Iran's President says Holocaust a myth

[butters]

Source

"Iran's hard-line president lashed out with a new outburst at
Israel on Wednesday, calling the Nazi Holocaust a "myth" used as a pretext for carving out a Jewish state in the heart of the Muslim world"

They do this while the rest of the world tries to get them to abandon their nuclear program. It's quite well known how the EU feels about the Holocaust, as it's illegal to deny it in many of the countries. Could this be a precurser to war?

[mikozero]

maybe

problem with this guy is he still acts like he's mayor of tehran, he's not a 'high level' deep thinking politician/statesman.

he knows this kind of rhetoric plays well to the home crowd, but he is either not statesmanlike enough to realise, or he doesn't care, how badly this plays abroad now he holds presidential office.

he managed 'Israel should be wiped of the map' and 'our nuclear program is for purely peaceful means' in the same day

one thing for sure, it won't be like the last two (or three) if it does happen. i'd expect Syria to probably join in and Iraq to erupt (if it can be considered 'calm' currently), then you've got the possiblity of Israel being attacked and joining the fray and Saudi precariously sitting with the best conventional US weapons money can buy.

PS. and i think they probably have 'the bomb' already (if history is any judge) as do the Israelis of course . .

oh and he has beedy eyes.

[butters]

Hmm, here's a conspiracy theory for you. What if the whole point of the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq were simply to build U.S./E.U. bases for the coming war?

[Lartrak]

I find Holocaust-deniers amazing... It's almost like denying that FDR existed. I dunno, it's hard to come up with an exact analogy, but suffice to say, there's an EXTREMELY large number of first hand witnesses, films, pictures, survivors... WTF do they need?

[mikozero]

Hmm, here's a conspiracy theory for you. What if the whole point of the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq were simply to build U.S./E.U. bases for the coming war?

well maybe, i said something similar at one time, but if so it's not been handled very well, i'd be better to base yourself in countries were your forces are actually safe.

if Iran invaded/liberated Iraq tomorrow they would probably win, there aren't enough forces in the country to stop them and half the population support the opposition, likewise probably Afghanistan.

the government in Iran sadly actually represents the view of its people,
ie most are 'hard line' Muslims hostile to the west, they would all fight.

btw (imo) the government in Saudi does not, the Saudi people as a whole excluding the governing classes are not friends of the west, they're just painted that way. if there was a popular vote tomorrow they'd probably elect Osama if they could.

i keep mentioning Saudi because many analysts expected an Islamic revolution after King Fahds death, but against all expectation it didn't happen (partly because of a security clampdown and external help in such post 911) but the currents (and popular support for it) are still there and selling the Saudis better gear than the US military given the political situation in that country and hoping the fact they're up to their eyeballs in debt will keep them in line was a bit dumb, as it discounts the fact any Islamic revolution won't care about that in the slightest.

me ? if there was a war i'd go hill walking i think, only 280 Munros left.

the state of the world just saddens me now.

what age are you Butters ?

[jaredfogle]

Hmm, here's a conspiracy theory for you. What if the whole point of the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq were simply to build U.S./E.U. bases for the coming war?

Here we go (sorry for the weird formatting, taken from official PDF):

In the Middle East and Persian Gulf, we should seek to foster regional stability, deter aggression
against our friends and interests in the region, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our
access to international air and seaways and to the region’s important sources of oil. We should strive to
encourage a peace process that brings about reconciliation between Israel and the Arab states as well as
between Palestinians and Israel in a manner consonant with our enduring commitment to Israel’s
security. Some near-term dangers are alleviated with the defeat of Iraqi forces, but we must recognize
that regional dynamics can change and a rejuvenated Iraq or a rearmed Iran could move in this decade to
dominate the Gulf and its resources. We must remain prepared to act decisively in the Middle
East/Persian Gulf region as we did in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm if our vital interests
there are threatened anew. We also must be prepared to counter the terrorism, insurgency, and
subversion that adversaries may use to threaten governments supportive of U.S. security interests.
The Gulf War has greatly enhanced our security relations in the Middle East/Persian Gulf region
and underscored their continued importance. Taken together, many facets of this experience --
cooperation in combat, logistical support, and financial participation -- and our subsequent cooperation on
forward presence of U.S. forces promise continued close ties with nations of the region on which we can
build.
To discourage the rise of a challenger hostile to our interests in the region --jf's note: IRAN--, we must maintain a
level of forward military presence adequate to reassure our friends and deter aggressors and present a
credible crisis response capability. In consultation with our regional friends, we should increase our
presence compared to the pre-Gulf War period. We will want to have the capability to return forces quickly
to the region should that ever be necessary. We also should strengthen our bilateral security ties and
encourage active regional collective defense.

