PAPER TIGERS AND MAD MULLAHS....

Iran has quite clearly thumbed its nose at the United Nations deadline to halt its uranium enrichment work. President Ahmadinejad is laughing at the impotency of the UN and in truth, who can blame him? It's OBVIOUS that the "International Community" will not agree on any effective response to the decision by the Mad Mullah's to pursue their atomic destiny and the fulfilment of their apocalyptic vision. Russia and China will NOT go along with any meaningful sanctions, in my view, so the Security Council will once again prove a paper tiger. Indeed France has made it clear it views Iran as a STABILISING force in the region! Trying to deal with the Mullahs by gaining a consensus with such nations is impossible.

And so, it comes back to the USA. And this is where I get very worried because President Bush appears to have given Condi Rice and her pal R. Nicholas Burns the lead role in setting strategy here. And that policy of trying to achieve anything of merit through a United Nations determined to endlessly procrastinate is doomed to fail. Which is why Ahmadinejad is laughing all the way to the nuclear button and to implementing his dream - wiping Israel "off the map"

Comments

[Mardy Bum]

David- could this be the unavoidable corollary of a President who, especially in terms of foreign policy, has a track record of policy making that is dependent on the advice of others rather than coming from a coherent individual ideology?

[David Vance]

Well, it's hard to say with W. Sometimes I think you might be right, other times not so sure. Of course LISTENING to others is not in itself a bad idea (!) but it is important the the US President has his own coherent strategies for dealing with menaces like the Mad Mullahs. It's hard, of course, when your political adversaries at home and overseas will say and do anything to undermine you. W has my sympathy BUT we need to deal with the Mullahs, and Condi and co will go nowhere on this.

[Mardy Bum]

Has Dubya got time left to deal with the Mullahs? And what, or more pertinently who, comes next for the Republicans?

[Cunningham]

Ahmadinejad is mad, bad and dangerous. But he was elected in a more or less democratic process, and there is no easy way to get rid of him.

The US made the big, and what may turn out to be the fatal, mistake in 2003, when it allowed its foreign minister to make a complete fool of himself, his administration and his country before the eyes of the UN and the world with the WMD scare.
It then followed this up with an arrogant, illegal and foolhardy attack on Iraq.

Because of its lies in the past it will now be unable to cobble together any kind of effective coalition for sanctions against Iranian WMDs Iran. Much as Europe and Asia fear a nuclear Iran, they also don't trust the US under Bush enough to fall in behind them on any further foreign quests.
Also, by taking such partisan policy in the Middle East, all respect for the US has now pratically evaporated among the Arab countries the US would need for such a coalition.

Similarly, because of the mess the US got itself into in Iraq and Afghanistan, its resources are now too stretched for it to be able to take effective military measures. (Airstrikes alone would be even less effective against Iran than they proved against Lebanon. Nobody would know if they succeeded in knocking out the threat entirely; and if they tried and failed, God help us all!).

The US, and the world, is therefore now dependent on the good-old UN. This loss of clout is all a result of the mismanagement by the present US administration, and specifically of its eagerness to tie its middle-east policy to Israel’s self-interest.

But the American people knew what they were getting. Yet they even returned the present crowd to office with an increased majority in 2004. In November, they will at least be able to remove its legislative base. But that will probably be too little and too late again.

[daytripper]

the iranians have beaten the americans at their own game.

[daytripper]

But the American people knew what they were getting. Yet they even returned the present crowd to office with an increased majority in 2004. In November, they will at least be able to remove its legislative base. But that will probably be too little and too late again.

im sure the american people will be reminded whats at stake come november.

[dangerouslysubversivedad]

"Ahmadinejad is mad, bad and dangerous. But he was elected in a more or less democratic process, and there is no easy way to get rid of him."

Democratic process? Cunningham, you really do live in a fantasy world. Please go move to some banana Islamic republic and go get beheaded.

"Similarly, because of the mess the US got itself into in Iraq and Afghanistan, its resources are now too stretched for it to be able to take effective military measures."

Crap. You WISH. Unfortunately for you the US is still strong enough to knock any nation it chooses back into the Stone Age - its all the nonsensical crap about expecting Muslims to embrace democracy and sticking around afterwards that has caused it problems.

"(Airstrikes alone would be even less effective against Iran than they proved against Lebanon. Nobody would know if they succeeded in knocking out the threat entirely; and if they tried and failed, God help us all!)."

Riiiight...except Israel wasnt trying to bomb large buildings holding industrial facilities - it was trying to bomb small office buildings belonging to Hezbollah (and succeeding) and take out rocket launchers belonging to Hezbollah, all deliberately sited in the midst of a willing civilian population which somehow thought Allah would protect them when their terrorist pals started lobbing rockets into someone else's houses.

'God help us all?' You seriously think that its safer to just sit back and let Iran have nukes? I hear the voice of Chamberlain again.

"The US, and the world, is therefore now dependent on the good-old UN. This loss of clout is all a result of the mismanagement by the present US administration, and specifically of its eagerness to tie its middle-east policy to Israel’s self-interest."

