Should Iran be prevented from having nuclear weapons?

by **Ivan** Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:53 pm

First topic message reminder :

I used to think it was breathtaking arrogance and hypocrisy for those countries which have nuclear weapons to make judgements about which other countries could, or couldn’t, have them as well. After all, if you want to take the moral high ground on this issue, shouldn’t you get rid of your own nuclear weapons before telling other countries that they can’t have them?

My opinion changed immediately when I heard the President of the Islamofascist state of Iran (who goes by some name like ‘Ironmydinnerjacket’) say, on the first of several occasions, that he wanted "to wipe Israel off the map”. George W. Bush, with his talk of 'crusades' and his readiness to go to war against Saddam Hussein “because he tried to kill my daddy”, was a dangerous man to have in charge of nuclear weapons, but no Western power has talked of wiping out nations.

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and Germany, have expressed their "increasing concern" over Iran's nuclear programme, and they have called for clarification over any possible military uses. Iran insists that the programme is for purely peaceful purposes, but the International Atomic Agency says they want to send a high level mission to Iran to clear up any confusion.

With nuclear weapons, Iran could do very serious damage to Israel, and a pre-emptive strike by the Israelis must be a strong possibility. Should we support that, or even precipitate it? Are attempts at negotiation with Iran a waste of time?

by witchfinder Sun Jan 01, 2012 5:54 pm

There was an old lady who swallowed a fly, I dont know why she swallowed a fly, perhaps she l die; I know an old lady who swallowed a spider, which wriggled and wriggled and tickled inside her, she swallowed the spider to catch the fly.

And so the rhyme goes on - fly, spider, bird, cat, dog, goat, cow - a never ending story of how one thing leads to another.

And so the question is, why is Iran hostile to Israel, is it the same reason why the general public of Egypt are also hostile to Israel ?, also the people of Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia ?, what exactly is the root cause of all the problems of the middle east, and what does it require to solve the problem. ?

There is no complicated answer, the answer is realy very simple, the peoples and the nations of the middle east need to accept a two state solution.

Israel must stop its terrorism against Palestinians, stop demolishing peoples homes, stop stealing land, put a halt to denying rights and freedoms to Palestinians, stop the apartheid system whereby Palestinians are second class citizens, denied even basic medical treatment and basic essentials to live.

The United States must end its support of the Israeli state, stop pretending to be impartial whilst at the same time been Israels biggest supplier of arms and money.

Its no wonder that Islamic extremists sprung up and its no wonder that these terrorist groups see America as the second most hated target, I have the strongly held opinion that America asked for what it got, the United States has the capability and the power to force Israel into compromise, into reaching a deal, but they refuse to do so.

Get to the source of the middle east problem and solve it

by astra Sun Jan 01, 2012 6:55 pm

As we Scots say

For once and for all,

Lance the boil!

by Charlatan Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:35 pm

Shirina wrote: I think the Iranians understand just what using a nuclear weapon means. No, I believe Iran wants nukes to, as I've said, up their status and prestige as a nuclear power.

I have to agree with you there.

by Shirina Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:05 pm

The United States must end its support of the Israeli state, stop pretending to be impartial whilst at the same time been Israels biggest supplier of arms and money.

I don't think for a minute that America claims or pretends to be impartial when it comes to Israel. Yet America is not in the habit of letting other countries tell us who she supports and who she doesn't - and that's the way it should be. If America did anything less, then America is being ruled from Damascus, Tehran, or Amman, not Washington. If America ended its support for Israel without a very good reason, then it would tarnish America's reputation and reliability in the eyes of ALL her allies.

Its no wonder that Islamic extremists sprung up and its no wonder that these terrorist groups see America as the second most hated target, I have the strongly held opinion that America asked for what it got, the United States has the capability and the power to force Israel into compromise, into reaching a deal, but they refuse to do so.

Islam should have spent more time on diplomacy with the USA instead of trying to coerce America into changing her foreign policy through the use of terror attacks. The more they blow things up, the less likely America will deal with them as legitimate political entities. It would be the same as negotiating with thugs and criminals. But their first knee-jerk reaction was to start throwing bombs around, and in that sense, the extremists asked for what THEY got, which is essentially a permanent US presence in the Middle East.

Also, America doesn't have the power to force Israel into doing anything it doesn't want to do. Even if America ceased its military support for Israel, Israel would simply turn to its second largest arms supplier - France. Not only would we lose a much needed ally in the Middle East region, we would be putting a lot of money into French pockets with no appreciable gain for America. It would also prove to every two-bit Islamic extremist group that terrorism actually works. Giving credence to the methodology of "violence first, diplomacy second" will inspire suicide bombers and IED makers all over the world.

by oftenwrong Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:25 pm

QUOTE: "tarnish America's reputation"

The Greeks had a word for that - hubris.

