A day to day acount of the whacky and wonderful world of Muggaz - i tend to be having too much fun these days, and often cannot remember moments due to debauchery - its time the internet repayed my loyalty by recording my antics.
based on ugly precedents set by their enemies.
Published on August 18, 2004 By Muggaz In International
The Olympics are supposed to be a time of reflection and enjoyment, with ideals of peace being put on the table by the worlds athletes, it would seem that Iran is out to ruin everyone’s party though

A few days ago, and Iranian athlete refused to compete with an Israeli athlete, which is fair enough, each to their own, we can move on from that, but now, the Iranian government is not ruling out pre-emptive strikes on US and Israeli forces in the Middle East should they feel their Nuclear reactor at Bushehr under threat.

Iranian Defence Minister – Ali Shamkhani has warned “We will not sit (With arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventative operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly” This was during an interview with Al-Jazeera TV when asked if Iran would respond to an attack on its nuclear facilities.

"America is not the only one present in the region. We are also present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the Gulf and we can be present in Iraq,"

The commander of the Elite revolutionary guards, General Muhammad Baqir Zolqadr has also warned - "If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant, it should permanently forget about Dimona nuclear centre, where it produces and keeps its nuclear weapons, and Israel would be responsible for the terrifying consequence of this move,"

They look like fighting words.

Should the Iranians make the first strike against Israeli or US forces, It will be safe to say we will have a genuine bloody conflict on our hands. We think Iraq and Afghanistan are human rights tragedies, we haven’t seen anything yet.

Iran would obviously be comfortable with making a pre-emptive strike, because they feel genuinely threatened. They maintain that their nuclear facilities are for energy production – That is for them to say, and us to believe.

The threat that Iran will attack opposing forces in the region is a very real one if they feel threatened. It’s a shame that the targets of Iran's hostilities set the unfortunate precedent that pre-emptive strikes are acceptable.

BAM!!!

Comments (Page 1)
8 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Aug 18, 2004
Saw this on a Korean web site just before leaving work. It was written in a difficult format (for me they all are in korean)
but h i had some help from a native. Pretty wild stuff.
my belief is that only the mullahs feel that way but they do control some young wackos.
The average person over 40 there probably has no real bad feelings towards America.
And if they did I am sure they are still feeling pretty smug about humiliating the Carter
administation and the US back in 79'.
on Aug 18, 2004
It's not like the Arab world has never taken pre-emptive action against Israel or other western targets before. Anyway, why should we have to wait until terrorists blow up our people to act against them?
on Aug 18, 2004
Anyway, why should we have to wait until terrorists blow up our people to act against them?


No one is saying you should - but by the same token, it's unfair to think your forces are infailable to a preemptive attack from the other side.

You can only speculate that Iran are going to make weapons for the specific purpose of attacking Isreal - I mean, it's a fair speculation based on the Iranian administrations view of Israel as 'Zionist pigs'... but it's still speculation none the less.

Sitting and watchin is never good, but if you take the first action, the moral high ground is lost, and with it, International support - in a case like this, International support will certainly be necessary, as powerful as the USA is, it can't afford to take Iran on unilaterally whilst having their forces in Iraq... and If Israel attacks first, well, I imagine nothing would put a devlish grin on the Arab league of nations other than an excuse to take it to Israel...

BAM!!!
on Aug 18, 2004
The precedent was set in 1993 when terrorists first attempted to topple the World Trade Centers in New York. That attack was followed successively with numerous attacks on American interests’ world wide during the next decade with no substantive retaliation on our part.

