.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Rantings of a Sandmonkey

Be forewarned: The writer of this blog is an extremely cynical, snarky, pro-US, secular, libertarian, disgruntled sandmonkey. If this is your cup of tea, please enjoy your stay here. If not, please sod off

Monday, August 15, 2005

Tough-talking Iran?

In an effort to alienate the world even further, Iran Terrorst Prez A.J. has filled up his cabinet with people equally as crazy as him. Proof? Here is what the Iranian Foreign Minister said in regards to the Bush's"All Options are open when it comes to Iran" declaration: "Bush should know that our capabilities are much greater than those of the United States," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters. "We don't think that the United States will make such a mistake." Much greater you say? Hmm.... Someone hasn't been reading up on his history. Now, those of you who do know your history, let's go over it: Iran + Iraq go to War = Iraq wins after 8 years. Iraq + US go to War= US wins in 3 weeks. Iran + US go to War = Iran would win? Something in that logic, I don't know what it is, just doesn't add up!

9 Comments:

At 8/15/2005 02:18:00 AM, Blogger Highlander said...

SM, I object to the labelling of Ahmadinajad as ex-terrorist, ya man this is such a convenient label, despite the media things to immediately pile the dirt on the guy...your post was otherwise great without this label :( ...

I know it is wiser to fold up and not fight the US, but do you think that every body should always just listen to the US whatever it orders people about? simply giving in? ok I understand that if Iran gives in it will not be threatened with sanctions or invasion, but have you thought about the ramifactions of this in the long run? why oh why should we always have to do what the 'masters' order ? why should not Iran, or Saudi or Lebanon or Syria or Egypt or even Mauritania have their nuclear weapons if their scientists work hard at it and they pay for it ? why not ? Is it because of this mythical thought that an 'Islamic terrorist' may get it? but SM the ONLY nation to have actually used is THE one who is trying to prevent by sheer brute force and bullying others not to have it.It's kind of hypocritical to say the least.

Ok I might agree that the A-bomb should be the least of our concerns ...education, democratization bla bla bla are more urgent and probably better in the long run but hey so what if someone wants to have a deterrent? rest assured 100% that if Saddam had these WMD , no one would have dared to invade Iraq ....

I'm still wondering why nobody is sending ultimatums to Israel or North Korea ? and how come India and Pakistan were left to get away with it ? Too many questions ...but this was no what your post was about I guess ... aaaaaaah I went into a tangent again did I not ;) ...end of rant !

 
At 8/15/2005 06:05:00 AM, Anonymous karim elsahy said...

I agree with High. Man what the hell, there is almost no perspective here, its like reading just another right wing american blog. You are in a unique position to give us angles we cant find elsewere, as you often but less frequently do, so take advantage of it my friend.

Oh btw I get into Cairo soon, I'll give you a call when I do and we can go get that lunch we've been talkin about. Samakmak?

 
At 8/15/2005 05:28:00 PM, Blogger programmer craig said...

Highlander, I personally do not WANT Iran to "give in" because that would be a lie, like the lie North Korea tol the Clinton Administration a couple years before Kim ill dong pulled nukes out of his ass.

What I want, is an open confrontation with Iran over this issue... which conveniently is also what the mullahs in Iran want.

Highlaner, I have to say, I don't have much respect for you objectivity on this issue. There are at least TWO major differences between Iran's nuclear ambitions and all the other nations you named.

1) Those were before September 11th, 2001 - a different reality.

2) Iran is both a state sponsor of terrorism, and a clear enemy of the United States.

There are more differences, but in my opinion, these two change everything. My personal belief is that millions of people will die if Iran gets nukes, and they will not all be americans.

 
At 8/15/2005 07:23:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not to mention that Iran has sworn to annihilate Israel. What would a bomb lobbed in that direction, as promised, do to the rest of the middle east?

