MSD

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=6839865
Page 2
They have bomb-grade uranium and I have little doubt that they would be afraid to use it if threatened. I don't know if we'd be the ones hit, but Israel is probably right in their crosshairs. They wouldn't even have to get it all the way here, a suicide attack with a small bomb on a powered boat against our fleet in the gulf is also a worrying prospect. There's also the possiblity that they could hit Iraq's new government or an occupied city like Fallujah. The list of targets is practically endless, and a few radicals in the military could decide to strike, as I doubt they have the same precautions that we do here in the US, which have also been proven to be not fully effective.

The WMD's are right there. Maybe this time there is a case for military action. If we don't do it, I don't think I can fault Israel for concluding that they should to based on our precedent. Let's hope that the UN grows some balls and puts its collective foot down before they get an operational nuke. There's no end in sight for US membership in the UN, so I think we should make a big deal about it.

...

Or maybe this opposition group has built up their credibility and fed us a false report in the hope that we'll do something about the current Iranian government.

smooth

Pretty serious shit. Did you hear about Russia nationalizing its resources and preparing to test two new missile systems?

Evidently, the taste of capitalism wasn't too sweet and didn't last long.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

tecoyah

Best part about the Russian nuke plans.....the Bush administration is officially "unconcerned".
Just as they have shown a lack of concern towards Iran....glad to see we have our priorities straight.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

WillyPete

Hmmmm.

Sounds familiar. WMD's anyone?
Next stop on the Global domination world tour, Iran. Get your t-shirts at the door.

Lebell

Seriously, would anyone here be upset if the Israelis went in and took out Iran's bomb plants?

(yes, it's a real question)

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Ustwo

We saddly have an affirmative on that question from other threads. Some people who shall rename nameless even think Iran has a better military then Iraq did and would somehow be a real fight. They refused to give any sources for this, so I had to look on my own, and discovered quite the contrary.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Mojo_PeiPei

I've been saying for some time that we should turn Israel loose on the whole Middle East, not like Arabs or Israeli's have any love lost.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

roachboy

it is interesting that this story is surfacing now, at the moment the e.u. had managed to negociate an agreement with iran designed to short circuit un sanctions (which was the american plan on the matter). i am not sure of the linkage, but i wonder if the story is part of a jockeying for position on the part of the administration in that context. because i wonder if this e.u. success is seen as writing on the wall for the american diplomatic position in general. sooner or later, the consequences of bush's goofball foriegn policy would have to start turning up--maybe the administration see this as the first of these.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Seaver

No one, and I mean no one, is afraid of the EU. It's hard to have diplomatic power when you dont have the threat of military actions behind it.

Ustwo

I predict the EU negotiations will be just as effective as the U.S. negotiations were with North Korea.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

zen_tom

What utter paranoid bollocks. First you state that they wouldn't hesitate retaliation with nuclear weapons, then you leap straight to the rabid conclusion that Israel is "in their crosshairs" - Yes they are developing nuclear arms - In case you haven't noticed, nuclear arms were invented over 50 years ago and are already held by a number of countries around the world, including the hot-headed, politically unstable, untrustworthy, unilateral, aggressive and self-serving one known as the USA. Against this sort of threat, wouldn't you want some kind of deterrant too?

Yes, I'd be outraged.

Seriously, please - seriously, try and explain what motives a country like Iran (or any country) might possibly have in actually being the first to use a nuclear device when the consequences would be so devastating? Perhaps they are all mad over there? Is it the sun? All that sand? Camel hairs in the atmosphere? Or is it because they are all shady Muslims? Or perhaps you need to sit and realise for a moment that people around the world are all exactly the same and worry about the same small things that you and I worry about. i.e. Getting fed, falling in love, having and caring for your children etc.

Do you really think military action (read thousands of civillian deaths and dangerously increasing levels of global insecurity) is a sensible option?

roachboy

it does not appear that the bushequation of diplomacy and crude military power is the only logic at work in the world. that iran chose to negociate with teh e.u. is interesting. that the e.u. reached an agreement with iran yesterday that bypassed the entire american logic of situation management is interesting.

i think you are underestimating the e.u.--but to consider the matter, you have to move away from the bushlogic and think about it this agreement as such. give it a try. you'll maybe see what i mean.

i think the americans should worry about the e.u. becoming a more important diplomatic partner for navigating situations like this than the u.s. is....while i do not know any more than you do how things will unfold in the longer run (and you do not know) it seems that this could well be what i said it was--the first index of the reconfiguration of diplomatic power relations in a post-american dominated global context.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

WillyPete

What a nuclear weapon in a country like Iran means, is that a country Like US, UK and France can't go barging in to enforce their foreign policy.

There's an article today that quotes Powell as saying that the Iranians will be trying to mate a missile with a warhead, but that is years away.

