Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[Armanen]

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

haha, Robert De Kochariano

LOL, I always thought he looked like de niro too!

[Armenian]

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

haha, Robert De Kochariano

You talkin to me?

[Armenian]

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

I saw the article earlier but can't find the specific statement related to "displeasure".

You are right. There is no direct "displeasure" or attack thrown against the Armenian Republic. In my opinion, due to the complex peculiarities of the geopolitical situation in the region today, they are choosing to balance their criticism of Armenia, at this time. Washington does not want to push away Armenia completely. They want Armenia stable and friendly towards the West. Also don't forget, without any one of the three Transcaucasian republics, no plan in the region, be it Russian or Western, can survive. Transcaucasia is like a three-legged chair - take away one leg and the chair may topple over. Thus, when it comes to Armenia they are still hopeful, especially now that western officials have realized that there is a cancer in the country called "Levon Ter Petrosian" supporters.

Nonetheless, what Pan-Armenian posted was just a fragment of the US government report in question. Still, American displeasure with Armenia was 'indirectly' insinuated several times.

For instance:

This closer cooperation (with Iran) has made Armenia more reluctant to criticize publicly objectionable Iranian conduct or join other UN member states (the US specifically) in advocating for sanctions on (threatening war against) the Iranian regime.

And the following is American paranoia laced with subtle insults:

Although Armenia continued to strengthen its counterterrorism capabilities and enhanced its counterterrorism cooperation with the United States and other international security organizations, its geographic location, porous borders, and loose visa regime still provided ample opportunities for traffickers of illicit materials, persons, and finances. Furthermore, endemic governmental corruption, a significant organized crime presence, and a large shadow economy made the country potentially vulnerable to money laundering and terrorist financing schemes.”

In the past, US officials have expressed their displeasure directly at Armenia's close relations with Iran and also Russia. However, they have always added that they - "understand."

Here is how the US government funded Armenialiberty reported on the report in question:

Armenia ‘Potentially Vulnerable’ To Terror Schemes

[...]

The report at the same time indicated U.S. unease over Armenia’s growing ties with neighboring Iran, which Washington accuses of sponsoring international terrorism and seeking to develop nuclear weapons. It said last year’s visits to Yerevan by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “served to solidify previous bilateral commitments to develop joint energy and transportation projects.” “This closer cooperation has made Armenia more reluctant to criticize publicly objectionable Iranian conduct or join other UN member states in advocating for sanctions on the Iranian regime,” added the report.

Source: http://www.armenialiberty.org/armeni...64FE3F03E3.ASP

Here's an excellent analysis of the report by Azg:

ARMENIA AND TERRORISM ACCORDING TO US DEPARTMENT OF STATE

On May 1 the US Department of State published its annual report on terrorism. In these reports, published regularly since 2004, are being figured out the statistics for anti-terror actions in the world and US cooperation with other states. Naturally, we are first of all interested in the statistics about struggle against terrorism in Armenia and its neighbors, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Comparing the conclusions about Armenia and Azerbaijan, at once we noticed that a great number of people were arrested in Azerbaijan under suspicion of being involved in terrorist organizations. The report says that 15 civilians, calling themselves "North Army of Mahdee" were detained and accused for being in contact with the Iranian Revolution Guardians’ Corpse. Another terrorist group, lead by some Arab, Abu Jafar, was caught in Sumgayit. 11 people were arrested in September. It is said they were preparing a terrorist attack against the US Embassy in Baku.

However, the report on Azerbaijan, so rich with arrests and terrorist organizations, lacks the most important part – the conclusion. It is uncertain, whether the United States are concerned with the large number of terrorists in Azerbaijan, or not. On the contrary, the report on Armenia, where not a single incident however linked with terrorism was recorded, is full of conclusions of the American "experts". It turns out that the USA is troubled with the intensive Armenian-Iranian relations. The "experts" elaborated in details, how last year the President and the Defense Minister of Iran visited Armenia and how close the diplomatic relations between Yerevan and Teheran are. By the way, the President and the Defense Minister of Iran also visited Azerbaijan in 2007, but nothing is said about that in the report.

