|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 13, 2007 10:24:00 GMT -5
Maybe if I had followed this a tad closer I might not be as surprised by the result. I thought Benjamin Netanyahu would run for the Likud party, but I guess he didn't. Interesting that Peres is 83 and he still garnered 86 of 120 votes in parliament. I think this was more about restoring the Presidential image than it was about anything else. Peres will definitely facilitate this. Israelis look to Peres to restore tarnished presidency
Last Updated: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 | 10:52 AM ET
The Associated Press
Elder statesman Shimon Peres was elected Israel's ninth president Wednesday, capping a campaign to extend his six-decade political career in a race marred by rape allegations against the sitting president, the parliament speaker said.
Peres, a Nobel Peace Prize winner of the ruling Kadima Party, won the support of 86 of the parliament's 120 members in a second round of voting in which he stood alone, Speaker Dalia Itzik said.
Presidential candidate Shimon Peres casts his ballot during voting at the Knesset, Israel's parliament, in Jerusalem, on Wednesday. Peres took a commanding lead in the first round of voting, a race that follows rape allegations against the incumbent president.
(Jim Hollander/Associated Press) His two rivals, Reuven Rivlin of the hawkish Likud and Colette Avital of the centrist Labour, withdrew from the race after he seized a commanding lead in the first round.
Peres, 83, who has held all of Israel's top civilian posts, will be sworn in July 15 for a seven-year term.
Peres had been seen as a shoo-in to win the post in 2000 — only to lose in a stunning upset to the now-disgraced Moshe Katsav, a political backbencher with the blessing of a prominent rabbi.
The office of president, conceived as a ceremonial post held by a prominent statesman or thinker, has been tainted by allegations that Katsav raped or otherwise sexually assaulted four female employees.
Katsav has not been formally charged, pending a final hearing before Israel's attorney general, but has stepped down temporarily to fight the allegations.
Israelis hope that Peres, with his international stature, will be able to restore the stature of the position.
Speaking at parliament ahead of the vote, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Kadima said "the history, actions and contributions of Shimon Peres to the state of Israel" made him "a model" for the ideal presidential candidate.The linkAs an aside, the closest I've been to Peres was when I was in Tel Aviv back in '96. We were on a 60-hour pass from the Golan Heights and we were having a few cans of beer while waiting for our bus to load up. His three-car mini convoy sped to the front door of his party headquarters, which was just across the street from us. The first guy out of the cars was a well-dressed (two-piece suit) guard who had a semi-automatic. He looked right at us and broke a small smile when he saw the beer cans. But right behind him was Peres entering the buidling. There was no mistaking him. However, it was the other security that caught us off guard. Two lads in short-sleeved shirts crossed in front of us and both were carrying Uzis. Thankfully they saw the beer too. Don't know what made me think of that. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on Jun 13, 2007 12:01:25 GMT -5
Maybe if I had followed this a tad closer I might not be as surprised by the result. I thought Benjamin Netanyahu would run for the Likud party, but I guess he didn't. Interesting that Peres is 83 and he still garnered 86 of 120 votes in parliament. I think this was more about restoring the Presidential image than it was about anything else. Peres will definitely facilitate this. As the role of president is only ceremonial in Israel it is of no interest to someone like Netanyahu. Interesting that Barak has returned as leader of the labour party. |
|
|
|
Post by duster on Jun 13, 2007 16:59:54 GMT -5
A fairly astute move that benefits the hardliners. It explains why Shas supported his election. By making Peres President, not only does it help restore the credibility of the Presidential office, but by making him nothing more than a figurehead, the more dovish members of the Knesset lose one of their key allies in any land for peace deal with the Palestinians in particular. Barak returning as leader of Labour is not surprising in light of this.
From an international perspective, a Nobel Peace prize winner as President makes good press and helps change the perception of Israel from being intransigent to potentially accommodating.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 14, 2007 20:54:47 GMT -5
With Hamas taking control of Gaza now, and a civil war breaking out pretty much within in their borders whoever becomes the next Prime Minister of Israel is going to have an "interesting" time.
Iran wins another one. Just how good is this Gates anyways?
