Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[hipeter924]

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

Unlike some of my colleagues, I believe that Israel is fighting a no-choice war that we must do everything possible to win. Air strikes, ground operations - whatever it takes so that Hezbollah, exhausted and beaten, pulls back and a multinational force is deployed along the international border together with the Lebanese Army, in keeping with Security Council Resolution 1559. If Hezbollah does not cooperate with a UN-mediated agreement stipulating that it give up its heavy weapons, and refuses to stay north of the Litani River, the IDF will have no choice but to keep up the attacks and pound away at Hezbollah, crushing it outpost by outpost. The rules of the game dictated by Hezbollah are going to have to change. A status quo ante is out of the question.

The conflict with Hezbollah cannot be allowed to deteriorate into a war of attrition. It must not be expanded beyond its stated goals. And the Israeli public must not be overly put to the test, lest the "wonderful home front" blow up in the government's face. The trouble is that we don't have all the time in the world. Condeleezza Rice is on her way. She will shuttle back and forth, back and forth, until the moment comes for a cease-fire agreement. We can only hope that the army reverts to its old self and has the wisdom and good sense to know what to do and when to do it, to produce the desired outcome.

This article kind of made be crack up because Hezbollah was losing power in Lebanon prior to the Israeli invasion. As a result of effectively bombing peaceful cities in Lebanon and killing innocent people that had nothing to do with Hezbollah, Hezbollah gained support and is now effectively another branch of Lebanon's military with a political wing now in power.

The real reason is that Israel doesn't want a prosperous, democratic state in the middle east. Lebanon even today (despite Hezbollah gaining more support) is still pro-western in several areas. Every day Israel tries to brand Hezbollah as a dangerous terrorist organisation, when its only role today is effectively rebuilding Lebanon from the attack and preparing to defend the country again.

Perhaps Israel should visit Lebanon before it starts branding it as some sort of terrorist state. Because last time I checked Christians and Muslims tolerate each other in Lebanon (and fought a bloody and horrific civil war to gain that tolerance). Ah the irony.

[skhara]

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XQan...eature=related


indeed, the war seems very unlikely. the world will punish the US by dumping all US debt which will in effect crush the dollar and the economy.

The world is fed-up with US unilateralism. They wont tolerate anymore of it.

read petrodollar warfare by william clark.

That guy was pretty much spot on with what I was thinking. Very good. Seymore Hersh I see is next to him and is one of my favorite investigative journalists.

[SoyElTurco]

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

My concern was always that posibility. Quite simply, if the US commits to war with Iran and Iran continues to retaliate and escalate -- US may resort to nukes -- losing is simply not an option. Although it looks like Iran war is not going to happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XQan1qo8T4&feature=related

indeed, the war seems very unlikely. the world will punish the US by dumping all US debt which will in effect crush the dollar and the economy.

The world is fed-up with US unilateralism. They wont tolerate anymore of it.

read petrodollar warfare by william clark.

[skhara]

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

uses a nuke (this is in fact a real option that united states will consider if it finds its troops are threatened with annihilation - fücking bastards so cowardly and unwilling to fight a real war.).

My concern was always that posibility. Quite simply, if the US commits to war with Iran and Iran continues to retaliate and escalate -- US may resort to nukes -- losing is simply not an option. Although it looks like Iran war is not going to happen.

[SoyElTurco]

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

i would think an overwhelmingly huge portion of the population is ready to aggressively respond to a u.s. attack like the japanese during wwII. the japanese were teaching five year olds to use brooms, sticks, rocks, knives, shards of glass - any means - to fight and defend the homeland.

after this iraq fiasco, and U.S.'s dogged involvement in iran's history, and the entire irritation of the muslim world, the iranians are ready to confront and take the u.s. to the last drop of sweat, tear and blood.

i dont think there would be any flow of refugees for a while until the army government/army starts to fail or if the u.s. uses a nuke (this is in fact a real option that united states will consider if it finds its troops are threatened with annihilation - fücking bastards so cowardly and unwilling to fight a real war.)

so yeah, i guess dont expect refugees in the beginning. maybe there wont be any at all - hopefully.