And what Cunningham quote would be complete without a nice juicy bit of anti-Jewish sentiment thrown in - obviously it was the Jews that persuaded America to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, it was all for Israel's benefit. Somehow. Really. Israel got...something out of it. Can't say what it actually was, but those evil Zionists must have been behind it all, right Cunningham?

And you wonder why people call you a Jew-hater.

[mahons]

How about good cop bad cop? You know, have the EU advise Iran that the only way to keep the madman Bush from dropping the BIG HURT on poor democratic Iran is if Iran complies with a UN program? But wait a minute, that would require the EU to put forward a united front. Is that possible? Or would some EU member nation (let us say France just as a random choice) try to undermine that to gain additional influence?

[daytripper]

US is still strong enough to knock any nation it chooses back into the Stone Age

that may be so, but its been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that when it comes to the mans job of victory on the ground, its found pitifully wanting.

its all the nonsensical crap about expecting Muslims to embrace democracy

so you expect iraqs democracy to fail?

[Cunningham]

>Democratic process?<<
Admit it, Ducky, you know as little about the Iranian elections as you do about practically everything else.

>>US is still strong enough to knock any nation it chooses back into the Stone Age<<

I was talking about a land invasion (even you agreed that airstrikes wouldn't work). Did the US not just last week have to mobilise further army reserves? And that's just for a (vain) attempt to keep the peace in a place where the war was declared over several years ago. Even US army experts admit things are straitened:

"If the United States is unable to recruit significantly more international troops or quell the violence in Iraq in the next few months, it could trigger an exodus of active and reserve forces"
(Lt. Gen. James Helmly, head of the U.S. Army Reserve.)

I daresay the Lt. General knows a bit more about US infantry resources than an armchair loafer like you.

>>wasnt trying to bomb large buildings holding industrial facilities<<

LOL. So you think the Iranians would, if push comes to shove, not spread their stuff over the entire country, but leave it in the known facilities (probably with the nuclear symbol painted in white on the roof)!

One sure sign of the true fool is when he assumes others are as foolish as he is.

>>And you wonder why people call you a Jew-hater.<<

On the contrary! It's always been quite clear to me why clodhoppers like you need to call me a Jew-hater!

Again, I know that my opinion on this point is shared by some of the most clear-headed Jews in the US, and even by some in Israel.
(it was also stated - almost verbatim - by a very articulate and rather attractive female journalist from the LA Times on HardTalk just 2 days ago. Maybe it was she who inspired me.)

BTW. If you can't see the benefit for Israel in the removal of Saddam, you are not only dumb by also quite blind.

Now - how's your hearing?

[mahons]

Daytripper:
Any chance you'll favor us with your background some day? Would be interesting to know where you are coming from. While I don't agree with the bombast of blowing any country back to the stone age, I think you may have overstepped in your enthusiasm for all things anti-American in in describing our ground forces.

[Allan@Aberdeen]

Democracy in Iraq will fail. It's because liberty and islam are incompatible. For example, one of the more unhinged contributors believes that Iran recently had a "democratic" election. But the candidates had to be vetted as having sufficiently islamic beliefs (NB islamic = totalitarian). Only then was there a vote which, in our sphere, is like having Hitler, Stalin, Beria and Himmler as the candidates.

[Peter]

"It's because liberty and islam are incompatible."

Always excepting Turkey of course. But your general point is reasonable. One (secular) islamic democracy does not make up for 30 (or so) dictatorships of one sort or another, some relatively benign (Egypt, Jordan), others genuine theocratic dictatorships (Iran, Saudi Arabia).

[Cunningham]

Bullshit, Allan. I did say that the elections were "more or less" democratic, i.e. there was an alternative: Rafsanjani was a pragmatist, was open to reform, declared his intention of restoring relations with the west.
If that wasn't an alternative, why was he so strongly favoured by the west.

True, there was a vetting process, women were barred from standing, and there were some reports of fraud. But almost 60% of the electorate turned out, which is rather more than in many US presidential elections. Ahmadinejad unfortunately got about 63% of the vote, Rafsanjani 35%. There is no doubt that Ahmadinejad is the popular choice.

In any case, it is quite clear from my post that all I meant is that because he was elected, and is so damned popular, it would be more difficult to remove him than some unpopular tyrant.

[Submariner]

. Which is why is laughing all the way to the nuclear button and to implementing his dream - wiping Israel "off the map"

David ever hear the expression MAD and im not talking about most of the right wing nut jobs who post on here,its an expression coined during the cold war basicaly meaning that anyone who launched a nuclear strike on another Nuclear armed nation would itself be destroyed and Israel having the worlds fourth
nuclear arsenal it is a remote possibility.
Ahmadinejad maybe a nutcase but i doubt if he is that stupid.

