Signs point to yes...

Yeah, Little Stevie Wonder could read those signs.

Israel did it to Iraq, there's no reason to think they wouldn't do it to Iran as well, especially with Iran's loose lipped new president practically begging for it. That's how I assumed this non-sense would go.

Given Iran's growing influence in Sunni Iraq, and America's traditional pro-Israel stance, things could get very hairy very quickly.

I wonder if Iran isn't baiting Israel? And if so, why? Are they looking for an excuse to start a popular uprising against the Americans and try to take over military-less Iraq? Do they have secret (possibly Russian supplied) weapons they are itching to use against Israel and just looking for an excuse to do so, even if they have to goad Israel into giving them that excuse?

Yep, I expect Israel to do it (it might even be the best solution to the mess), I just hope they're not walking into a trap.

Yep, I expect Israel to do it (it might even be the best solution to the mess), I just hope they're not walking into a trap.

I don't believe Israel would let themselves walk into a trap. They may be about to take on a bigger fight than we might be able to estimate and understand, but I think they know the fight they'd be up against, and they know full well how ready and capable they'd be for taking on that fight.

Its tough to tell how much fight there really would be in Iran, where we keep hearing tales of a country that is much like Iraq, supposedly ready to toss it's leaders, but doesn't quite have the will to do it. Yes, there's a hardcore group there that is much like the Taliban was in Afghanistan, but I expect in many ways Iran might be just like Afghanistan if and and when a real fight actually occured. On the one hand they'd pull the Saddam minister of mis-information (Baghdad Bob) type campaign where they'd claim the fight is going well, Allah wil bless them, they will not lose, the infidels will be repelled, etc., on the other hand they'd see their losses mount quickly, and see their territorial hold shrink just as quickly.

While "the street" in Iran might not be big fans of an Israeli occupation, I don't believe they'd be that apt to get themselves killed in a fight between parties that they don't really care about either.

I still find it hard to believe that we'd be any where near this point if we hadn't gone through 4 years of Jimmy Carter's ineptitude back in the 1970s that let Iran fall into the hands of radical Islamists.

ineptitude? it aint as if jimma was doin anything inept in the early 50s when the anglo-american oil corp manipulated the brits and our government to task the cia and british intelligence with the job of overthrowing the elected government of mohammad mosaddeq.

replacing mosaddeq with the shah'n'shah (scion of the noble ancient--well 2 generations anyway--palavi dynasty) may have seemed like a success at the time...but it was really inept statecraft. furthermore it is exactly this kinda 'democracy and freedom are good enough for us, but not for you' inversion of all we claim to stand for which keeps coming back to bite us in the ass.

install a greedy tyrant who spends the next 2 decades repressing his people and refusing to share the lil kickback he gets from the people who are robbing his country of its resources and you go head on and bet the farm the citizens of that country are gonna remember what you've done for a long damn time.

they clearly have memories that surpass yours.

Had we not gone through at least 8 years worth of letting the U.N.'s resolutions have absolutely no meaning, then perhaps we would now have more respect for that organization from the likes of Iran and other nations that do nothing but thumb their noses at the world's demands.

had we put any real effort into making the un work especially during the most recent 30 of the past 60 years (altho it's pretty much true of the first 30 as well), nations like iran and north korea almost certianly be less dismissive of the organization. that's really another topic but...

a more germane 'woulda' goes like this: if our current vice-president hadn't spent much of the 90s doing his best to work around sanctions both legally and otherwise in order to help iran pay for its nuclear program by enabling them to produce oil more profitably, things might be much different.

perhaps you can explain how such a patriot as cheney justify calling for the end of sanctions in order to enrich the company he headed.

Installing totalitarian governments was a dumb move, period. Not addressing the Soviets early and playing a pissy game of chess for the next 40 years was a dumb move. Not defeating your enemies is a dumb move. Pretending to want balance when it is really a global land-grab is a dumb move.

Hardly anyone defends them today; who's going to if they cause immense catastrophe?

Israel's enemies have tried to cause to many immense catastrophes in Israel, I believe Israel is due one try to do the same to the enemies; especially those enemies who don't have the good sense to make peace or adhere to a cease-fire.

I wish for a united Arab-Israeli front against Iran. And judging from current events and the Iranian president's words, this might actually happen.


If Iran would actually bomb Jerusalem and Palestine, as they cannot avoid doing if they want to hit Israel (there are no nukes that just hit the Jewish parts of a target, no matter how much racists pray), Iran will have more problems than just Israel.



But Iran will most likely want to use the nukes as deterrent so they can attack whomever they like and scare away possible bad consequences.


To me it seems like it's up to the Arabs to decide whether they want Iran to have such power or not. Is Arab hatred for Jews big enough to warrant their own destruction at the hands of Iranian terrorists? We will see.

I believe that's "Git 'er done!" UBoB. But an A for effort.

Close, it's "Git-R-Done." (I just reviewed the book.)

Now back on topic...

Israel good. Iran bad. Discuss.

I'm afraid you got your history left. The shah came to power in 1941 when he was put in power to make sure Iran would not ally with Germany.

Unfortunately, that does not fit in with the thesis that all bad happens under republican administrations. Hence his slight oversight.

and i'm afraid yall are so interested in denying historical fact, you confuse the shah's father with his son...and 1941 with 1953.

Classic.

You should have split that up into two comments.

Oh, yeah - as in Toys-R-Us.

OK, do I get partial credit for only being off one letter?

Touche, Gene.

Cheers,
Daiwa

You should have split that up into two comments

yeah i prolly shoulda. clearly i was the one confusing reza palavi with his son, reza palavi. it's so damn easy to get confused with these two generation dynasties.

The shah came to power in 1941 when he was put in power to make sure Iran would not ally with Germany

the second palavi shah--the one to which i was referring did not, in fact, reign from 1941 until 1979.

it was still incredibly stupid of Carter and his administration to not have an exit strategy and not have a plan for what was going to happen to protect the interests of the United States and it's allies once the Shah was out of the country.

hindsight provides such incredible clarity. carter may not have realized the kinda mania khomeni inspired. very few americans did at the time. reagan shoulda known who he was dealing with (even if his campaign was totally innocent of the so-called 'october surprise') but that didn't stop him from providing them with missiles and replacement parts. (i have a difficult time believing he hadda clue; how else to explain sending khomeni a bible of all things?) for that matter, it seems the current administration is doin its best to turn iraq over to sistani.

OK, do I get partial credit for only being off one letter?

[I'm still off topic] You certainly did better than I would have had I not just read the book. [/I'm still off topic]