Afghanistan and Iraq are new US military bases for when someone touches our oil, basically. We don't take kindly to countries threatening our interests (see the uninstalling of Iran's democratically elected leader in the middle 50s when he started talking about nationalizing Iranian oil).

Having a "forward military presence" in Iraq/Afghanistan means quick action to protect our interests when threatened. These are not security interests, they are wholly economic.

This isn't a conspiracy theory, it's truth. Cheney's "Defense Strategy for the 1990s" is considered to be the neo-conservative manifesto, or rather the groundwork of US foreign policy post Cold War.

You can read the whole document here ***PDF***

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... efense.pdf

[butters]

what age are you Butters ?

22.

[mikozero]

registered yet ?

[Covar]

Hmm, here's a conspiracy theory for you. What if the whole point of the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq were simply to build U.S./E.U. bases for the coming war?

Here we go (sorry for the weird formatting, taken from official PDF):

In the Middle East and Persian Gulf, we should seek to foster regional stability, deter aggression
against our friends and interests in the region, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our
access to international air and seaways and to the region’s important sources of oil. We should strive to
encourage a peace process that brings about reconciliation between Israel and the Arab states as well as
between Palestinians and Israel in a manner consonant with our enduring commitment to Israel’s
security. Some near-term dangers are alleviated with the defeat of Iraqi forces, but we must recognize
that regional dynamics can change and a rejuvenated Iraq or a rearmed Iran could move in this decade to
dominate the Gulf and its resources. We must remain prepared to act decisively in the Middle
East/Persian Gulf region as we did in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm if our vital interests
there are threatened anew. We also must be prepared to counter the terrorism, insurgency, and
subversion that adversaries may use to threaten governments supportive of U.S. security interests.
The Gulf War has greatly enhanced our security relations in the Middle East/Persian Gulf region
and underscored their continued importance. Taken together, many facets of this experience --
cooperation in combat, logistical support, and financial participation -- and our subsequent cooperation on
forward presence of U.S. forces promise continued close ties with nations of the region on which we can
build.
To discourage the rise of a challenger hostile to our interests in the region --jf's note: IRAN--, we must maintain a
level of forward military presence adequate to reassure our friends and deter aggressors and present a
credible crisis response capability. In consultation with our regional friends, we should increase our
presence compared to the pre-Gulf War period. We will want to have the capability to return forces quickly
to the region should that ever be necessary. We also should strengthen our bilateral security ties and
encourage active regional collective defense.

Afghanistan and Iraq are new US military bases for when someone touches our oil, basically. We don't take kindly to countries threatening our interests (see the uninstalling of Iran's democratically elected leader in the middle 50s when he started talking about nationalizing Iranian oil).

Having a "forward military presence" in Iraq/Afghanistan means quick action to protect our interests when threatened. These are not security interests, they are wholly economic.

This isn't a conspiracy theory, it's truth. Cheney's "Defense Strategy for the 1990s" is considered to be the neo-conservative manifesto, or rather the groundwork of US foreign policy post Cold War.

You can read the whole document here ***PDF***

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... efense.pdf

now i get it, so our entire forgiegn policy is based off of a defense stradegy written over 10 years ago by a secretary of defense who now is the VP

[butters]

registered yet ?

For the selective service? Years ago. You have to be registered to get government grant money for college.

[jaredfogle]

now i get it, so our entire forgiegn policy is based off of a defense stradegy written over 10 years ago by a secretary of defense who now is the VP

I'm going to assume that was sarcasm...

No, our foreign policy is terribly complex. But if you study American history, foreign policy is often reflective of a particular doctrine in a given period. The Monroe Doctrine, for example, in the 1800s. Cheney's Defense "Stradegy" for the 1990s is probably the modern equivalent.

Things have changed since it was written, of course, but it's still a good picture of the vision.

[az_bont]

registered yet ?

For the selective service? Years ago. You have to be registered to get government grant money for college.

That's shocking .

[not just souLLy now]

registered yet ?

For the selective service? Years ago. You have to be registered to get government grant money for college.

are you serious???

[mikozero]

i wouildn't bet on it happening soon, you've 68 million Iranians who don't want to be 'liberated' to get past.

[mikozero]

yeah, that was always my impression of a nuclear holocaust

[butters]

registered yet ?

For the selective service? Years ago. You have to be registered to get government grant money for college.

That's shocking .

Any male 18+ is required by law to be registered so that if they restarted the draft they'd have your name in the pot. It's saddening....

[Covar]

registered yet ?

For the selective service? Years ago. You have to be registered to get government grant money for college.

That's shocking .

are you serious???

you do know thats just a list for jury duty right? (and well technically a draft as well if they ever started one) its one of the only duties required by the government.

so how is that shocking?