Considerable admiration is available to those who can admit they might have been wrong.

by witchfinder Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:41 pm

[quote]I don't think for a minute that America claims or pretends to be impartial when it comes to Israel. Yet America is not in the habit of letting other countries tell us who she supports and who she doesn't - and that's the way it should be. If America did anything less, then America is being ruled from Damascus, Tehran, or Amman, not Washington. If America ended its support for Israel without a very good reason, then it would tarnish America's reputation and reliability in the eyes of ALL her allies.[/quote]

Its realy not a matter of been ruled from Damascus or any middle east capital city, its a matter of doing the right and proper thing, the moraly correct thing, and at present the United States is supporting a nation indulging in apartheid, in state terrorism and in a campaign of terror.

The United States, like Europe, is supposed to believe in good governence, democracy, international law, freedom and self determination, but the way I and millions of others see it, there appears to be serious double standards, I am not anti Jewish or anti Israeli, and neither do I support terrorism, but I do sympathise with the Palestinians whilst at the same time I have no sympathy for Israel.

If America and Europe were impartial then why not supply arms to the Palestinians aswell as to Israel ?, the only other alternative would be to sell no arms to either side, or as stated previously, is the United States merely pretending to be impartial. ?

For me personaly, I wish Iran the best of luck, I hope they do develop the same kind of WMD that Israel has posessed for many years WITHOUT any protests from the United States, Britain or France, like I keep saying - one rule for one, a different rule for another.

by Guest Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:13 am

witchfinder wrote:
And so the question is, why [are] Iran… Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia [hostile to Israel?]

Because Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia wish to exterminate Jews by annihilating Israel.

witchfinder wrote:
… what exactly is the root cause of all the problems of the middle east…

Insofar as Israel is concerned, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia wish to exterminate Jews by annihilating Israel.

witchfinder wrote:
… what does it require to solve the problem. ?

Step 1: Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Islamofascist pseudo-states hezbollah, islamic jihad, hamas, al qaida, and taliban et al. shall unilaterally disavow their sworn oath to exterminate Jews and annihilate Israel;

Step 2: Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Islamofascist pseudo-states hezbollah, islamic jihad, hamas, al qaida, and taliban et al. shall unilaterally actualize their disavow of their sworn oath to exterminate Jews and annihilate Israel by laying down their arms;

Step 3: There shall be peace in the Middle East.

witchfinder wrote:
There is no complicated answer…

True. It’s a simple three step process.

Step 1: Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Islamofascist pseudo-states hezbollah, islamic jihad, hamas, al qaida, and taliban et al. shall unilaterally disavow their sworn oath to exterminate Jews and annihilate Israel;

Step 2: Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Islamofascist pseudo-states hezbollah, islamic jihad, hamas, al qaida, and taliban et al. shall unilaterally actualize their disavow of their sworn oath to exterminate Jews and annihilate Israel by laying down their arms;

Step 3: There shall be peace in the Middle East.

witchfinder wrote:
… the answer is realy very simple…

True. Here’s the simple answer, a three step process.

Step 1: Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Islamofascist pseudo-states hezbollah, islamic jihad, hamas, al qaida, and taliban et al. shall unilaterally disavow their sworn oath to exterminate Jews and annihilate Israel;

Step 2: Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Islamofascist pseudo-states hezbollah, islamic jihad, hamas, al qaida, and taliban et al. shall unilaterally actualize their disavow of their sworn oath to exterminate Jews and annihilate Israel by laying down their arms;

Step 3: There shall be peace in the Middle East.

witchfinder wrote:
Israel must stop its terrorism against Palestinians…

Israeli Jews are Palestinians.

witchfinder wrote:
Israel must stop its terrorism against Palestinians…

Israel cannot stop what Israel has not started. Israel cannot stop what Israel does not do.

witchfinder wrote:
… stop demolishing peoples homes…

Texas demolishes people’s homes.

witchfinder wrote:
… stop stealing land…

Israel cannot stop what Israel has not started. Israel cannot stop what Israel does not do.

witchfinder wrote:
… put a halt to denying rights and freedoms to Palestinians…

Israeli Jews are Palestinians.

witchfinder wrote:
… put a halt to denying rights and freedoms to Palestinians…

Israel cannot put a halt to what Israel has not begun. Israel cannot put a halt to what Israel does not do.

witchfinder wrote:
… stop the apartheid system whereby Palestinians are second class citizens denied even basic medical treatment and basic essentials to live.