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 14, 2007 21:08:50 GMT -5
With Hamas taking control of Gaza now, and a civil war breaking out pretty much within in their borders whoever becomes the next Prime Minister of Israel is going to have an "interesting" time. Iran wins another one. Just how good is this Gates anyways? The concern here is also how much will this spread and escalate elsewhere. From CNN: About 40 percent of the Palestinian population lives in Gaza, a longtime Hamas stronghold. In the Fatah-dominated West Bank, Abbas' followers ransacked and set ablaze the offices of Hamas officials in Nablus.Gaza might only be the start. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by mic on Jun 15, 2007 4:16:01 GMT -5
It is looking very ugly right now. It is really a tragedy. I still think that the West should not have tried to eliminate Hamas after they won the elections. This just made them more legitimate than Fatah (which had its share of corruption scandals). The EU and the US basically put a target just behind Fatah by acting like that. And now, it looks like Abbas will just lose everything. And the Bush administration will probably stay put. I am not sure Peres will have an important impact.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 15, 2007 6:26:28 GMT -5
It is looking very ugly right now. It is really a tragedy. I still think that the West should not have tried to eliminate Hamas after they won the elections. This just made them more legitimate than Fatah (which had its share of corruption scandals). The EU and the US basically put a target just behind Fatah by acting like that. And now, it looks like Abbas will just lose everything. And the Bush administration will probably stay put. I am not sure Peres will have an important impact. T of H and duster pretty much summed it up, Mic. The Israeli presidential office is more of a ceremonial position than it is an operational one. Peres won't be making that much of a difference. However, if a guy like Ben Netanyahu ends up calling the shots I think he'll restore the order of things so to speak. He's an experienced politician who doesn't dick around at all. But, at the same time I think Iran will know how to take advantage of that. Knowing Netanyahu to be a hard-liner, they'll keep funding groups like Hezbollah and push a few more buttons behind the scenes. I wish there was a solution good for everyone in this but it's like a continuous revolving door. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 15, 2007 7:49:21 GMT -5
It is looking very ugly right now. It is really a tragedy. I still think that the West should not have tried to eliminate Hamas after they won the elections. This just made them more legitimate than Fatah (which had its share of corruption scandals). The EU and the US basically put a target just behind Fatah by acting like that. And now, it looks like Abbas will just lose everything. And the Bush administration will probably stay put. I am not sure Peres will have an important impact. T of H and duster pretty much summed it up, Mic. The Israeli presidential office is more of a ceremonial position than it is an operational one. Peres won't be making that much of a difference. However, if a guy like Ben Netanyahu ends up calling the shots I think he'll restore the order of things so to speak. He's an experienced politician who doesn't dick around at all. But, at the same time I think Iran will know how to take advantage of that. Knowing Netanyahu to be a hard-liner, they'll keep funding groups like Hezbollah and push a few more buttons behind the scenes. I wish there was a solution good for everyone in this but it's like a continuous revolving door. Cheers. Bibi is indeed a hardliner, and he’d have no qualms whatsoever about plastering anything and everything that threatens Israel, but circumstances may be out of even his control. If you consider the Middle East to be a chess board, Iran is very carefully placing all its pieces around the board, slowly circling the West’s King… Right now Iran has controlling elements in both the government and countryside of Lebanon and Gaza, they have an ally (albeit only of convenience) in Syria, and Iraq has been ever-so conveniently removed as an obstacle or counter-weight. And they STILL have those Israeli soldiers as pawns to be used. Netanyahu can start beating the war drums, but Iran can simply light some fuses in the Gaza, and southern Lebanon, and possibly the West Bank, while continuing to tie up the US in Iraq, and before you know it Israel has got wars going on both inside it’s occupied territories, and on it’s borders. The more chaos there is, the better shape Iran is in. In the meantime, they keep working towards that check-mate, in the form of nuclear weapons… Its unfortunate, but the Iranians DO know what they are doing. The worst thing we can do is underestimate them. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 15, 2007 8:57:40 GMT -5
T of H and duster pretty much summed it up, Mic. The Israeli presidential office is more of a ceremonial position than it is an operational one. Peres won't be making that much of a difference. However, if a guy like Ben Netanyahu ends up calling the shots I think he'll restore the order of things so to speak. He's an experienced politician who doesn't dick around at all. But, at the same time I think Iran will know how to take advantage of that. Knowing Netanyahu to be a hard-liner, they'll keep funding groups like Hezbollah and push a few more buttons behind the scenes. I wish there was a solution good for everyone in this but it's like a continuous revolving door. Cheers. Bibi is indeed a hardliner, and he’d have no qualms whatsoever about plastering anything and everything that threatens Israel, but circumstances may be out of even his control. If you consider the Middle East to be a chess board, Iran is very carefully placing all its pieces around the board, slowly circling the West’s King… Right now Iran has controlling elements in both the government and countryside of Lebanon and Gaza, they have an ally (albeit only of convenience) in Syria, and Iraq has been ever-so conveniently removed as an obstacle or counter-weight. And they STILL have those Israeli soldiers as pawns to be used. Being a former competative chess player this analogy gives me an extremely clear picture of what is transpiring. The pieces all have a specific place. The Bishop; winning the hearts and minds of the people through fundamental religion. The Knights; Hamas, Hezbollah taking the fight to the infadel and showing success. The Rooks: Representing the newly won-over territories. Stongholds achieved through military success that have not been touched by Israel. The Pawns: Represented by the many the Bishop's provide guidance to and who the knights defend. This is what I meant by restoring the order of things. If Bibi is calling the shots he will not lose; no ands, ifs or buts. However, an Israeli military restoration will only maintain the status quo. Nothing will have been resolved in the grand chess game. Israel exists and therefore has enemies. Netanyahu has already stated he will take out any and all Iranian nuclear programs if they are deemed a threat to the existance of Israel. He won't do so without placing his entire country on full alert for any retaliatory action. Have to run. Check in later. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by duster on Jun 15, 2007 17:07:02 GMT -5
The Iranians may know what they are doing, but so do the Israelis. A few points to consider:
Hamas taking over Gaza appears to be a victory over secularism. The truth is otherwise, imo. It is, if anything, remarkably short sighted. Not only can Israel shut down all economic activity in Gaza pretty much at will, but secular Egypt cannot risk an extremist regime on its doorstep and now has no choice but to oppose Hamas and seal its border. The Europeans will refuse economic assistance to any regime that terms itself Islamic. In fact, they already have. Ultimately, the populace pays. The same populace that has supported Hamas all along. I wouldn't be surprised if the average resident of the Gaza Strip isn't very pleased by all this. Their lot is about to get much worse.