[daytripper]

im not anti-american, but i will never be fooled into thinking the US has done much out of goodwill around the world since WW2. nothing is sacred to those who proclaim to run your country or defend your shores. the world is merely a marketing oppurtunity and if countries cant be tempted through rough trade then the stick is brandished or even swung.

i have much admiration for the people of the united states, but i have no love for the autocrats that waltz around the planet ensuring we suit their needs first and then our own. i have no love either for the unelected representatives who govern me either.

and FYI. your infantry has rarely been rated by any other army past or present, friend or foe. get over it. technology doesnt win wars, men do.

[David Vance]

Submariner,

Ever hear of the expressing of taking someone at the word? Ahmadinejad is a nutcase, but he's part of a mad depaved regime which seeks to wipe Israel off the map.

MAD worked with the USSR - they were evil but they weren't mad. Iran's Mullahs are mad, so MAD don't work.

However, thanks for making your point in a civil manner .

[mahons]

Daytripper:
We're getting closer but still not there yet. You have an unelected government? Where is that? Are you embarrassed by your native land? Just curious.
I am not sure what you meant by not rated. Could you explain?

[The Troll]

Daterapers back ground consists of long trips to school on a "short" bus... (if anyone needs an explanation to "short bus" let me know)...

The attacks on Iran will begin after the november election....

[Mark]

I still think we (not us obviously, rather US/UK) should build them a nice shiny new molten sulphur fast reactor. It is the latest greatest and doesn't produce plutonium. If Bush offered to build one for them it would put them in a tricky position. If they agree, they are seen to be taking help from the US, if they refuse then we can conclude they want plutonium to make a large bang, and so we can destroy their current reactor with no qualms.

Cunningham, we don't have to destroy nuclear facilities all over Iran, just the reactor building, perhaps before they fuel it. No reactor, no plutonium, and it doesn't matter how much they spread the rest of the manufacturing around the country.

[daytripper]

You have an unelected government?

i live in northern ireland. the painful truth, that david and andrew will deny you, is that we do not have a say in the government who governs northern ireland. while they [david and andrew] outwardly appear to be pro democracy they also wish to remain part of britian. the only feasible way to remain part of britain is to maintain direct rule, which is in effect to accept a pseudo dictatorship in the form of a secretary of state for northern ireland. in nazi germany this would be known as a gaulieter. we may have elected members of parliament, but they have almost no input into the day to day running of life in northern ireland. that is controlled by the british government. a situation that DUP and its right wing puppets wholly support while at the same time castgate.

personally, as a true democrat, i would rather see the electorate of northern ireland decide it own future. for it is the only way to crush the malign influence of extreme nationalism/republicanism and unionism/loyalism.

welcome to the bizarre world of irish politics.

I am not sure what you meant by not rated. Could you explain?

pretend to be a canadian and ask any swaddy what they think of modern american soldiery.

[Monica-Philadelphia]

Oh - Imamadjihadist is going to get what's coming to him. Can't you feel it building?? He is so mad as not to understand his fate, it is inexorable. He thinks he's playing with toddlers - but he is not. He believes that he holds the upper hand - but he does not. Underestimating western response and forces is getting to be a bad habit for the islamic fascists.

The dissemination of information explaining the necessity of stopping Iran's nuclear ambition has been unrelenting. Iran is going to be attacked. Americans will support it.

[Felix Quigley]

Cunningham

On another thread very recently you referred to Israel as, and I remember the word exactly, "landgrabbing". In the context as a "landgrabbing" nation.

Now I will not call you anti-Semitic please reassure yourself.

But I would like to engage you in discussion on that point.

Can you tell me first of all what is in your mind when you say "landgrabbing".

Do you back it up with some historical facts.

And if you do quote some material can you try to source it.

This is a very common feeling in the Irish "Left" and indeed among very wide circles of public opinion. So you are not alone here.

But it thus means that it is vital to explore it , if possible with some courtesy!

By the way to others here (and I am anticipating from past experience) ridicule over this issue is really not on. This is one of the big statements historically made against Jewish people.

Cunningham. Justify your assertion and I WILL come back on it. Please wait a little though. I am on the internet again tomorrow.

But I will listen very carefully to your answer.

[dangerouslysubversivedad]

Cunningham,

The Iranian Elections were about as free and fair as, say, local Elections in Birmingham where officials conduct third recounts behind closed doors after the police have gone home and decide the BNP didnt win after all. But you just comfort yourself with the fiction if it makes you feel better.

Saying 'some Jews agree' with you that Israel is in control of US Policy through the Great Zionist Neocon Conspiracy doesnt make you any less of a Jew-hater. This idea of 'global Jewish influence' is one of the most pernicious anti-Semitic myths and anyone who peddles it desrves to be called exactly what they are, whether its Ahmadinejihad, another tinpot Islamist, members of the MCB or MPAC or some twobit commenter on someone else's Blog.

And Daytripper, you want independence. Fine. The majority of your countrymen dont. That's democracy old bean. If you dont like it you can always move South of the border.

[daytripper]

And Daytripper, you want independence. Fine. The majority of your countrymen dont. That's democracy old bean. If you dont like it you can always move South of the border.

a choice is all i ask for. not english rule.