Israeli Jews are Palestinians.

witchfinder wrote:
… stop the apartheid system whereby Palestinians are second class citizens denied even basic medical treatment and basic essentials to live.

Israel cannot stop what Israel has not started. Israel cannot stop what Israel does not do.

witchfinder wrote:
The United States must end its support of the Israeli state…

No. The United States shall support whomever We the People of the United States choose to support.

witchfinder wrote:
… stop pretending to be impartial whilst at the same time been Israels biggest supplier of arms and money…

The United States does not pretend to be impartial to whomever We the People of the United States choose to support. The United States shall continue to be the biggest supplier of arms and monetary support to whomever We the People of the United States choose to supply arms and monetary support.

witchfinder wrote:
Its no wonder that Islamic extremists sprung up…

True. Beasts seem to spring up whenever and wherever Jews try to live in peace and security, such as in Germany 1939-1945. The Nazi-Islamofascist connection, compellingly evidenced as early as World War II by the Nazi backed Iraqi revolt circa 1943, continues.

witchfinder wrote:
… its no wonder that these terrorist groups see America as the second most hated target…

Islamofascist neo-Nazi beasts see anyone who supports the inalienable rights of Jews to life, liberty, and property as a hated target.

witchfinder wrote:
I have the strongly held opinion that America asked for what it got…

I have knowledge of the fact “that America [did not ask] for what it got.”

witchfinder wrote:
… the United States has the capability and the power to force Israel into compromise…

The United States has the decency, integrity, and morality to force no such thing unto Israel.

witchfinder wrote:
… into reaching a deal…

Deals are reached by two un-coerced parties choosing to reach a deal of their own free will.

witchfinder wrote:
… but they refuse to do so.

Israel reached a deal with Egypt circa 1979, thirty-one years into its nearly sixty-four year existence, after Anwar Sadat disavowed his previous commitment to exterminate Israeli Jews and annihilate Israel. Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Islamofascist pseudo-states hezbollah, islamic jihad, hamas, al qaida, and taliban et al. refuse to disavow their sworn oath to exterminate Jews and annihilate Israel.

witchfinder wrote:
Get to the source of the middle east problem and solve it

Okay. The source of the Middle East problem is the refusal of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Islamofascist pseudo-states hezbollah, islamic jihad, hamas, al qaida, and taliban et al. to disavow their sworn oath to exterminate Jews and annihilate Israel.

by Guest Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:01 am

witchfinder wrote:
… the peoples and the nations of the middle east need to accept a two state solution.

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a recommendation for partition by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine in 1947 to replace the British Mandate for Palestine with “Independent Arab and Jewish States” and a “Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem” administered by the United Nations. It was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 29 November 1947 as Resolution 181.^[1]

The Arab leadership (in and out of Palestine) opposed partition and claimed all of Palestine.^[31]… Azzam Pasha, the General Secretary of the Arab League, was quoted by an Egyptian newspaper as predicting that Palestine would be overrun by Muslim volunteers.^[32] According to the reporter, he said “Personally I hope the Jews do not force us into this war because it will be a war of elimination and it will be a dangerous massacre… ^[32]

Arab leaders threatened the Jewish population of Palestine, speaking of “driving the Jews into the sea” and ridding Palestine “of the Zionist Plague.”^[34]

References

1. “Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine”
31. The Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs (PASSIA)
32. Akhbar el-Yom, October 11, 2011, p9. The literal English translation is somewhat ambiguous, however the overall meaning is that the coming Arab defeat of the Jews will be remembered in the same way as the past Arab defeats of the Mongols and Crusaders are remembered.
34. Benny Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War, Yale University Press, 2008

Retrieved 1 January 2012 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

(Wikipedia) Creative Commons Deed

You are free:

to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
to Remix—to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)
Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

Retrieved 2 August 2011 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License

by **Ivan** Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:14 pm

Iran is not a terrorist state. They treat their people very well, and much freedom is allowed to them. The people respond by adhering to the laws of the land, and there is virtually no crime.

I assume that that was written tongue-in-cheek. Iran has the second highest rate of executions in the world (after China), with at least 180 people hanged in 2010. Iran treats its people so well that women get 70 lashes or 60 days in prison for exposure of any part of the body other than the hands or face.

by astra Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:25 pm

Witchfinder

and neither do I support terrorism, but I do sympathise with the Palestinians

Please recall that Jenny Tong MP was SACKED from her Lib Dem Front Bench seat when she expressed the exact same feeling.