Fatah is far from beaten despite recent defections. They still receive considerable economic assistance from the U.S, Europe and the Arab League. In any end game, they will systematically eliminate Hamas from the West Bank with Israel's blessing, if not tacit assistance, and it looks as if that's started already. They have no choice really. Iran, as a supporter of Hamas, is now a nominal antagonist and confirmed opponent to the peace process from a moderate Arab or Palestinian point of view. The Israelis merely have to watch, wait and keep building their wall. They can also resume their policy of selective assassination of Hamas' leadership with the exception that they now have Fatah's approval. Hamas has no place to run. What can Iran do?
The eminent historian Sir John Keegan, like many others, has predicted since last summer a resumption of hostilities between Hizbollah and Israel. I have a tendency to agree. The press has given the perception that Hizbollah defeated the Israelis when, in fact, it lost 20% of its fighting strength and expended most of its arsenal while Israeli losses were comparatively light. Iran is presently going through a serious economic crisis with high inflation, trade sanctions, high unemployment and possible overstretch. They simply can't afford to bankroll another conflict with Israel while assisting Syria and Hamas financially. The Israelis have no such problem.
Interesting times
Edits : grammar, spelling etc...
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 15, 2007 17:49:24 GMT -5
With Hamas taking control of Gaza now, and a civil war breaking out pretty much within in their borders whoever becomes the next Prime Minister of Israel is going to have an "interesting" time. Iran wins another one. Just how good is this Gates anyways? Waiting....waiting....waiting..... Gates MUST wait until Iran extends itself too far. It's far cheaper to ferment a civil war then lose ones own resources fighting it. Bibi is indeed a hardliner, and he’d have no qualms whatsoever about plastering anything and everything that threatens Israel, but circumstances may be out of even his control. If you consider the Middle East to be a chess board, Iran is very carefully placing all its pieces around the board, slowly circling the West’s King… Right now Iran has controlling elements in both the government and countryside of Lebanon and Gaza, they have an ally (albeit only of convenience) in Syria, and Iraq has been ever-so conveniently removed as an obstacle or counter-weight. And they STILL have those Israeli soldiers as pawns to be used. Netanyahu can start beating the war drums, but Iran can simply light some fuses in the Gaza, and southern Lebanon, and possibly the West Bank, while continuing to tie up the US in Iraq, and before you know it Israel has got wars going on both inside it’s occupied territories, and on it’s borders. The more chaos there is, the better shape Iran is in. In the meantime, they keep working towards that check-mate, in the form of nuclear weapons… Its unfortunate, but the Iranians DO know what they are doing. The worst thing we can do is underestimate them. Iran is playing a dangerous game but it current government has no choice. It's own economy is on a mess and there is NO WAY it can satisfy the growing demand of it's young population. If the existing government has any hope of maintainiing power, it has to keep the entire reagion on edge as a diversion for it's own people. Meanwhile..... The Palestinians for the seventh million time has shot themselves in the foot. Bibi can slaughter Hamas at will and with the blessing of the other half of the Palestinian population. If worse comes to worse, Bibi goes in and there is nothing left of Gaza. And the Palestinian population? They will see even MORE misery then they can possibly imagine. There was a time that I very sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Now, I couldn't care less what happens to them. Why? Because I remember the celebration for 9/11. Sure, the "official" line was that they condemned the slaughter. The reality on the streets and in the cafes was that there were enjoyed the carnage. Fine. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 15, 2007 17:50:35 GMT -5
Iran may know what they are doing, but so the Israelis. A few points to consider: Hamas taking over Gaza appears to be a victory over secularism. The truth is otherwise, imo. It is, if anything, remarkably short sighted. Not only can Israel shut down all economic activity in Gaza pretty much at will, but secular Egypt cannot risk an extremist regime on its doorstep and now has no choice now but to oppose Hamas and seal its border. The Europeans will refuse any economic assistance to any regime that terms itself Islamic. In fact, they already have. Ultimately, the populace pays. The same populace that has supported Hamas all along. I wouldn't be surprised if the average resident of the Gaza Strip isn't very pleased by all this. Their lot is about to get much worse. Fatah is far from beaten despite recent defections. They still receive considerable economic assistance from the U.S, Europe and the Arab League. In any end game, they will systematically eliminate Hamas from the West Bank with Israel's blessing, if not tacit assistance, and it looks as if that's started already. They have no choice really. Iran, as supporters of Hamas, are now nominal antagonists and confirmed opponents to the peace process from a moderate Arab or Palestinian point of view. The Israelis merely have to watch, wait and keep building their wall. They can also resume their policy of selective assassination of Hamas' leadership with the exception that now they have Fatah's approval. Hamas has no place to run. What can Iran do? The eminent historian Sir John Keegan, like many others, has predicted since last summer a resumption of hostilities between Hizbollah and Israel. I have a tendency to agree. The press has given the perception that Hizbollah defeated the Israelis when, in fact, it lost 20% of its fighting strength and expended most of its arsenal while Israeli losses were comparatively light. Iran is presently going through a serious economic crisis with high inflation, trade sanctions, high unemployment and possible overstretch. They simply can't afford to bankroll another conflict with Israel while assisting Syria and Hamas financially. The Israelis have no such problem. Interesting times I'm buying what your selling. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jun 17, 2007 2:29:34 GMT -5
