majority that he no longer represented the Christian community.

Source: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article....icle_id=84373#

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Iran makes progress in military production



Thunder warplaneIran has successfully tested a new fighter plane named Azarakhsh (Thunder), confirmed Minister of Defense Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar Monday morning. "Thunder" has been manufactured in cooperation with experts from the Army, Defense Ministry and HESA aircarft manufacturing industries in the central province of Isfahan, the minister told reporters on the sidelines of a ceremony held on the eve of 'Journalist Day' (August 8). "The Azarakhsh fighter plan is now at the stage of industrial production and its mass production will start in the future," said the minister, according to IRNA. He added that the fighter's successful test would lead to plans for "manufacturing of the fifth generation of Iranian aircraft." Army and Defense Ministry experts are currently working on the second type of Azarakhsh fighters called Sa'qeh (Lightning) which would be also tested in the near future, Mohammad-Najjar added. Referring to the manufacture of 'Sky-Guard' 35mm shells by the Defense Ministry experts, the minister said the experts have also succeeded in manufacturing 2000-km-range surface-to-surface rockets as well as various types of cruise sea rockets. He added that the ministry's experts have successfully managed to manufacture various types of air-defense missiles and anti-missile rockets too.

Source: http://www.albawaba.com/en/countries/Iran/215760

[skhara]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

So what kind of known aircraft will thunder and lightning be able to compete with?

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

So what kind of known aircraft will thunder and lightning be able to compete with?

As far as its capabilities are concerned, the so-called "thunder" is not a fearsome weapons platform. As a matter of fact, it seems far from it. Militarily, it will most probably have no impact upon the battlefield. The aircraft in question is basically a remade version of the US F-5, with some significant improvements in aerodynamics. The significance of the news, however, is the 'technological ability' of Tehran to develop complicated weapons systems. Thus, theoretically speaking, in the future, Tehran can potentially produce better arms.