We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

A kind of solution for the Middle East

“I think we should take Iraq and Iran and combine them into one country and call it Irate. All the pissed off people live in one place and get it over with.”

Denis Leary.

18 comments to A kind of solution for the Middle East

  • qwerty

    Pity the stupid effeminate hysterical Arabs. Those Orientals don’t value life like we do.

    Let’s nuke them all and get it over with : It’s human nature.

  • Sunfish

    He’s changed. Ten years ago, Mr. Leary’s proposal was to paint the Goodyear Blimp to look like a giant breast and fly it over Iran and Iraq.

  • Nick M

    I rather like the idea of “Irate”. Just give ‘em an approximation of a Danish flag (or the flags of the great or little Satans – as a Brit that really pisses me of) and they’ll be as happy as a 6 year old with Lego – except, perhaps we shouldn’t tell ‘em it’s Dansky.

    Oy vey Gewalt! Perhaps someone ought to tell them that the Koran is an utter crock and that if that is the final word of God to his creation then I’ll be fucked if I’ll believe a word of it.

    I’ve just finished reading Derren Brown’s “Trick of the Mind” and it’s rather interesting, he is firmly of the opinion that the vast majority of founders of new religions/belief systems are either completely unhinged or total con-artistes.

    I once dated a theology student who was firmly of the opinion that Muhammed was a total con-artiste. She was sort of Anglican, for the record.

    If only we could follow Mr Brown’s line (and my ex’s) and just ignore a bunch of nutcases who believe the Koran to be God’s final revelation to his creation rather than the demented ramblings of a mass-murdering peadophile. If only…

  • Phil A

    We could build a big wall and moat round it as well – to keep it all contained – Fat chance ;-)

  • Johnathan Pearce

    Pity the stupid effeminate hysterical Arabs. Those Orientals don’t value life like we do.

    Your sarcasm is misplaced. The sheer scale of suicide bombings in Iraq and Palestine would suggest that many people living in the Middle East do not value life as in the West. In fact, they positively celebrate the willingness to die and kill others in order to get to fuck 70+virgins or whatever.

    Let’s nuke them all and get it over with : It’s human nature.

    Dumbass remark. Mind you, if nuclear weapons do get used, it is more likely to be done by the mad mullahs running Iran than by the West.

  • aa

    As an Iranian reader of your site I’m saddened to read these types of comments. Here are just a few points that I would like to make against demonizing myths against Iran.

    Iran is developing nuclear weapons:
    There is absolutely no proof that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme. Inspections over the past three years have found no evidence of a nuclear weaponization programme. There is also a religious decree by Ayatollah Khameni, who has the final say on all major issues, against the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.

    Iran is enriching uranium:
    Enrichment of uranium for domestic power purposes is an inalienable right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran is believed to have enriched uranium to the 3.5% level, enough for use as nuclear fuel, but it would require 90% enrichment, with 50-100 kg of it, to make a single bomb. Even a CIA’s official 2005 US government report states that Iran is at least 10 years away from the capacity for a nuclear weapon.

    With so much gas there is no reason for Iran to want nuclear power:
    Iran would like to export more oil and gas. It was Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz who, under President Ford, persuaded the Shah to establish a large nuclear programme to meet its energy needs and sold the first nuclear reactor to the country.

    Iran is harbouring Al Qaeda and supporting terrorists:
    There is absolutely no evidence that Iran has in any way collaborated with Al Qaeda. In fact Iran condemned the 9/11 attacks by Al Qaeda and Coalition’s attack on the Taliban.

    Iran is supplying weapons and intelligence to Iraqi insurgents:
    No evidence whatsoever has been produced to link the Iranian government to Iraqi insurgents. General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admitted at a Pentagon news conference in January 2007, that he had no evidence of the Iranian government sending any military equipment or personnel into Iraq.

    Iran is planning to destroy Israel:
    Iran does not have the military power to pose an objective threat to Israel.

    Iran is a threat to the stability of the region:
    Iran is surrounded by countries to the west, north and east that have nuclear weapons – the US (in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the Indian Ocean), Israel, Russia, China, India and Pakistan, and now North Korea. Iran has not invaded or threatened any country in the past two and a half centuries. The only war the Iran has fought was the war imposed by Saddam’s army, which invaded Iran with the backing of the US and its allies. An attack on Iran with cause instability to the region and the world, just as the invasion and occupation of Iraq has done.

    The targeting of Iran has nothing to do with oil or gas:
    Iran holds the world’s largest supplies of oil after Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and holds more oil and gas combined than any other country on the planet. As Peak Oil rapidly approaches, the US demand to control the lion’s share of what is left. Iran has also just shifted its petrodollars into a Euro-based bourse. The effect on the value of the dollar will be significant.

    Democracy should be installed in Iran:
    Iran has an active indigenous democracy movement who ultimately are the only ones who can secure a sustainable democracy. Any military assault on the country will hugely strengthen the anti-democratic political forces in Iran. The burgeoning civil society organisations in Iran would be one of the first major victims of any military attack on the country. Iranian people are wholly opposed to military action against their country.

  • aa,
    Thanks for your comments, which I beleive are sincere and informative.
    But,
    On nuclear weapons: if Iran didn’t plan to build nuclear weapons they sure could find accomodations with the international community, that does not oppose a peaceful nuclear power program, as long as it’s safeguarded and subject to inspections. Russia porposed to supply fuel for the reactor, as long as the spent fuel rods were returned after use.
    Iran’s behaviour in the matter doesn’t point to a peaceful nuclear program.