Iran is playing a dangerous game but it current government has no choice. It's own economy is on a mess and there is NO WAY it can satisfy the growing demand of it's young population. If the existing government has any hope of maintainiing power, it has to keep the entire reagion on edge as a diversion for it's own people. The U.S. is doing a great job of keeping the region on edge. Aside from destabilizing Iraq, they are constantly making accusastions and threats towards Iran, and conducting maneuvers just outside Iranian waters, seemingly hoping to provoke a conflict. It's almost as if they want to build public support for the government in Iran. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 17, 2007 9:50:37 GMT -5
Iran has stated outright, clearly and without any hesitetaion that they want to DOMINATE the region. Iran has stated outright that they finiance Hamas, Hezbollah and a number of smaller groups (as if nobody knew this already). Iran has stated outright that THEY are the "rightful owners" of several smaller countries. Iran is finiancing and backing the instabilty in Iraq. Iran wants to destroy the very existence of another coutnry and is PERSUING the means. Iran persuit of those means will nuclearize an entire region, a region that is already on the edge of stability. Of course, a region that is already on the edge of stability does wonders for well finianced roque groups accessing weapons of mass destruction. But actually looking at the given and the obvious is not as hip and cool and being anti-American. P.S. Note to NEW generation: My generation invented "hip and cool" anti-war, anti-Amreican, pro enviroment, tree hugging cloaks to rebel and protest with. Actually, not only did we invernt it, we even created the pharmaceuticals to support it. Invent something different will ya.  |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jun 17, 2007 15:03:14 GMT -5
Iran wants to destroy the very existence of another coutnry If that's a reference to Ahmadinejad's comment about "wiping Israel off the map," that comment was mistranslated (and taken somewhat out of context). At worst, he called for "regime change" in Israel. Of course, you're not likely to hear that in the "liberal" Western media. BTW, was any of your post meant to refute mine? Because if so, you missed the mark. But I guess it's easier to eat up the government propaganda and pretend that Iran is "evil" than it is to actually look at the faults of both sides (you know, "the obvious"). |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 17, 2007 18:52:00 GMT -5
Iran wants to destroy the very existence of another coutnry If that's a reference to Ahmadinejad's comment about "wiping Israel off the map," that comment was mistranslated (and taken somewhat out of context). At worst, he called for "regime change" in Israel. Of course, you're not likely to hear that in the "liberal" Western media. Then you don't want to believe what is in front of you. Here is BANGKOK paper. Or is THAT Western media too? And if that is not enough, I can quote you Greek newspapers who say the same thing. And if that is not enough for you, I can get Turkish versions of ths same thing. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ www.bangkokpost.net/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=78985~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BREAKING NEWS Ahmadinejad: Israel 'will be removed' Tehran (dpa) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Saturday that the Palestinians and "other nations" will eventually remove Israel from the region. Addressing a mass demonstration in Tehran - one of many organized throughout Iran to commemorate the 27th anniversary of the Islamic revolution - he once again questioned the Holocaust "fairy tale". "We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them," Ahmadinejad said in a ceremony marking the 27th anniversary of the Islamic revolution. "Do the removal of Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations," the ultra-conservative president said. He once again called the Holocaust a "fairy tale" and said Europeans have become hostages of "Zionists" in Israel. He also accused Europeans for not allowing "neutral scholars" to investigate in Europe and make a scientific report on "the truth about the fairy tale of Holocaust." "How comes that insulting the prophet of Muslims worldwide is justified within the framework of press freedom, but investigating about the fairy tale Holocaust is not?" Ahmadinejad said. "The real Holocaust is what is happening in Palestine where the Zionists avail themselves of the fairy tale of Holocaust as blackmail and justification for killing children and women and making innocent people homeless," Ahmadinejad said. The president said that the results of the parliamentary elections in Palestine and the victory of the Hamas group "clearly showed what the people really want." "You (the West) want democracy but do not respect the outcome," Ahmadinejad said, referring to the election results in Iraq and Palestine. "It seems that you (the West) only want that form of democracy whose results just repeat your standpoints and only follow your policies," he said. Ahmadinejad once again called on the West to adopt the "simple option" and allow Palestinians to voice their political will through a referendum. Mass demonstrations organized by the state were held throughout Iran on Saturday as the nation commemorated the 27th anniversary of the revolution that established the Islamic Republic in Iran. According to state media, hundreds of thousands of people came into the streets to show their solidarity with the government over pursuing the country's nuclear programmes and voice their protest against publication of cartoons deemed insulting to the Prophet Mohammed. While chanting "Death to America", "Death of Israel" and "Nuclear energy is our undisputable right", the crowd walked toward the Azadi (Freedom) Square in Tehran where Ahmadinejad held his annual speech. In his speech the Iranian president warned that in case of harsh measures against Tehran over its controversial nuclear programme, the country would revise its commitment toward the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT). "The policy of Iran has so far been pursuing nuclear technology within the framework of the NPT and IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)," he said. "But if you (the West) continue efforts to deprive the Iranian nation from this (nuclear) right, then we would reconsider this policy," he warned. Ahmadinejad asked the crowd in the Azadi square to tell the world its message and