At the same time Department of State report says that although Armenia cooperates with the USA the in struggle against terrorism, the corruption in the Government, shadow economy and high level of criminal may permit illegal transfer of arms, terrorists and money through the territory of Armenia.

Our conclusion is simple and obvious:

the Department of State had nothing to write about Armenia and all the absurd was written in order to write just something. The report on Armenia has no legal or juristic grounding and is only aimed at stating that there are "certain criminal elements" in Armenia, which may possibly cooperate with terrorist financial structures. This sounds absurd, when at the very same time there are dozens of such criminals in Azerbaijan, which are already cooperating both with financial and militant terrorist structures. The report clearly shows that the United States, having nothing to say against Armenia, but minding to equalize Armenia and Azerbaijan, invented inconsistent and fake "accusations" (if this word is suitable here).

Source: http://www.azg.am/EN/2008050301

[jgk3]

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

haha, Robert De Kochariano

[skhara]

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

They are "displeased"

I saw the article earlier but can't find the specific statement related to "displeasure".

[Armenian]

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

They are "displeased"

***************************

U.S. State Department displeased with Armenia-Iran cooperation development

The Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the U.S. Department of State has issued Country Reports on Terrorism 2007. The Armenia Report says:

“Armenia’s counterterrorism contribution included its continued commitment to overflight and landing rights of U.S. military aircraft, additional security support to U.S. facilities in Armenia during times of terrorist alert, and the renewed deployment of peacekeeping forces in Iraq. In addition, Armenia joined the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, and expressed interest in joining the Convention for Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

In September, a delegation of inspectors from the UN Counterterrorism Committee Executive Directorate visited Armenia to ascertain its progress in complying with UNSCR 1372, and found that 12 of the 13 legal counterterrorism instruments had already been implemented or were soon to be implemented. And in July, the Armenian government succeeded in adapting the EU export control list of “dual-use” commodities to its own national control list.

The Financial Monitoring Center (FMC), a U.S.-supported financial intelligence unit within the Central Bank of Armenia (CBA), continued to make investigative strides against money-laundering. During the first nine months of the year, the FMC received twenty-four suspicious transaction reports (STRs), compared to twenty-three STRs during the same period in 2006, and six STRs in 2005. Under its current mandate, the CBA can freeze temporarily financial assets while referring the STRs to the competent authorities for further investigation. However, it must rely on private financial institutions to self-monitor and lacked an integrated IT system to store information on financial entities or individuals of concern. At the end of the year, no cases involving terrorist financing were uncovered or prosecuted. The FMC received Egmont Group membership this year.

Armenia improved border security by maintaining an automated Border Management Information System (BMIS) that documented and stored the names of travelers at nearly all official points of entry, and contained criminal and terrorist watchlists as updated by the Republic of Armenia Police (RAP) and National Security Service (NSS). While Armenia has no bilateral agreement with the United States governing the sharing of information on travelers, the NSS and RAP shared information with the U.S. Embassy when they discovered fraudulent U.S. visas or other documents of interest to the United States.

Armenia’s warming relations with neighboring Iran continued, with Armenia hosting official visits by Iranian President Ahmadinejad (October) and Iranian Defense Minister Najjar (November). In addition to fostering closer diplomatic ties, these visits served to solidify previous bilateral commitments to develop joint energy and transportation projects. This closer cooperation has made Armenia more reluctant to criticize publicly objectionable Iranian conduct or join other UN member states in advocating for sanctions on the Iranian regime.

Although Armenia continued to strengthen its counterterrorism capabilities and enhanced its counterterrorism cooperation with the United States and other international security organizations, its geographic location, porous borders, and loose visa regime still provided ample opportunities for traffickers of illicit materials, persons, and finances. Furthermore, endemic governmental corruption, a significant organized crime presence, and a large shadow economy made the country potentially vulnerable to money laundering and terrorist financing schemes.”