She said she understood the Palestinian mothers who support their offspring going out with bombs strapped to them!

by Guest Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:06 pm

witchfinder wrote:

… America…
… its a matter of doing the right and proper thing, the moraly correct thing…

America is “doing the right and proper thing, the morally correct thing.”

witchfinder wrote:
… at present the United States is supporting a nation indulging in apartheid…

Erroneous. At present, South Africa no longer practices apartheid.

witchfinder wrote:
… in state terrorism…

America does not support Iran, taliban, al qaida, hamas, hezbolah, or islamic jihad in their state and pseudo/quasi state terrorism.

witchfinder wrote:
… and in a campaign of terror.

America does not support Iran, taliban, al qaida, hamas, hezbolah, or islamic jihad in their campaigns of terror.

witchfinder wrote:
The United States… is supposed to believe in good governance…

The United States believes in good governance.

witchfinder wrote:
The United States… is supposed to believe in … democracy…

The United States believes in democracy.

witchfinder wrote:
The United States… is supposed to believe in… international law…

The United States believes in international law.

witchfinder wrote:
The United States… is supposed to believe in… freedom…

The United States believes in freedom.

witchfinder wrote:
The United States… is supposed to believe in… self determination…

The United States believes in self determination.

witchfinder wrote:
… but the way I and millions of others see it, there appears to be serious double standards…

If “the way [you] and millions of others see it, there appears to be serious double standards”, then, insofar as Israel is concerned, “the way [you] and millions of others see it” is not the way it is.

witchfinder wrote:
… neither do I support terrorism…

Iran, taliban, al qaida, hamas, hezbolah, and islamic jihad advocate, support, and practice terrorism.

witchfinder wrote:
… I do sympathise with the Palestinians…

hamas, hezbolah, and islamic jihad advocate, support, and practice terrorism.

witchfinder wrote:
… whilst at the same time I have no sympathy for Israel.

Israel opposes and actively combats terrorism.

witchfinder wrote:
If America… [was] impartial then why not supply arms to the Palestinians…

America supports Israel, the only Middle Eastern democracy, in its quest to ensure the inalienable rights of its citizens to life, liberty, property, internal security, external security, and survival.

witchfinder wrote:
… aswell as to Israel ?

America does support Israel. See my statement directly preceding this statement.

witchfinder wrote:
… the only other alternative would be to sell no arms to either side…

Supporting Israel, the only Middle Eastern democracy, in its quest to ensure the inalienable rights of its citizens to life, liberty, property, internal security, external security, and survival, is the alternative chosen by the United States America.

witchfinder wrote:
… as stated previously, is the United States merely pretending to be impartial. ?

As stated previously, and I trust clearly, in this post, the United States America supports Israel, the only Middle Eastern democracy, in its quest to ensure the inalienable rights of its citizens to life, liberty, property, internal security, external security, and survival.

witchfinder wrote:
… I wish Iran the best of luck…

I hope that the Iranian people, particularly the constantly terrorized female population, and religious minorities, including Hindus, Christians, and Baha’is (the Baha’i Faith originated in Persia) are soon liberated from the terroristic tyranny under which they’ve died for more than three decades.

witchfinder wrote:
… I hope they do develop the same kind of WMD that Israel has posessed for many years…

I support any and all measures necessary to prevent Iran’s tyrants from possessing weapons of mass destruction.

witchfinder wrote:
… WITHOUT any protests from the United States…

If any and all measures necessary include a preemptive strike by the armed forces of the United States of America, I support a preemptive strike by the armed forces of the United States of America.

by bobby Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:49 pm

Sharina, a happy new year to you.
Your quote.
"Nations use blockades and economic sanctions all the time. Children die because of those blockades, too. Blockades hurt the population more than they hurt the leaders they are designed to influence. Often they are ineffective ... but they are still used since it is often the only choice short of military action."