show its willingness to continue the nuclear programmes despite Western pressure. "The era of military force is over, today is the era of nations, logic and worshippers of God," the president said. He also referred to remarks by United States President George W. Bush who had said that the Iranian people were different from the Islamic government in Tehran, saying there was no distinction. "Look, this is the third generation standing here and they are even more religious, more informed, more enthusiastic and more resistant (than the first generation) to defend the ideals of the revolution," Ahmadinejad said. The president also referred to the cartoons and called it a "Zionist plot" against not only Muslims but also those genuinely committed to Christianity and Judaism. "Those who insulted the prophet should know that you cannot obscure the sun with a handful of dust. The dust will just get back and blind your own eyes," he said. The crowd replied to his remarks with "Death to Denmark" slogans. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As for the rest of your post, it's irrelevent to this discussion...and to me. |
|
|
|
Post by duster on Jun 17, 2007 19:27:42 GMT -5
Iran wants to destroy the very existence of another coutnry If that's a reference to Ahmadinejad's comment about "wiping Israel off the map," that comment was mistranslated (and taken somewhat out of context). At worst, he called for "regime change" in Israel. Of course, you're not likely to hear that in the "liberal" Western media. BTW, was any of your post meant to refute mine? Because if so, you missed the mark. But I guess it's easier to eat up the government propaganda and pretend that Iran is "evil" than it is to actually look at the faults of both sides (you know, "the obvious"). Interesting point of view. I'm neither pro-Iranian or pro- American, but it's easy to see that Iran is not a helpless victim that is being badly portrayed by the Western media and that Ahmadinejad is not Mother Theresa. I'm not saying Americans are angels either. A few things to consider: Ahmadinejad may have been misquoted, but there is absolutely no doubt on how his actions and words are interpreted by Israel, Europe, the U.S., the moderate Arab states, the nations of the Persian Gulf, Hizbollah and Hamas. Hamas is an organization whose stated main goal is the destruction of the Jewish state and it receives practically all of its funding and weaponry from Iran (via Syria most likely, some smuggled via Egypt). This would imply that Iran agrees with their political objectives and it's clearly a continuation of a more generalized foreign policy towards Israel by other means, in this case using a proxy. In fact, Ahmadinejad is courting with economic disaster in order to further this aim. "Regime change" here means Islamic rule by Hamas and an end to the peace process that is considered a key part of American foreign policy. Believe what you want, but you can be sure the Israelis think Iran is behind all this, true or not. That means the Americans get involved and three carrier battle groups in the Gulf. More pertinent to the Americans is Iran's nuclear program and the reaction of Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States who may decide to start their own programs as a result. Regardless of whether you think the Iranians will be using it for peaceful purposes or not, the fact that they openly support so called "terrorist" organizations such as Hizbollah, Hamas and Shi'ite extremists in Iraq make the Americans, Europeans, Saudis and the rest of the Arab League extremely nervous. Even China. This is not North Korea playing a shell game in order to extract economic concessions, but a regime that could potentially develop a nuclear weapon and give it to Hizbollah, for example. I'm not saying they will, but the possibility does exist. Again, the Americans have no choice but be directly involved since the Gulf is considered a zone of "vital economic interest". It also means the Gulf States are arming themselves the teeth. This is fact, not Western media spin. In light of this, clearly Iran has replaced the Soviet Union as the U.S principal adversary. So, if you are the U.S. , what do you do? Well, you do what's worked before. In this case, that's a policy of aggressive containment while slowly fostering regime change from within through economic means while overtly encouraging a policy of engagement with your antagonist's closest ally, in this case Syria. Exactly as they did with the former Soviet Union, and to a certain extent North Korea, except this time, they have world opinion on their side, support in the Security Council, and they can easily cut off Iran's oil exports through naval blockade under UN mandate further exacerbating a deepening economic and domestic crisis. Despite record oil prices, the Iranian economy is feeling the full force of existing U.S. led trade sanctions. Inflation is spiralling out of control, unemployment is almost at record levels and stagflation is a real possibility. Bankrolling Hizbollah and paying for reparations in Lebanon cost Iran a fortune. Domestic political adversaries are increasingly critical and even Khamenei appears to have publicly divorced himself from a once tight relationship with Ahmadinejad. Growing domestic unease due to constant foreign policy battles with the West has talk of the Ayatollahs supporting an early recall of the Presidency or early presidential elections which were normally scheduled for 2009. Such is the animosity regarding Ahmadinejad nuclear ambitions and Iran’s increasingly isolated position position in the world, that the latter is now left very few allies and faces a barrage of domestic pressure and criticism. In other words, U.S. policy is working. So much for increased public support. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 17, 2007 21:43:04 GMT -5
And to add to Dusters comments..... The US is there because MOST of the region wants them there. The ONLY countries that don't want them there is Iran, Syria and Yemen. While the Americans are not loved, they are seen as the lesser evil. As for nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia has "finianced" the Pakistani nuclear program and as soon as Iran announces that it has nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia will "test" theirs. Saudi Arabia also made it clear as a bell that they rather NOT see nuclear prolifiration in the region but if Iran develops them, they will arm instantly. So has Egypt, so has Kuwait, so wil the UAE and so will Turkey, which means Greece HAS to acquire them too, which means that the Balkans will also see "their right" to nuclear weapons. In no uncertain terms, Iran is seen by ARAB STATES as the leading domino in the nuclearzation of the entire region....and beyond. Of course, for some, it will be the Ugly Americans fault.  ~~~~~~~~~~~ I don't know if it's in the main media yet but if it isn't.... *Two rockets landed either Friday or Saturday in Israel from Lebanon. *Israel has allowed a few hundred Fatah fighters to cross to Gaza WITH WEAPONS. Here we go again..... |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 18, 2007 6:16:33 GMT -5