Source: http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=25971

In related news:

Armenian oil refinery project to cost USD 2 billion

The construction of a new oil refinery in Armenia will cost USD 2 billion, according to Armenian Energy Minister Armen Movsesyan. The refinery, which will be built in Megri, on the Iranian border, will process 7.5 million tons of oil annually, the news agency Regnum reports. The project is being jointly undertaken by Armenia, Iran and Russia and will process Iranian oil.

Source: http://www.messenger.com.ge/issues/1..._econ_one.html

Iran praises Armenia’s restraint against neighbor’s warlike statements

Armenia’s President Serzh Sargsyan met Wednesday with Iran’s Ambassador Seyed Ali Saghaiyan, the RA leader’s press office reported. Emphasizing the strategic importance of bilateral relations, the parties expressed satisfaction with the rapid development of the Armenian-Iranian cooperation. The Armenian President pointed out to the necessity of implementation of regional programs in the energy field and increase of the commodity turnover between the two countries. Amid regional issues, the Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement was discussed. In this view, Ambassador Saghaiyan said that Iran appreciates Armenia’s reserved reaction to regular bellicose statements by one of the states of the region. For his part, President Sargsyan welcomed Iran’s balanced stand on the Karabakh conflict, noting Armenia’s adherence to a solution observing the nations’ right to self-determination in the framework of the international law.

Source: http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=25952

[Kevin_B]

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

President George W. Bush said the comments represented a "specific threat" to destroy Israel. In a March 2006 speech in Cleveland, Bush vowed he would resort to war to protect Israel from Iran, because, "..the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel." Former Presidential advisor Richard Clarke told Australian TV that Iran "talks openly about destroying Israel", and insists, "The President of Iran has said repeatedly that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth". In an October 2006 interview with Amy Goodman, former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter referred to Ahmadinejad as "the idiot that comes out and says really stupid, vile things, such as, 'It is the goal of Iran to wipe Israel off the face of the earth' ". The consensus is clear.



Confusing matters further, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pontificates rather than give a direct answer when questioned about the statement, such as in Lally Weymouth's Washington Post interview in September 2006:

Are you really serious when you say that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth?

We need to look at the scene in the Middle East — 60 years of war, 60 years of displacement, 60 years of conflict, not even a day of peace. Look at the war in Lebanon, the war in Gaza — what are the reasons for these conditions? We need to address and resolve the root problem.



Your suggestion is to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth?

Our suggestion is very clear:... Let the Palestinian people decide their fate in a free and fair referendum, and the result, whatever it is, should be accepted.... The people with no roots there are now ruling the land.



You've been quoted as saying that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. Is that your belief?

What I have said has made my position clear. If we look at a map of the Middle East from 70 years ago...



So, the answer is yes, you do believe that it should be wiped off the face of the Earth?

Are you asking me yes or no? Is this a test? Do you respect the right to self-determination for the Palestinian nation? Yes or no? Is Palestine, as a nation, considered a nation with the right to live under humane conditions or not? Let's allow those rights to be enforced for these 5 million displaced people.

The exchange is typical of Ahmadinejad's interviews with the American media. Predictably, both Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes and CNN's Anderson Cooper asked if he wants to "wipe Israel off the map". As usual, the question is thrown back in the reporter's face with his standard "Don't the Palestinians have rights?, etc." retort (which is never directly answered either). Yet he never confirms the "map" comment to be true. This did not prevent Anderson Cooper from referring to earlier portions of his interview after a commercial break and lying, "as he said earlier, he wants Israel wiped off the map".