    On “Iran is planning to destroy Israel:”
    If it isn’t planning than why does Ahmedinajad threaten Israel with annihilation every time he opens his mouth to speak ? Why doesn’t he use standard diplomatic nonesense-talk like “we recognize the right of all nations to live within secure and recognized borders” ?

    So your claims do not sound plausible.

  • aa

    Dear Jacob,

    On your first point, Iran signed the Addition Protocol of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and for most of the last three years have allowed inspectors “to go anywhere and see anything”. After they were referred to the UN Security Council last year, Iran withdrew from the voluntary enforcement of the Additional Protocol. They are however still in full compliance with their international obligations and are allowing inspections. Inspectors from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspected Iran’s nuclear installations in Isfahan and Natanz on 10-12th January 2007 and further inspections will take place on 2-6th February 2007. The greater the threat of military action, the more difficult inspections are likely to become.

    On your second point, Amadinejad “Israel should be wiped of the map” comment has been widely reported in the Guardian and elsewhere to have been a mistranslation and what he actually said is “the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”. Rather than “Israel should be wiped off the map”. Amadinejad rhetoric against Israel is inflammatory but a distinction must be drawn between angry and inflammatory rhetoric and genuine threats.

  • Nick M

    aa,
    Are you shilling for the supreme leader or something.

    Iran is not a democracy in anything like the usual sense. A free press might be a start.

    Iran is clearly pursuing nuclear weapons. I’ve got a MSc in astrophysics and I know that nobody centrifuges Uranium Hexafluoride for the lark of it.

    Iran is planning to destroy Israel:
    Iran does not have the military power to pose an objective threat to Israel.

    That sounds exactly like the kinda crap that comes out of the Ayatollah’s office all the time. True but meaningless. Of course Iran doesn’t have the military tech to directly challenge Israel now. Isn’t that why the Iranians are developing nukes, ballistic missiles and buying things like Sunburn missiles from those fun loving criminals in the Kremlin?

  • Freeman

    aa:

    Please ask your guys not to put together your stated 50-100kg of 90% enriched uranium.

  • Nick M

    Freeman,
    That gave me a laugh.

    Are you au fait with the heroic and tragic tale of Louis Slotkin?

    I sure as hell hope those buggers in Tehran are.

    Unfortunately, the one link I can find to his death is a somewhat inaccurate version.

  • Amadinejad rhetoric against Israel is inflammatory …

    It’s very dangerous to make such imflamatory remarks. Some hotheads might missunderstand them, lacking the benefit of your deep insights, and might want to do a preemptive strike.

    Your’e repeating the official Irani line of propaganda. It’s unconvincing.

  • Nick M

    aa,
    Now if I was to threaten that you would “vanish from the page of time” would you sleep more soundly than if I’d said you “should be wiped of the map”?

    A threat is a threat and no amount of semantics is going to prevent it being threatening.

    Mr Amadinejad is talking Armageddon. D’ya not think folk like me (especially folk like me who know how absolutely truly appalling a nuke attack can be quite how perversely easy it is to do*) have a right to be concerned that the President of a country with a major nuclear program holds regular rant-fests calling for the destruction of my country? And the destruction of the USA (which I love)? and Israel? D’ya not think I have the right to be just a smidgen concerned about this? “Inflammatory” – lighter fuel is “inflammatory” Mr Amadinejad’s rants are practically a declaration of war.

    And sir, if an Iranian backed terrorist group were to nuke central London (say) I for one would expect my government to do nothing less than the complete annihilation of 6000 years of Persian culture. We used to call it “V-Force” for a reason.

    And yes, obviously Iran backs umpteen terrorist groups. Who d’ya think supplies Hizbollah with rockets? The sodding tooth-fairy?

    *At least crudely. The stumbling block is having enough fissile material and the rest is tricky but very doable by reasonably skilled fluid-dynamicists. All you need is a few hundred quids worth of electronics from Radio Shack and some directional explosives. These techs are old and therefore well-understood and cheap. Demonstrably they were perfected 62 years ago.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    Nick M’s response to aa, who is a rather deluded individual, or a shill for Iran, is what is known in contact sports as a smackdown. Excellent.

  • 1skeptic

    Thankfully we attacked Iraq before Iraq attacked us.
    Now we will do the same to Iran!

  • Enrichment of uranium for domestic power purposes is an inalienable right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

    No one has any ‘inalienable’ rights whatsoever, least of all states. Yes, people have rights but if you act in certain ways, you can alienate any right. You have a right for me to not to injure or kill you… unless you try and injure or kill me, at which point you alienate your rights and I can blow your head off, summarily, no trial required.

  • Nick M

    The right of self-defence that Perry describes seems fairly inalienable to me. Certainly I take it as such and anybody that messes with me or the missus is highly likely to die from a low-velocity hammer-related impact.

    I feel the same way about my country (country, note, not my state) you fuck with me and you get hammered, you fuck with England and you fry.

    And if any of this seems needlessly bellicose then fuck you as well. AWE exists for just such wankers.

  • Sunfish

    If Iran has nothing to do with terrorism, then…

    Where does Hezbollah get rockets?
    What was the source of attacks on unarmed non-military shipping in the gulf in the 1980’s?
    Who is Moqtada al-Sadr’s outside friend?
    Who backed, and provided material support for, the truck bomb attacks on the US Embassy and the USMC barracks in Beiruit?
    And what is the only country in which, in my lifetime, our embassy was invaded and the staff kidnapped, in a clear violation of international law and a clear act of war?