In light of this, clearly Iran has replaced the Soviet Union as the U.S principal adversary. Not sure if it made it to other papers ... Gynn Dyer (a native Newfoundlander) in the local newspaper this weekend, was interviewed and he gave certain predictions to where he sees the world going .... he said he sees another "Cold War" developing between the US and China, one that will be immensely worse than the cold war with the USSR. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 18, 2007 7:27:02 GMT -5
In light of this, clearly Iran has replaced the Soviet Union as the U.S principal adversary. Not sure if it made it to other papers ... Gynn Dyer (a native Newfoundlander) in the local newspaper this weekend, was interviewed and he gave certain predictions to where he sees the world going .... he said he sees another "Cold War" developing between the US and China, one that will be immensely worse than the cold war with the USSR. Quite the thread guys. Just getting caught up this morning. Had to re-read several posts because they are that good. Skilly, about two years ago I started a thread about China building 40 new nuclear power plants within the next 15 years. According to Dyer, they are going to be the world's future energy cow usurping the USA. There are several indicators, in addition to the power plants, that suggest China is preparing for it. * China has recently struck an oil deal with Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. Venezuela is the world's 5th-largest exporter of oil in the world; however, 60% of their oil sales go to the USA. China struck this deal because they they have one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. And, as the article points out, Chavez doesn't want to be totally reliant on US sales. Needless to say, the USA is miffed about this. * Russia has also agreed to up their export of oil to Russia to the tune of 5 times the current agreement. However, this isn't without reason. A while back I referred to the BRICS alliance. This strategic alliance is the brainchild of Russian president Vladmir Putin and includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. While China needs the oil for it's growing economy, the increased volume is actually in exchange for securing Russia's eastern flank. I haven't mentioned Russia's indignation to the US, Euro-based, missile defence program. They feel the USA is using the Iranian nuclear program as an excuse to place missiles in Western Europe. This, and the economic threat to US dominance by China, indicate that another Cold War is well on the way. And, of course, companies like Halliburton, will be right there to clean up. In keeping with the thread, Iranian president, Ahmadinejad, has already publicly stated that the state of Israel should be wiped off the face of the map. And whether he is funding Hamas or Hezbollah (forward Iranian infantry) doing it for him, his objective remains the same. On the other side of the coin, Israel's support of Fatah is merely a method for not taking responsibility for eradicating Hamas directly, though I doubt they would have too many enemies if they did anyway. The problem may very well be that the Israeli public doesn't want another conflict so soon after the last one. And, from what I've read, they didn't want that conflict either. Unlike the potential of the BRICS/USA cold war, the Middle East is still embroiled in actual war. It's not going away any time soon. Having been in the Middle East there's I found there's just too much hatred. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jun 18, 2007 14:01:39 GMT -5
Regardless of whether you think the Iranians will be using it for peaceful purposes or not, the fact that they openly support so called "terrorist" organizations such as Hizbollah, Hamas and Shi'ite extremists in Iraq make the Americans, Europeans, Saudis and the rest of the Arab League extremely nervous. I'm certainly not "pro-Iranian," although I can understand why Israel and the US make Iran nervous. I imagine you're aware that the US supports terrorist organizations as well, in total contradiction to all their rhetoric about the war on terror. [This would imply that Iran agrees with their political objectives and it's clearly a continuation of a more generalized foreign policy towards Israel by other means, in this case using a proxy. I don't know if there's any country better at fighting proxy wars than the US. Hmmm. And what does the phrase "regime change" mean when uttered by members of the Bush administration? Here's another POV, from Charley Reese: The drumbeat for war against Iran has begun again, led by Sen. Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat from Connecticut, and the usual pro-Israel crowd. Lieberman seems to be under the impression that the U.S. can bomb Iran and not get into a full-fledged war.
Well, we know all about cakewalks and how they turn into long, bloody and dreary marches. We learned nothing from Vietnam, and apparently some of the people have learned nothing from Iraq, now a cakewalk war that has lasted longer than World War II, though not with the same intensity and mass.
If the senator, who seems to be one of those who loves war as long as he doesn't have to fight it, really believes that we can attack Iran without Iranian retaliation, then he's naive. If he knows better, he's a liar, and to lie the American people into a second war before the other lied-into war in Iraq is even over is despicable. He should be shunned by all decent people.
I don't see how any honest man can believe that Iran is a threat to the United States or its neighbors. Iran has not invaded anyone in the past 100 years. Iran has from the beginning insisted that its nuclear program is for peaceful energy purposes, and there has been no evidence – I repeat, no evidence – to the contrary. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty explicitly authorizes countries to enrich uranium. In other words, Iran has not done anything illegal.