Even if every media outlet in the world were to retract the mistranslated quote tomorrow, the major damage has already been done, providing the groundwork for the next phase of disinformation: complete character demonization. Ahmadinejad, we are told, is the next Hitler, a grave threat to world peace who wants to bring about a new Holocaust. According to some detractors, he not only wants to destroy Israel, but after that, he will nuke America, and then Europe! An October 2006 memo titled Words of Hate: Iran's Escalating Threats released by the powerful Israeli lobby group AIPAC opens with the warning, "Ahmadinejad and other top Iranian leaders are issuing increasingly belligerent statements threatening to destroy the United States, Europe and Israel." These claims not only fabricate an unsubstantiated threat, but assume far more power than he actually possesses. Alarmists would be better off monitoring the statements of the ultra-conservative Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who holds the most power in Iran.



As Iran's U.N. Press Officer, M.A. Mohammadi, complained to The Washington Post in a June 2006 letter:

It is not amazing at all, the pick-and-choose approach of highlighting the misinterpreted remarks of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in October and ignoring this month's remarks by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that "We have no problem with the world. We are not a threat whatsoever to the world, and the world knows it. We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state."

The Israeli government has milked every drop of the spurious quote to its supposed advantage. In her September 2006 address to the United Nations General Assembly, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni accused Iran of working to nuke Israel and bully the world. "They speak proudly and openly of their desire to 'wipe Israel off the map.' And now, by their actions, they pursue the weapons to achieve this objective to imperil the region and threaten the world." Addressing the threat in December, a fervent Prime Minister Ehud Olmert inadvertently disclosed that his country already possesses nuclear weapons: "We have never threatened any nation with annihilation. Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?"





MEDIA IRRESPONSIBILITY:



On December 13, 2006, more than a year after The World Without Zionism conference, two leading Israeli newspapers, The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz, published reports of a renewed threat from Ahmadinejad. The Jerusalem Post's headline was Ahmadinejad: Israel will be 'wiped out', while Haaretz posted the title Ahmadinejad at Holocaust conference: Israel will 'soon be wiped out'.



Where did they get their information? It turns out that both papers, like most American and western media, rely heavily on write ups by news wire services such as the Associated Press and Reuters as a source for their articles. Sure enough, their sources are in fact December 12th articles by Reuter's Paul Hughes [Iran president says Israel's days are numbered], and the AP's Ali Akbar Dareini [Iran President: Israel Will be wiped out].

The first five paragraphs of the Haaretz article, credited to "Haaretz Service and Agencies", are plagiarized almost 100% from the first five paragraphs of the Reuters piece. The only difference is that Haaretz changed "the xxxish state" to "Israel" in the second paragraph, otherwise they are identical.



The Jerusalem Post article by Herb Keinon pilfers from both the Reuters and AP stories. Like Haaretz, it uses the following Ahmadinejad quote without attribution: ["Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out," he added]. Another passage apparently relies on an IRNA report:

"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom," Ahmadinejad said at Tuesday's meeting with the conference participants in his offices, according to Iran's official news agency, IRNA.

He said elections should be held among "xxxs, Christians and Muslims so the population of Palestine can select their government and destiny for themselves in a democratic manner."

Once again, the first sentence above was wholly plagiarized from the AP article. The second sentence was also the same, except "He called for elections" became "He said elections should be held..".



It gets more interesting.



The quote used in the original AP article and copied in The Jerusalem Post article supposedly derives from the IRNA. If true, this can easily be checked. Care to find out? Go to:

https://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0612134902101231.htm

There you will discover the actual IRNA quote was:

"As the Soviet Union disappeared, the Zionist regime will also vanish and humanity will be liberated".

Compare this to the alleged IRNA quote reported by the Associated Press:

"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom".

In the IRNA's actual report, the Zionist regime will vanish just as the Soviet Union disappeared. Vanish. Disappear. In the dishonest AP version, the Zionist regime will be "wiped out". And how will it be wiped out? "The same way the Soviet Union was". Rather than imply a military threat or escalation in rhetoric, this reference to Russia actually validates the intended meaning of Ahmadinejad's previous misinterpreted anti-Zionist statements.