During World War One, The Royal Navy Blockaded Germany, so Germany could get almost nothing by sea, this was at a time when their military where using up their limited reserves at a rate faster than they could replace them. The war for Germany was in fact lost at the end of 1916 but they continued in order to gain better terms of surrender. From 1916 their Army's started to contract making it more and more difficult to get much needed Fuel, armaments and food to the troops, The German air service had to fight a deffensive war allmost from the start due to the Fuel problem, which never got any better. Albeit their lines of communication where shortening there just wasn't the wherewithal to continue further than they in fact did.
I know you did say "Often they are innefective" But in this case, blockade whilst at war was as effective as any other tactic used . And you must agree World War One was not just a skirmish.

by oftenwrong Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:50 pm

[/quote]

If any and all measures necessary include a preemptive strike by the armed forces of the United States of America, I support a preemptive strike by the armed forces of the United States of America.
[/quote]

The Pentagon can sleep easy tonight.

by witchfinder Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:30 pm

People tread on egg shells, worried to say what they actualy believe, I am afraid that unless Israel gives way, then the killing and bloodshed which has gone on since the 1950s will go on for another 50 or 60 years.

I am afraid that RockOnBrother is guilty of doing what many people do, and that is to support the side that his own country so foolishly supports, which led to the worst terrorist attack on American soil in its history.

Things have moved on a lot since the 1950s and 1960s, virtualy all Muslims would be happy to see a two state solution.

In 2005 the Iranian president made a speech which has been the subject of much controversy ever since, some experts in Persian argue that he called for the destruction of Israel and all Jews, other experts argue that this is not how it translates.

One thing is clear, when the Iranian president gave that speech, it was condemned by most Islamic states including Palestinian leaders, so at best I am afraid RockOnBrother might, or could have a relevant point regarding Irans president and his attitude towards Israel, but this is hotly disputed.

Neither Syria, Egypt or Saudi Arabia hold any view or policy which calls for the destruction of Israel, they do however call for Israel to withdraw from occupied territories including east Jerusalem, and to give self rule to Palestinian arabs.

I am British, and I am actualy very glad to be British, I think I am fortunate to have been born in the UK, but I disagree totaly with my government selling weapons to Israel, what would Israels reaction be if the UK decided to sell weapons to the Palestinians. ?

If I were an American, I would be a Democrat voter by nature, but at present I realy like what I hear from Republican candidate "Ron Paul" who is on record as stating that he will end financial support to Israel.

by Charlatan Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:24 pm

Well, if nobody invades iran, there will at least be a nuclear power plant. What is to stop them from making a nuclear warhead? I suggest that instead of trying to stop them, they instead go ahead and help them, keeping them on a leash with regaurds to intel on where it is and who has the launch keys.

If we were to 'get in on the act', we could help them build the nuke, and then stifle everything that goes into launching it, indefinately. That is far better than just saying they cannot have one!

Think of how they could lock it up indefinately, and know where it is? That would go a long way to appease them, but then again, they say they don't want nukes. I suggest they drop the sanctions and then move in to 'take control' of the situation.

by oftenwrong Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:57 pm

Why don't we invade Iran?
They've got OIL, and that was sufficient reason to invade Iraq.
Twice.

by Charlatan Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:35 pm

Securing a trading partner for oil? This was not the reason! If it was then they would have chosen a place with more reserves, remember that is was only to secure a trading partner where you still have to pay anyway.

The reason was to establish a foothold n the region, and take out one of the strongest detractors to the west.

by witchfinder Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:42 pm

Why dident we invade North Korea when they became a nuclear armed state, even though North Korea is a direct threat to South Korea, possibly because China comes into the equasion. ?

Or how about Pakistan ? - I dont seem to remember any American or European leader protesting when Pakistan became a nuclear armed state.

by Guest Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:57 pm

witchfinder wrote:
Why dident we invade North Korea when they became a nuclear armed state, even though North Korea is a direct threat to South Korea, possibly because China comes into the equasion. ?

I don’t know. I don’t care.

witchfinder wrote:
Or how about Pakistan ? - I dont seem to remember any American or European leader protesting when Pakistan became a nuclear armed state.

I don’t know. I don’t care.

by Charlatan Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:11 pm

witchfinder wrote:Why dident we invade North Korea when they became a nuclear armed state, even though North Korea is a direct threat to South Korea, possibly because China comes into the equasion. ?

Or how about Pakistan ? - I dont seem to remember any American or European leader protesting when Pakistan became a nuclear armed state.

I think it is geo politics - the antiquated form of saying, based on what previous regimes have done, a new ruler will do.

If we were to wipe that away, we would be left with some vague idea of the truth, and the truth is people care about themselves more than they do about wiping out someone they don't like. This would be like putting two knives into a ring and saying "Fight!" to someone with something to lose - It just isn't going to happen.

by Guest Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:47 am

witchfinder wrote:
People tread on egg shells, worried to say what they actualy believe…

I tread on no egg shells. I say what I mean; I mean what I say.

witchfinder wrote:
I am afraid that unless Israel gives way, then the killing and bloodshed which has gone on since the 1950s will go on for another 50 or 60 years.