I need not remind anyone of the last unprovoked attack and slaughter of innocent people from practically every corner of the planet. Afghanistan was both retribution and preemption. Iraq was strictly preemption. Whether or not we have found WMDs in that vast wasteland doesn't really matter. There were no credible world leaders who did not believe that Saddam Hussein was, if not in direct possession, certainly on a path to acquiring such weapons. What do you suppose he would have done with WMDs given the time and opportunity? Oh, I truly doubt he would mount them on one of his own missiles and boldly launch them on Israel or the U.S. More likely, his method of operation would have involved developing close relationships with terrorist organizations (which it was proved he was doing) and having them do his dirty bidding. Which city of the world would you have wished to sacrafice in order to avoid the doctrine of preemption. Would you wait for an obvious staulker to rape a loved one before calling the police?

As far as this American is concerned, the terrorists have been on a decade long campaign against my country and it is high time we meet the threat head on. And if Iran wants to threaten the release of nuclear weapons, then they too can learn the meaning of preemption.
on Aug 18, 2004
The precedent was set in 1993 when terrorists first attempted to topple the World Trade Centers in New York


That was not a Sovereign state, hence renderring your precedent irrelavant.

You can speculate all you want about Saddam and his weapons, but if he really had the capapcity to attack the American people, he would have been taken out a lot sooner - it was 'convenient' to take him out now, while the troops were in the region.

And if Iran wants to threaten the release of nuclear weapons, then they too can learn the meaning of preemption.


Iran hasn't threatened with nukes - they have merely said the USA doesn't have the monopoly of preemption, and I agree with them.

Would you wait for an obvious staulker to rape a loved one before calling the police?


Stalkers are hardly power hungry men who control the fate of the world with little buttons... your analogy did nothing but proove that you aren't seeing the bigger picture.

BAM!!!



on Aug 18, 2004
I'd love to see Iran try something.
on Aug 19, 2004
I'd love to see Iran try something.


Nice attitude Brad.

BAM!!!
on Aug 19, 2004
I have always said they we(the US) should have dealt with them and Iraq during the first Iraq war. I agree that the average Iranian has no ill will towards the US. I have seen interviews with people on the street in Tehran and heard that from the younger generations mouths. I can see where the older generations resent the US and all the fucked up stuff that came down on the Iranian people by our supporting the Shah.

But when it comes right down to it, we cannot afford to wait until these fanatics have the capability to launch a direct strike against anybody. If they nuke Israel, they nuke them back, then we nuke Iran, then the russians nuke us, then the chinese nuke them , then the North Koreans nuke the west coast of the US and Japan. And so on and so and so on...until were ALL dead eventually. no nationality...just charred and diseased corpses.

Australia has never had a domestic terror attack on their home soil Muggaz. (and you are lucky my friends, i just came back to my hotel room in NYC this evening after a stroll through lower manhattan....you know GROUND ZERO?) When you get to see the holes in the ground there, it really hits home. Didn't the Bali bombings teach you people anything over there? They hate you too! no matter how detached you might think you are from the war on terrorism by being isolated. We used to think the same thing until 9/11. Do you think we should sit by and wait for it to happen again? HELL NO! The Islamist regime in Iran harbors Al Qaida, they fund terror worldwide, and have proved time and time again they have it out for us and the Israelis, and western civilization in general.

I say we mop up the resistance in Iraq, turn it all over to the UN...Hang a right turn and finish Iran off from both sides.It sounds brutal but it's better than the alternative!

Jesus... I sound like a Conservative. Looks like we agree on something after all Drag....who would have thought!
on Aug 19, 2004
Hey man... I know all about terrorists.... the Bali bombings taught me plenty...

all I am saying is that Iran have warned of a preemptive strike, and that based on precedents set by other nations (mainly USA and Israel) there really isn't anyone with the moral high ground who can say - "no, that is the wrong thing to do."