What has just been demonstrated is irrefutable proof of media manipulation and propaganda in action. The AP deliberately alters an IRNA quote to sound more threatening. The Israeli media not only repeats the fake quote but also steals the original authors' words. The unsuspecting public reads this, forms an opinion and supports unnecessary wars of aggression, presented as self defense, based on the misinformation.

This scenario mirrors the kind of false claims that led to the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq, a war now widely viewed as a catastrophic mistake. And yet the Bush administration and the compliant corporate media continue to marinate in propaganda and speculation about attacking Iraq's much larger and more formidable neighbor, Iran. Most of this rests on the unproven assumption that Iran is building nuclear weapons, and the lie that Iran has vowed to physically destroy Israel. Given its scope and potentially disastrous outcome, all this amounts to what is arguably the rumor of the century.



Iran's President has written two rather philosophical letters to America. In his first letter, he pointed out that "History shows us that oppressive and cruel governments do not survive". With this statement, Ahmadinejad has also projected the outcome of his own backwards regime, which will likewise "vanish from the page of time".



Arash Norouzi is an artist and co-founder of The Mossadegh Project.[/QUOTE]
The zionist at Memri flouted this lie!

[Kevin_B]

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

"Wiped off the Map" - The Rumor of the Century

by Arash Norouzi

Across the world, a dangerous rumor has spread that could have catastrophic implications. According to legend, Iran's President has threatened to destroy Israel, or, to quote the misquote, "Israel must be wiped off the map". Contrary to popular belief, this statement was never made, as the following article will prove.



BACKGROUND:



On Wednesday, October 26th, 2005 at the Ministry of Interior conference hall in Tehran, newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a speech at a program, reportedly attended by thousands, titled "The World Without Zionism". Large posters surrounding him displayed this title prominently in English, obviously for the benefit of the international press. Below the poster's title was a slick graphic depicting an hour glass containing planet Earth at its top. Two small round orbs representing the United States and Israel are shown falling through the hour glass' narrow neck and crashing to the bottom.



Before we get to the infamous remark, it's important to note that the "quote" in question was itself a quote— they are the words of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution. Although he quoted Khomeini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual words belong to Khomeini and not Ahmadinejad. Thus, Ahmadinejad has essentially been credited (or blamed) for a quote that is not only unoriginal, but represents a viewpoint already in place well before he ever took office. THE ACTUAL QUOTE:



So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi:



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

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).



So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel".



THE PROOF:



The full quote translated directly to English:



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



Word by word translation:



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





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

https://www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/speeches/1384/aban-84/840804sahyonizm.htm

THE SPEECH AND CONTEXT:



While the false "wiped off the map" extract has been repeated infinitely without verification, Ahmadinejad's actual speech itself has been almost entirely ignored. Given the importance placed on the "map" comment, it would be sensible to present his words in their full context to get a fuller understanding of his position. In fact, by looking at the entire speech, there is a clear, logical trajectory leading up to his call for a "world without Zionism". One may disagree with his reasoning, but critical appraisals are infeasible without first knowing what that reasoning is.



In his speech, Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West's apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the "Zionist regime" was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets. Palestine, he insists, is the frontline of the Islamic world's struggle with American hegemony, and its fate will have repercussions for the entire Middle East.

Ahmadinejad acknowledges that the removal of America's powerful grip on the region via the Zionists may seem unimaginable to some, but reminds the audience that, as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years:



(1) The Shah of Iran- the U.S. installed monarch

(2) The Soviet Union

(3) Iran's former arch-enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein



In the first and third examples, Ahmadinejad prefaces their mention with Khomeini's own words foretelling that individual regime's demise. He concludes by referring to Khomeini's unfulfilled wish: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise". This is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime change, not war.





THE ORIGIN:



One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising.



The inflammatory "wiped off the map" quote was first disseminated not by Iran's enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran's Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy.