I am of certain knowledge that if Israel gives way, then Israel will be annihilated and Israeli Jews who do not escape will be exterminated.

I am of certain knowledge that Israel will not give way; Mossad, the Israeli Defence Force, and Israel Jews will never again allow themselves and their brethren (gender inclusive) to be annihilated as there forbearers were during the Holocaust, when six million Jews, one third of the eighteen million Jews in existence at the time were removed from the face of this earth like so many caged, helpless rats.

witchfinder wrote:
I am afraid that RockOnBrother is guilty…

I am of certain knowledge that Witchfinder possesses neither sufficient knowledge nor sufficient authority to find or adjudge me guilty.

witchfinder wrote:
I am afraid that RockOnBrother is guilty of doing what many people do, and that is to support the side that his own country so foolishly supports, which led to the worst terrorist attack on American soil in its history.

I am of certain knowledge that I support my country, the United States of America, as We the People of the United States support Israel, the only Middle Eastern democracy, in its quest to ensure the inalienable rights of its citizens to life, liberty, property, internal security, external security, and survival.

witchfinder wrote:
Things have moved on a lot since the 1950s and 1960s, virtualy all Muslims would be happy to see a two state solution.

Virtually all Middle Eastern Arab Muslims did not support “a two party solution” in 1948.

On 2 January 2012 at 6:01 RockOnBrother wrote:
United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine… was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 29 November 1947 as Resolution 181.^[1]

Arab leaders threatened the Jewish population of Palestine, speaking of “driving the Jews into the sea” and ridding Palestine “of the Zionist Plague.”^[34]

References

1. “Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine”
34. Benny Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War, Yale University Press, 2008

Retrieved 1 January 2012 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

Past behavior is the only reliable predictor of future behavior; in popular wisdom, “a leopard does not change its spots.” Al Wilson sang about a foolish, “silly woman” a few years back.

witchfinder wrote:
In 2005 the Iranian president made a speech which has been the subject of much controversy ever since, some experts in Persian argue that he called for the destruction of Israel and all Jews, other experts argue that this is not how it translates.

The President of Iran has called for the annihilation of Israel and the extermination of Jews.

witchfinder wrote:
One thing is clear, when the Iranian president gave that speech, it was condemned by most Islamic states including Palestinian leaders…

One thing is clear; in a public speech, the President of Iran has called for the annihilation of Israel and the extermination of Jews.

witchfinder wrote:
… so at best I am afraid RockOnBrother might, or could have a relevant point regarding Irans president and his attitude towards Israel…

I neither own nor possess sans ownership a “relevant point.” The relevant point, existent and relevant without being owned or possessed by me, is that in a public speech, the President of Iran has called for the annihilation of Israel and the extermination of Jews.

witchfinder wrote:
… but this is hotly disputed.

This is not hotly disputed by me.

witchfinder wrote:
… Neither Syria, Egypt or Saudi Arabia hold any view or policy which calls for the destruction of Israel…

Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia are signatories to a resolution that calls for Israel to be pushed into the Mediterranean Sea. Egypt, insofar as I know, as a condition of entering into a peace treaty with Israel, disavowed that resolution circa 1979 at Camp David. The ensuing three plus decades have demonstrated that Israel will keep peace with any neighbor that disavows by word and deed the presently-existent commitment shared by several Muslim states and pseudo/quasi states to annihilate Israel and exterminate Israeli Jews.

witchfinder wrote:
… they do however call for Israel to withdraw from occupied territories including east Jerusalem, and to give self rule to Palestinian arabs.

In 1967, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt planned to attack and annihilate Israel. They got their butts whipped by the grossly outnumbered Israeli Defence Force. If “Palestinian” Arabs wished in 1967 to establish self-rule, they could easily have done so with the permission of their Jordanian and Egyptian masters on the West Bank and in Gaza.

Israeli Jews are Palestinians, and Sabras are native born Palestinians.

witchfinder wrote:
I am British, and I am actualy very glad to be British, I think I am fortunate to have been born in the UK…

You and all of your non Muslim and female loved ones are fortunate to live in the light of British democracy rather than under the heel of Iranian tyranny.

witchfinder wrote:
… but I disagree totaly with my government selling weapons to Israel…

I agree totally with the UK government selling weapons to Israel.

witchfinder wrote:
… what would Israels reaction be if the UK decided to sell weapons to the Palestinians. ?