 
At 8/15/2005 09:50:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is not only the U.S. that objects to Iran having nukes. It should not be seen as Bush against Iran. The world is against it. What reason would they have to have a nuclear bomb? The US is never going to use a nuclear weapon again. To use it would mean the end of the world. Sounds like the suicide bomber's ultimate dream. How many potential Iranian suicide bombers do we have lying in wait, dreaming this dream? I shudder to think of it.

 
At 8/16/2005 02:49:00 AM, Blogger Highlander said...

Programmer_Craig et al,

What are the guarantees that the US will never use N-bombs again, it has managed to use every possible means of WMD over the last 60 years or so.

Also are not N.bomb supposed to be 'precise' target seeking thingys now ? so who says Israel won't use it in an attack in the middle-east ?

You see the fear and mistrust goes both ways.

I don't think the US has to fear anything from Iran ( but well after all I'm not much of a politician) because as you all say the more likely target would be Israel not the US which is very far away still out of reach of the missiles. However , most of you are overestimating the willingness of Iranians or others to die in the Middle East.

Not everything revolves about 9/11 you know people in the middle east have also got their own problems.
As for saying that the other states who joined the A-club recently was because it was before 9/11 I don't think it makes a difference objectively....never mind.

Look at it from another angle shall we? for example Z-country does not wish the US to continue subsidizing a certain product but a fair trade let the best/cheapest win, can z- country enforce it on the US ? of course not because it is more powerful and richer, the US will just swat it like a fly. But the other way around would be immediately enforced with an armada of badly disguised threats and sanctions. Apart from economics, I think it all gets down to stupid human pride in the end, the most nationalistic people I have seen are in the US, can't they just believe that others maybe thus too...aaaaaagh I just maybe be too naive...Programmer_Craig and the game is probably beyond me :) or any of us...



SM ايه رايك?

 
At 8/16/2005 05:40:00 AM, Blogger programmer craig said...

Highlander, I'm getting frustrated with everything too. My objectivity (what there was of it) is gone. What did it for me is the differinet reactions I saw from people in the middle east to the bombings in Israel, the US, Spain, Russia, the US puppet state of Iraq, Britain, all those... versus the bombing in Egypt. People who said basically "Yeah, shit happens" were all of a sudden completely outraged about a bombing that happened in Egypt that killed mostly Egyptians. I'm not talking about anybody on this blog or on others I visit regularly, btw.

But it was there. I still don't know what to make of it, but despite what you say, it seems pretty clear to me that there are a fair number of people in the middle east who are really OK with everyone else being murdered.

I'm going to gte flamed for saying that. But, I have to say it, because that's why I don't think it's possible for the United States to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Sandmonkey said in a post a few days ago that "everyone is against terror" and I disagreed with him on that. This is the proof. Iran is a terrorist state. Not everyone is against Iran. And I'll bet there's a fair number of people who want Iran to have nukes because they KNOW Iran will use them. Every time I see somebody say something like "Iran's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes" or "Iran only wants nukes for self defense" I think "does this anonymous person really want to see Iran with nukes because they think it'd be pretty cool if Jerusalem or New York got destroyed?" because, you know, there ARE people out there who think that'd be pretty cool.

As I recall, Rafsanjani said it would be pretty cool. While he was president of Iran.

 
At 8/16/2005 06:24:00 AM, Anonymous Karim Elsahy said...

Craig,

A friend of mine once put this well. If a friend, or even someone you don’t like, looses his mother, for example, you are sad for him but your sadness will be nothing compared to how you would feel if you lost your own mother. It’s the nature of things for you to feel sadness and disappointment with the world for Bali but rage for NYC.

Furthermore, I believe that it is almost innate in most Americans to believe the world revolves around them. They usually don’t even realize it and I don’t even think it’s their faults; it’s what psychologically happens when you’re the most powerful in the world. It shows up in what you just said though. Look for it.

The second half of your comment would take to long for now but it does touch some interesting spots and I think I may make a post out of it soon. I’ll let you know when I do.

Peace

Karim Elsahy

 
At 8/16/2005 09:07:00 AM, Blogger stefania said...

The Euros will do all they can to prolong the plight of the Iranian people. Really disgusting...

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home