Amid heated wrangling over Iran's nuclear program, and months of continuous, unfounded accusations against Iran in an attempt to rally support for preemptive strikes against the country, the imperialists had just been handed the perfect raison d'être to invade. To the war hawks, it was a gift from the skies.



It should be noted that in other references to the conference, the IRNA's translation changed. For instance, "map" was replaced with "earth". In some articles it was "The Qods occupier regime should be eliminated from the surface of earth", or the similar "The Qods occupying regime must be eliminated from the surface of earth". The inconsistency of the IRNA's translation should be evidence enough of the unreliability of the source, particularly when transcribing their news from Farsi into the English language.





THE REACTION:



The mistranslated "wiped off the map" quote attributed to Iran's President has been spread worldwide, repeated thousands of times in international media, and prompted the denouncements of numerous world leaders. Virtually every major and minor media outlet has published or broadcast this false statement to the masses. Big news agencies such as The Associated Press and Reuters refer to the misquote, literally, on an almost daily basis.



Following news of Iran's remark, condemnation was swift. British Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed "revulsion" and implied that it might be necessary to attack Iran. U.N. chief Kofi Annan cancelled his scheduled trip to Iran due to the controversy. Ariel Sharon demanded that Iran be expelled from the United Nations for calling for Israel's destruction. Shimon Peres, more than once, threatened to wipe Iran off the map. More recently, Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu, who has warned that Iran is "preparing another holocaust for the xxxish state" is calling for Ahmadinejad to be tried for war crimes for inciting genocide.



The artificial quote has also been subject to additional alterations. U.S. officials and media often take the liberty of dropping the "map" reference altogether, replacing it with the more acutely threatening phrase "wipe Israel off the face of the earth". Newspaper and magazine articles dutifully report Ahmadinejad has "called for the destruction of Israel", as do senior officials in the United States government.[/QUOTE]

[Kevin_B]

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

http://www.itulip.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-796.html

The Neobolshevik Neocon Fairy Tale attack on Iran

The great fairy tales are written in a way to make the unbelievable reality. J.K. Rowling certainly made a large fortune with her best selling Harry Potter series doing just that. The villains are always true psychopath’s intent on ruling the world and this Iranian War fairy tale certainly has plenty of villains in its cast of characters. I guess if you can believe in witches, flying broomsticks, magic wands, casting spells and secret potions you can believe in the upcoming Iranian War fantasy.

The realities of an Iranian War are such that you know from the outset it will never take place, but that never stops a great fairy tale from being told and for many to believe in it. For those caught up in the fantasy wishing it to be true, maybe we should review the very basic principle of why witches can’t fly. Even the psychopath won’t take an action when he knows that the outcome will lead to his downfall and the psychopaths that are trumpeting this upcoming war certainly realize they have no chance of success.

The list of reasons there will be no war is a long one, so I will only touch upon a few of them to prove this point. Preceding the Iraq War there was $50 billion of foreign investment d0llars waiting to be invested. This money had not yet been spent so there were only opportunity costs that were lost when the war took place. Preceding the Iranian fantasy we find that China and India have committed $200 billion towards Iran’s oil and natural gas industry, much of these investment d0llars having already been spent. These two Iranian oil and gas customers have large armies, navies, air forces and nuclear weapons to defend their investment. Most importantly what these two countries have is between them over a trillion d0llars of US and British oligarch investments that have been made in their two countries. If war breaks out, at the stroke of a pen these investments will be nationalized by China and India. India was just told that Michael Dell of Dell Computer was hiring 5,000 people in India; Bill Gates was just in India getting ready to invest $4 billion, IC foundries are being set up in India and if these investments get nationalized it’s the Oligarchs not India who become the losers. This I can assure you will not be allowed to happen and the only way this doesn’t happen is there is no war.