What would be the reaction of democracy-loving Brits if the UK decided to sell weapons to terrorists dedicated to the annihilation of Israel, the only Middle Eastern democracy, and the extermination of Israeli Jews?

witchfinder wrote:
… If I were an American, I would be a Democrat voter by nature…

… but at present I realy like what I hear from Republican candidate "Ron Paul" who is on record as stating that he will end financial support to Israel.

Ron Paul publicly labeled Barack Obama a war criminal because a Predator-borne Hellfire missile took out an American born traitorous high al qaida leader in Yemen.

by Shirina Tue Jan 03, 2012 8:28 am

Ron Paul is an idiot and no better than right-wing conservatives. For instance, he wants to eliminate income tax as it currently stands and instead replace it with a flat 10% income tax on everyone. Yep, in other words, the rich get a HUGE tax decrease and the poor receive a substantial tax increase. No thanks. I'm pretty well fed up with these candidates who are doing everything in their power to give the wealthy even more money at the expense of the poor.

His foreign policy would be an unmitigated disaster. His ultra-isolationist views will only ensure that America exists in a vacuum during a time when globalization is becoming the norm. His ridiculous proposals of withdrawing from the United Nations, NATO, and other organizations will only serve to leave a power vacuum for other nations to fill - and other nations WILL fill it - destroying any influence America has in foreign negotiations. His domestic policies are all about gutting the federal government and turning America into a hodgepodge collection of independent "baronies" nominally united under a president. His desire to eliminate just about every governmental agency is laughable at best, and as we push for a national standard in education, he wants to throw the US Department of Education into the trash bin.

He also refused to vote for a bill urging possible unilateral actions by the USA to stop the genocide in Darfur. In my opinion, if American military might is to be used anywhere on the planet, stopping this sort of holocaust in Darfur is just the place and reason to do it. If even genocide will not move a president to get involved, then I don't want him leading us. I don't want a Neville Chamberlain running our country. His views of the world are hopelessly naive - almost childlike - in believing that America can retreat to its borders and ignore the rest of the world.

He doesn't even believe in having allies, just trading partners. So not only would America ignore the rest of the world, including genocide or even nations that request our help, he wants to "go it alone" without a single friend or ally.

He is against ALL government interference in the "market" - which essentially means we could say goodbye to child labor laws, OSHA (worker safety organization), building codes, fire safety regulations, environmental regulations that prevent companies from dumping toxins into our water supply, etc. We would be winding the clock back to 1910 in the naive belief that business owners will "do the right thing" even if it costs them more money to do so. What a laugh riot THAT is.

And, he is against the separation of church and state.

And, he is against universal health care.

In fact, I just don't see us even having a country if he turned all of these wants into reality. I would see 50 independent nations united ONLY by the umbrella protection we receive from the military.

Oh yeah, did I mention he wouldn't mind if Americans owned machine guns and military-grade weaponry as part of the 2nd Amendment? You know, to protect us from the tyranny of the government? I suppose my question is: Who protects us from the tyranny of those who have machine guns and military-grade weaponry? I certainly don't have the money to buy machine guns and grenade launchers. Do you?

I don't disagree with all of Ron Paul's ideas, but I disagree with most of it.

by Guest Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:00 am

Iran threatens action if U.S. carrier returns: IRNA
Reuters – 2 hrs 17 mins ago

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran will take action if a U.S. aircraft carrier which left the area because of Iranian naval exercises returns to the Gulf…

“Iran will not repeat its warning ... the enemy’s carrier has been moved to the Sea of Oman because of our drill. I recommend and emphasize to the American carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf… I advise, recommend and warn them (the Americans) over the return of this carrier to the Persian Gulf because we are not in the habit of warning more than once,” [army chief Ataollah Salehi was quoted as saying on Tuesday].

Full story: http://news.yahoo.com/iran-threatens-action-u-carrier-returns-irna-082124042.html

by keenobserver1 Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:00 pm

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007270204

by Shirina Tue Jan 03, 2012 4:46 pm

Retired Lebanese General Stresses Collaboration between US, Al-Qaeda

So ... now that Al-Qaeda is becoming a problem for other Muslim nations and not just for the West, somehow America is behind it all.

by oftenwrong Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:20 pm

Is there still time to head them off at the Pass?

by keenobserver1 Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:52 pm

Shirina wrote:
Retired Lebanese General Stresses Collaboration between US, Al-Qaeda
So ... now that Al-Qaeda is becoming a problem for other Muslim nations and not just for the West, somehow America is behind it all.