BAM!!!
on Aug 19, 2004

unfortunately this kind of thing is the likely response after one party proclaims it's 'right' to launch preemptive strikes. im guessing they're anticipating something like the israeli attack that destroyed saddam's nuclear plant.  

it just underscores (once again) the dangerous potential inherent in inflexibly, blindly and obsessively ignoring reality because it contradicts ideology.  

let's don't forget that halliburton (in violation of the spirit and very likely the letter of the law) has been helping iran to pay for projects of this type by improving their oil production capabilties. that effort began while dick cheney was running the company and continues to this moment.    or that chalabi, who enjoyed extraordinary iaccess to the administration as well as undue influence on its policies, was really acting only in the best interests of iran.  

on Aug 19, 2004

As far as this American is concerned, the terrorists have been on a decade long campaign against my country and it is high time we meet the threat head on

and as far as this american is concerned, the iranians have been aided in their efforts for the past decade by a company run for 7 of those years by the man who will be vice-president again if youre foolish enough to vote for him. 

on Aug 19, 2004
"It’s a shame that the targets of Iran's hostilities set the unfortunate precedent that pre-emptive strikes are acceptable."

I am curious. If a strike after 12 years of cease-fire violations on Iraq's side is "pre-emptive", what do you call a strike that happens BEFORE the enemy does something.

Also, why didn't Arab attacks on Israel during the last 50 years set "the unfortunate precedent that pre-emptive strikes are acceptable"?
on Aug 19, 2004

run for 7 of those years


sorry...that should have been 5 not 7.

on Aug 19, 2004
Would it be a fair restatement of the Iranian position to say: "If we feel that you are threatening our means of producing nuclear weapons, we will attack you first with conventional weapons?"

What peaceful use could Iran have for the nuclear reactor? Oil-rich Iran can't reasonably say that they are looking for alternative energy sources. The purpose of the reactor is to develop nuclear weapons capability, in a country that is obviously hostile to the US and its allies.

As for human rights abuses, please see of the articles on how Iran treats its own. I googled it and the first article that I found was from BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3011132.stm

It is over a year old, but nothing has changed. Some quotes:
"Many pro-reform protesters were injured in attacks by right-wing vigilantes."

"Those responsible are believed to be basijis and hezbollahis, right-wing Islamic irregulars, often teenagers, who roam around trouble-spots on motorcycles armed with clubs, chains, and knives, apparently acting with impunity."

"The detentions took place on direct orders from the hard-line judiciary, bypassing normal procedures, with plain-clothes court agents apparently being given a blank cheque to arrest anybody they deemed "suspicious".

Please also note that the Iranian people have elected a reform President (Khatami) and the majority of the elected legislators are reformers, but the hard-line mullahs still retain power through force of arms.

Here is an article on the reactor itself: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/bushehr.htm

The reactor is being built by Russia for Iran. US concerns, expressed for years through diplomatic channels but unheeded, are as follows: "US opposition to Russian construction of Bushehr rests on three issues; first that weapons grade plutonium could be extracted from the reactor allowing the Iranians to construct nuclear weapons. Secondly, the US fears that the Russians and the Iranians are using Bushehr as a cover for the transfer of other sensitive technology that would normally be prohibited. Finally, the US is concerned that the knowledge gained by Iranian scientists working at Bushehr could further Irans nuclear weapons program. "

Iran's response, presented in the interests of fairness, is that having internal nuclear power for domestic use would allow them to export more oil. However, two days ago, Iran said that there is a surplus in oil production and no reason to produce more. See Arabic News. com at http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/040816/2004081602.html

Recapping, Iran is a religious dictatorship, there is no peaceful reason for building the reactor, the US has tried unsuccessfully for over a decade to use peaceful channels to stop the development and Iran has issued a provocative statement. What then should we do?
on Aug 19, 2004
Although there may be ill-will towards the US government among some older Iranians due to our support from the shah,
Look at the country and tell me iff the average joe there is better off now or then? It is pretty obvious. That is why a
large number of religious minorities from Iran escaped (if they could) with not much more than the clothes on their backs to
reach the US and other nations. Thus bringing smart hard working folks to a place where they didn't need to fear being
identified as a Baha'i, or a Christian. My friends from Persia were lucky to get out after the shah fell.
Blame the French for saying the Ayahtollah was a man of peace and protecting him.
8 Pages1 2 3  Last