Russia another large nuclear armed country has a lot to lose in any Iranian conflict as well. Currently Russia is building a nuclear power plant in Iran with contracts in place to build 20 more. In 1981 Israel launched a surprise attack on Iraq’s Osiraq nuclear facility; this is a matter of recorded history. Certainly there were guarantees made by Russia that this type of attack couldn’t occur and Russia placed surface to air missile systems in place to protect this investment. Before the Iraq War foreign contractors left the country, today we find that Russian contractors working on Iran’s nuclear power plants are still in the country.

Recently we even had Georgia a country in the coalition of the coerced that just signed a natural gas deal with Iran. Why would this deal occur if there was going to be a war? Certainly stable natural gas supplies during winter are something that needs to be counted on. Pakistan as well stands to lose billions if their natural gas pipeline is not allowed to go forward as well. France and Japan rely heavily upon Iranian crude and I’m sure they don’t have the reserves to handle any long term interruption of supply. Chirac has already implied that any disruption to Frances strategic supplies will be answered with nuclear weapons. Certainly any attack on Iran will lead to a long term disruption of supply; the Strait of Hormuz would be too easy for the Iranians to close down.

Preceding the Iraq War the build-up of military sales going on in the US was huge. Today against a much larger foe there is no US build-up of military sales going on. According to the GDP report for the fourth quarter of 2005, actual defense spending in the US declined by 13%. The believers of the Iranian War fantasy will cry out this is just a ruse, but when looking at the actual numbers from defense contractors in the US there is no visible activity going on to justify the war fantasy. No matter what military action the US would take against Iran, munitions will be used and need to be replaced. Assets such as planes, ships and helicopters will be lost and I’m sure the US would already have an idea of how many and orders six months ago would have been made for their replacement. No such actions by the US have been taken.

Preceding the Iraq War we know that Iraq was subject to 10 years of sanctions and virtually had no military defense capabilities. Iran has not been subject to such sanctions and is guaranteed to put up a good fight. Iran has missiles capable of hitting Jerusalem and Tel Avi; Iraq certainly had no such deterrent. Iran can hit Saudi oil fields as well as shut down the Strait of Hormuz that would prevent about 60% of the world’s oil exports from taking place. Iran unlike Iraq is more than capable of defending itself.

Preceding the Iraq War, Saddam found himself with no allies. Preceding this Iranian War fantasy Ahmadinejad finds himself with countless allies. Venezuela could easily stop the flow of 15% of US oil imports if this fantasy is to occur. More importantly South America still finds itself with hundreds of billions of US and European investments that the new nationalists of South America would love to nationalize. I would think to a large degree Iran can count on China, India, Russia, Brazil, Pakistan, South Africa, Venezuela, Argentina, Chile, France and much of the Arab world to play some role in fighting off US/UK/Israeli aggression. Against such a foe the psychotic villains that are playing the bad guys will not venture to fight. Remember according to the fantasy world of Harry Potter these villains only attack little boys and girls.

If there is going to be no war than what are the intentions of the US/UK/Israeli aggressors? I can assure you there is trillions of d0llars worth of reasons for this little fantasy to be playing out. All one has to do is look back to the Dot.com bubble implosion to see how those in the know can pull-out trillions of d0llars worth of wealth. Remember that Sir Templeton and Charles Swaab had no money invested in the NASDAQ bubble when that bubble popped. Likewise with the commodity bubble that has been created, bringing us almost $70 oil, almost $600 gold, record copper prices, none of the insiders are buyers right now and all of them are sellers. Certainly in a war these commodities will skyrocket and any idiot knows that’s what would occur. One only needs to ask oneself why the commodity insiders aren’t buying to know what is about to occur. There are trillions of d0llars about to be pulled from the commodity market that is guaranteed.


I wrote this almost a year ago, I see no reason for this position to change.

[Sip]

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

How is it a provocation towards Iran if Iranian patrol entered Afghanistan? I wouldn't think much of this at this point since this is not that uncommon in that region.