Iran has no intercontinental missiles, and the only country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons is Israel. Please note that the United States flatly refuses to endorse the idea of a nuclear-free Middle East. Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel has refused to sign it. Iran admits international inspectors. Israel flatly refuses to allow international inspectors. The only country in today's Middle East with weapons of mass destruction and a history of invading and occupying other people's countries is Israel.
As for Iran's alleged threat to "wipe Israel off the map," that is propaganda based on a mistranslation. Nobody in Iran has ever threatened to attack Israel militarily. The accurate quotes from Iranians have been simply that Israel as a Zionist state will eventually collapse, just as the Soviet Union as a communist state did. Iranian officials have even explicitly said they have no desire or intention of attacking Israel.
You should ask yourself, What is the real motive of people who deal in lies? What is the real agenda of people who wish to paint Iran as a threat to the world? (Remember what a threat they said Iraq was?) Why, if the United States is really concerned about preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, has it steadfastly refused to endorse the idea of a nuclear-free Middle East – something Iran and the Arab countries have proposed time and again?
Finally, of course, there is the matter of deterrence. Deterrence worked against the Soviet Union's 30,000 nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them. Anybody who says Iran would not be deterred from using a handful of nuclear weapons – assuming it even developed them – is a fool or a liar.
Furthermore, Iran would gain nothing by attacking Israel, the U.S. or Europe. Americans might disagree with how Iranians choose to run their country, but that doesn't mean that Iran's leaders are insane. They are, in fact, intelligent and well-educated.
As for the United States' latest claim that Iran is supplying weapons to the Taliban, I simply don't believe it. The U.S. government has lied and lied to the American people. It has zero credibility. Iran is a Shi'ite country; the Taliban are a fanatical Sunni sect. Iran volunteered its assistance during the initial American attack on Afghanistan. Why would Iran suddenly change its mind? www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=11144 |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jun 18, 2007 14:08:10 GMT -5
Tehran (dpa) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Saturday that the Palestinians and "other nations" will eventually remove Israel from the region. Sorry, but that is not a threat. For some reason people think it's ok for the US to make threats, possess WMD, invade sovereign countries, practice torture, support terrorism, and generally ignore international law, but when anyone else does it (or is accused of doing it), it's time to invade. |
|
|
|
Post by duster on Jun 18, 2007 21:30:34 GMT -5
In light of this, clearly Iran has replaced the Soviet Union as the U.S principal adversary. Not sure if it made it to other papers ... Gynn Dyer (a native Newfoundlander) in the local newspaper this weekend, was interviewed and he gave certain predictions to where he sees the world going .... he said he sees another "Cold War" developing between the US and China, one that will be immensely worse than the cold war with the USSR. I am very familiar with Gwynne Dyer's works. I have several of his books in my bookcase. The latest one I read is Ignorant Armies. I highly recommend it. No question, the U.S. and China are set for a Cold War. Economics alone make the return to a bipolar world a certainty. Then there is the question of Taiwan. Presently, Iran is the main U.S. antagonist. China is still an awakening giant at this point, imo. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 18, 2007 21:41:41 GMT -5
Not sure if it made it to other papers ... Gynn Dyer (a native Newfoundlander) in the local newspaper this weekend, was interviewed and he gave certain predictions to where he sees the world going .... he said he sees another "Cold War" developing between the US and China, one that will be immensely worse than the cold war with the USSR. I am very familiar with Gwynne Dyer's works. I have several of his books in my bookcase. The latest one I read is Ignorant Armies. I highly recommend it. Have one of his books and his series on "War" on VHS. Also have "The Defence of Canada" as well. China has been making friends with everyone except the USA lately. I don't know of another country who can conduct joint military maneuvers with Pakistan while maintaining a strategic alliance with India. They've cut offshore oil drilling deals with Venezuela and are starting to dominate economically. However, while they are mass producing a plethora of product lines, they need consumers for those products. One of their most lucrative markets is the USA. I don't have the link right now but there is an agreement in place between the two countries. The USA agrees to purchase obscene amounts of Chinese products, while the Chinese agree to buy "X" number of US dollars in order to keep it stabilized internationally. Once I find the link I'll post it. And the USA is quite the consumer. I was told by an economics prof that no less than 176,000 sea containers a week go from China to Wal*Mart USA. Cold war is ensuing, granted. But, I'm willing to bet the China is already finding new buyers for their products. Once that happens we should see escalations. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by duster on Jun 18, 2007 23:12:12 GMT -5