[TomServo]

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

True, I'd say a large majority are loyal to Iran. But there are always nutbags like that Chehregani psychopath.

[Armanen]

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

I've met a few Iranian azeri and from what I understood they see no relationship with fake azerbaijan in any sense. In fact they are a bit ticked off that their name has been usurped by nomads, so I'm not sure if they would flee to fake azerbaijan.

As for Iranian azeris being used against official Tehran, I don't see it because many of the top positions in Tehran are filled by ethnic Azari. The Baluchs in eastern Iran would be more likely to turn against official Tehran, and even that would be no easy task for the cia.

[TomServo]

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

And what do you all make of the claims that if an attack took place against Iran, Armenia would see a large influx of Iranian refugees?

Since most of those refugees would be Azeris, perhaps oil-rich Ilham Aliyev's Azerbaijan will take them in.

Actually, scratch that. I forgot that the Iranian Azeris are going to be used by the U.S., like the Kurds in Iraq. If the refugees from Iran are Kurdish or Persian, I'm not sure if Ilham Aliyev's Azerbaijan will take them in.

[Armanen]

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

And what do you all make of the claims that if an attack took place against Iran, Armenia would see a large influx of Iranian refugees?

[Armenian]

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

Iran's Ahmadinejad: Merry Xmas, bullying powers

Merry Christmas, "bullying, ill-tempered and expansionist powers."

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will deliver a Christmas Day broadcast on Britain's Channel 4 television, occupying a slot used to provide an often controversial counterpoint to Queen Elizabeth II's traditional annual message, the station said Wednesday. In his recorded message, Ahmadinejad offers seasonal greetings to Christians and says he believes that if Jesus were alive, he would "stand with the people in opposition to bullying, ill-tempered and expansionist powers," an apparent reference to the United States and its allies. According to a transcript of the broadcast released in advance, Ahmadinejad says most of the world's problems stem from leaders who have turned against religion. He doesn't refer to rival nations or leaders by name or raise the issue of Israel, despite his previous calls for the removal of the xxxish state. "If Christ were on earth today, undoubtedly He would hoist the banner of justice and love for humanity to oppose warmongers, occupiers, terrorists and bullies the world over," Ahmadinejad said, according to the text. The U.S., Britain and others suspect Iran of secretly developing nuclear weapons, while Tehran insists its uranium enrichment program is intended solely for a civilian energy program. Ties with the U.K. were further strained in 2007 over the detention by Iran of 15 British sailors and marines, who were held for 13 days. The Israeli ambassador to London condemned Ahmadinejad's speech as a "bogus message of good will" and said the broadcast was a disgrace. "That (Channel 4) should give an unchallenged platform to the president of a regime which denies the Holocaust, advocates the destruction of the sovereign state of Israel, funds and encourages terrorism, executes children and hangs gay people is a disgrace," Ron Prosor said. "Outrage doesn't begin to explain it." Ahmadinejad's message follows similar Christmas broadcasts on Channel 4 by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sharon Osborne and the animated TV character Marge Simpson of "The Simpsons." Last year's message was delivered by Sgt. Maj. Andrew Stockton, a British soldier badly wounded in Afghanistan. Ahmadinejad spoke in Persian, with subtitles in English, the channel said. Dorothy Byrne, head of news and current affairs at Channel 4, said Ahmadinejad had been selected because relations between Iran and the West are likely to be a key global issue in 2009. "As the leader of one of the most powerful states in the Middle East, President Ahmadinejad's views are enormously influential. As we approach a critical time in international relations, we are offering our viewers an insight into an alternative world view," Byrne said. The channel's news program broadcast an interview with Ahmadinejad in September 2007, when the Iranian leader insisted his nation wasn't seeking to develop a nuclear weapon.

Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...sF8LgD95979J04