Just thought it would be of interest.

by keenobserver1 Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:54 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Is there still time to head them off at the Pass?

Why worry about heading them off, we will be negotiating with them soon enough and before you know it they will be in government in either Iraq or Afghanistan, or even both.

Just ask Adams or McGuinness!

by oftenwrong Tue Jan 03, 2012 7:14 pm

Be a shame to lose the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan.

by Charlatan Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:43 am

Maybe there can be a new deal? Iran can stop working on it's nucleur project and instead import the parts for a plant, and then the sanctions can be lifted?

by Guest Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:00 am

Retired Lebanese General Stresses Collaboration between US, Al-Qaeda
14:08 | 2012-01-03
TEHRAN (FNA)

"The Al-Qaeda leaders are well aware of the good relations between the network and the US while junior al-Qaeda terrorists assume their group is an enemy of the US and is in deep conflict with Washington," Amin Hatit told FNA on Tuesday.

"Yet, no matter they want it or not, the al-Qaeda members are acting in the interests of the US," he added.

The US announced that it has killed al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden just when the western public opinion realized the collaboration between the US and al-Qaeda and the flames of popular uprising and revolution were spreading in the Arab states across the region.

Earlier, a senior strategic analyst said that the US has renewed its alliance with the al-Qaeda terrorist group to regain its influence in the region to confront and harness Iran's clout.

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007270204
__________________________________________________________________________________________

And some folks continue to believe that Iran’s leaders can be trusted to tell the truth.

by keenobserver1 Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:05 pm

Iran offers to share nuclear technology with African nations that have uranium reserves

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/iran-offers-to-share-nuclear-technology-with-african-nations-that-have-uranium-reserves/2012/01/07/gIQAe0jKhP_story.html

by keenobserver1 Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:11 pm

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9010170201

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9010170203

by bobby Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:19 am

Its clear to all just what Iranian attitudes are. I for one firmly believe that if they had nukes and a means of delivery, the first one would land on Israel. I have no love for Israel, but do have a fear of nuclear weapons. I also agree with a negotiated settlement, but whilst negotiating with the likes of Iran, do so with your finger on a trigger.

by oftenwrong Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:08 pm

It's a situation that is very familiar to fans of Cowboy Westerns. A stand-off between the good guy and the bad guy, trigger-fingers itching but the one who shoots first will be in bad trouble with the Sheriff.

by keenobserver1 Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:13 pm

oftenwrong wrote:It's a situation that is very familiar to fans of Cowboy Westerns. A stand-off between the good guy and the bad guy, trigger-fingers itching but the one who shoots first will be in bad trouble with the Sheriff.

Which one should be percieved as the bad guy?

The one who is trying to create a clean sustainable power source and share the technology with third world countries in accordance with the UN NPT or the one who is already in the special club and won't let anyone else join?

by oftenwrong Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:26 pm

The colour of the hats they are wearing provides a clue.

by keenobserver1 Sun Jan 08, 2012 3:51 pm

oftenwrong wrote:The colour of the hats they are wearing provides a clue.

Due to modern fashions hats aren't generally worn?

by bobby Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:35 pm

oftenwrong said
"but the one who shoots first will be in trouble with the sheriff"

But what if the sheriff's hooky.

by Guest Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:59 pm

Iran nuke work at bunker is confirmed
Associated Press
By GEORGE JAHN | AP – 3 hrs ago

VIENNA (AP) — Diplomats on Monday confirmed a report that Iran has begun uranium enrichment at an underground bunker and said the news is particularly worrying because the site is being used to make material that can be upgraded more quickly for use in a nuclear weapon...

The diplomats said that centrifuges at the Fordo site... are churning out uranium enriched to 20 percent. That level... can be turned into fissile warhead material faster and with less work.

Iran recently threatened to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, an important transit route for almost one-fifth of the oil traded globally.

The [Fordo site] is a hardened tunnel and is protected by air defense missile batteries and the Revolutionary Guard.

Full story: http://news.yahoo.com/iran-nuke-bunker-confirmed-115201184.html

by witchfinder Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:30 pm

The link here to ynet-news (Israel) shows a satelite image of the nuclear site in Iran near the city of Qom, the site is deep inside a mountain making any attempted bombing attemt very difficult.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4173459,00.html

The Negev nuclear research centre near the town of Dimona is where the so called "secret" Israeli nuclear research centre is, and where Isreals nuclear weapons were developed and are held.

No one ever complained or objected when Israel developed a nuclear capability, its all simply brushed under the carpet by western governments.

GOOD LUCK TO IRAN

by Sponsored content