I'm certainly not "pro-Iranian," although I can understand why Israel and the US make Iran nervous. I imagine you're aware that the US supports terrorist organizations as well, in total contradiction to all their rhetoric about the war on terror. This goes without saying. It would be naive to think otherwise. I don't know if there's any country better at fighting proxy wars than the US. The U.S. learned from experts in the field : The former Soviet Union. Just because the Iranians are, perhaps, not achieving the same level of success doesn't mean they aren't trying. Hmmm. And what does the phrase "regime change" mean when uttered by members of the Bush administration? In Bush's world, it means Ahmadinejad is no longer President and a return to power of the so-called moderates. Simple things for simple minds. A misleading statement in a way. Iran was dominated by Russia and the British Empire for a good portion of the 19th Century and first half of the 20th Century. In fact, the country was jointly occupied by the Soviets and British during the Second World War. It's kind of hard to invade anyone when you are squeezed between two imperial powers. In this case, Iran couldn't have invaded anyone if they wanted to. It's not because Iranians were peace loving. In fact, they were occupied because the government of the time was pro-Axis. Things changed post war. An independent Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi spent a considerable amount of Iran's oil wealth on armaments and was, in essence, a U.S. proxy, if not the Gulf's policeman until he was ousted in 1979 and Shi'ite Iran became an Islamic state. Even then, one could argue that Islamic Iran tried to invade Iraq during the course of the Iran-Iraq War when it's war objectives changed mid way through the conflict from self defense to seizing Iraqi territory and ousting Saddam Hussein. Agreed, Iran is not a direct threat to the U.S. proper, but it is perceived as a destabilizing element to the neighbouring Gulf States who are mainly Sunni and autocratic, if not secular. Why else would the UAE, Kuwait and the Saudis be arming themselves to the teeth? If the Gulf States feel threatened, it's safe to say the Americans feel that way as well since the area is considered a zone of vital economic interest to them. Not sure which planet Mr. Reese lives on. The Iranians have Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles and have supplied them to Syria and Hizbollah. The Persian Gulf, some of the more important moderate Arab states and Israel are within range. Furthermore, Iran ended voluntary cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2006. In 1948, the Arabs were the aggressors and in 1967, they were getting ready to repeat the attempt. It explains the word "pre-emptive" when describing the Israeli actions that began the Six Day War. The conflict during Yom Kippur in 1973 was initiated by Egypt's crossing of the Suez Canal into Sinai. Elsewhere, Syria occupied Lebanon from the late 70's to until recently. Meanwhile, Iraq tried to seize parts of Iran in 1980 and invaded Kuwait in 1991. The only reason Egypt and Jordan are not occupiers is because they failed. But they do provide financial and military support to Hizbollah and Hamas. Both are sworn enemies of Israel. Hamas, in particular, preaches war without end against Israel and extermination of all Jews in Palestine/Israel. It's reasonable to assume that Iran supports and agrees with their agenda. This support is tangible in the form of money and weapons. Indeed. In the fog of war, the first casualty is the truth. Consider that, perhaps, the reason why Iran and some Arab nations wish a nuclear free Middle East is because it eliminates Israel's deterence, at first glance anyway. I'm not a soldier, but that seems to be the obvious conclusion. Personally, I think a nuclear free Middle East is more necessary than ever with the rise of militant Islam. But to achieve it, courage and vision of the kind that we haven't seen in decades is needed i.e complete Israeli nuclear disarmament, an end to Iran's nuclear program, and, most importantly, the U.S. and Europe guarantee Israeli security no matter what. Think anyone will go for this? Not so sure the more radical elements on each side would readily accept this. What about the proxies? Proposing is easy, doing is another matter. Of that, I have no doubt. Many of the existing Iranian intelligentsia are Western educated and pragmatists. Not so sure about Hamas, Hizbollah and some of the people who support Al-Qaida though. I agree to a certain extent. The Bush administration is not known for telling the truth. It's not altogether impossible though and to simply refuse to believe it out of hand is foolish. To paraphrase a certain 19th Century politician "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests." and then, there is " the enemy of my enemy is my friend" school of thought. Why can't any of this be applicable to Iran and the Taliban? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 19, 2007 6:23:56 GMT -5
I don't know if there's any country better at fighting proxy wars than the US. Yes there is .... Canada. We always get the Americans to do our fighting for us.  |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 19, 2007 7:21:58 GMT -5
I don't know if there's any country better at fighting proxy wars than the US. Yes there is .... Canada. We always get the Americans to do our fighting for us. To a much, much lesser degree these days, Skilly. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 19, 2007 11:38:18 GMT -5
Yes there is .... Canada. We always get the Americans to do our fighting for us. To a much, much lesser degree these days, Skilly. Cheers. Yes ... Afghanistan obviously proves my little attempt at humour to be wrong ... but for years we were the little brother standing behind Big Brother sticking our tongues out and no one noticing. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 19, 2007 13:32:31 GMT -5
To a much, much lesser degree these days, Skilly. Cheers. Yes ... Afghanistan obviously proves my little attempt at humour to be wrong ... but for years we were the little brother standing behind Big Brother sticking our tongues out and no one noticing. No worries, skilly. Geeze, it's not like we had the means to be self-sustaining. The main saving grace to our Armed Forces has always been the professionalism of our soldiers/sailors/airmen. What they've lacked for years is the equipment. That's gradually changing for the better with this Tory Government. In keeping with the thread, there are only two Canadians remaining in the Golan Heights. That's down from a logistics company strength of 195. Both the Israelis and the Syrians loved having Canadians. We didn't take sides and we rarely created any international incidents ... rarely that is. The Syrians treated us like gold. The Israeli border guards didn't mind us at all but the rest of their regular army regarded us as being in the way. Now I believe the Japanese, Polish and Indians are in Camp Ziouani. Here's a picture of "0" bunker, which is where most of my section worked out of for six months.  Unfortunately, though, only being part of a logistics company, our best defense in case of hostilities breaking out was to stay put in our camp. The last time it happened the Israelis basically blocked the UN into their camps and rolled into Syria. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 19, 2007 21:38:36 GMT -5
A new use (to me anyway) for Gabion baskets!!  |
|