So the fact is, with a nuke, they won't be shooting it into Tel Aviv anytime soon, but any large ground troop formation can expect to need 1billion sunblock if they want to feel safe attacking Iran as the nearest and weakest of the axis of evil.
And the international community could not be expected to condemn a nation state using a nuke on its own turf to repel invaders, unlike bio or chem weapons seeing as the US/NATO/EU has them by the bucketload.

OFKU0

I think the better question would be, "Would anyone be surprised if the Israeli's went in and took out Iran's bomb plant's?

Well as stated on CNN by a high level Iranian official, Iran has no interest in attacking Israel, that comments of such are permeated by Israel to grow support for a preemptive strike, that Iran is more than willing to commence talks with the U.S regarding several matters including weapons (mainly due to war in Iraq--not wanting the same) and that if Iran is attacked by Israel, they will counterstrike.

Perhaps it's time for the collective world to start ridding the mideast of WMD before these all important people fuck it up for everyone else on the planet. Then the rest of the world can follow suit.

__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

Mojo_PeiPei

I'm going to take Iran's word, a country that is overlord to Hezbollah, that they won't attack Israel. Would you like a pudding pop with that nice white shirt of yours'?

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

OFKU0

To me, Iran's word is as equally good as Israel's word. Not that what either side says means much in terms of sincerity. If anybody actually believes any of the rhetoric that goes on supplied by any government, then some rose colored glasses should accompany the pudding pop.

If Israel attacks Iran because of it's intelligence (Mossad intel that had 100% proof of Iraqs WMD) so be it. If Iran strikes back, so be it. Let the games begin. Let's have a nuclear WWIII to determine who is the most important people in the world, the fucking Jews or the fucking Arabs.

__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

archer2371

I wouldn't be upset, they did it to Iraq, and they can do it again for all I care.

__________________
"This ain't no Ice Cream Social!"

"Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it."

"I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

Mojo_PeiPei

Last time Israel showed restraint with it's neighbors, 17 scuds landed in their back yard. The threat from Iran is real, even if youdon't admit it or acknowledge it.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

aliali

The threat is real and the danger is real. Yes, many governments have wmds, but that doesn't mean I want the Iranian government to have nukes. I don't know how the current administration could have stopped this by now or how it can stop it in the future without military action. I don't see how the EU can stop it with negotiation. I don't know how Isreal could have any impact unless militarily. It is a dangerous shitstorm where the internal politics probably hold out our best hope. Long live the opposition.

zen_tom

Mojo please.

How did Israel showing restraint cause 17 scuds to be targetted at them?
Why was Israel targetted?
Iraq needed allies, and by trying to draw Israel into battle, there was always the possibility that the other Arab nations would have taken the opportunity to attack Israel in response - the whole point was to polarise the region and get as many people joining in as possible, that would have caused the Coalition problems and rapidly increased the cost of a foreign war. Thankfully Israel sat on its hands.

If anything it was the fact that Iraq knew that Israel was spoiling for a fight for which it was targetted, it certainly was not Israel's famous restraint.

dksuddeth

Iran is on record, along with some other arab countries, as saying that Israel has no right to survive as a nation state and that Israel should be destroyed by any means necessary.
Now, you can take that any way you want to but I'm betting that if Iran actually has a nuke on a missile capable of striking Israel and Iran, along with other arab nations like syria and lebanon for example, decide that now's the time to re-enact the 7 day war that they are less worried now about being struck with a nuke from Israel because retaliation with a nuke can happen.

zen_tom

What does that mean?

Why do you think the Arabian countries are not happy with Israel?

Mojo_PeiPei

Does it matter the why? 5 wars in 50 years, it's established.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

zen_tom

Of course it matters the why. A major factor for war having broken out over there 5 times in the last 50 years is because nobody stops to think about the why. Both on the Israeli's part and the Arabs.

dksuddeth

On May 14, 1948 the "Palestinian" Jews finally declared their own State of Israel and became "Israelis." On the next day, seven neighboring Arab armies... Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen... invaded Israel. Most of the Arabs living within the boundaries of the newly declared "ISRAEL" were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies to facilitate the slaughter of the Jews and were promised to be given all Jewish property after the victorious Arab armies won the war. The truth is that 70% of the Arab Palestinians who left in 1948 – perhaps 300,000 to 400,000 of them – never saw an Israeli soldier! They did not flee because they feared Jewish thugs, but because of a rational and reasonable calculus: the Jews will be exterminated; we will get out of the way while that messy and dangerous business goes forward, and we will return afterwards to reclaim our homes, and to inherit those nice Jewish properties as well. They guessed wrong; and the Arab Palestinians are still tortured by the residual shame of their flight. Their shame is so great because in their eyes running from Jews was like running from women. So much for the blatant lie about Jews throwing out all the [Palestinian] Arabs!

The remaining 30% either (1) saw for themselves that these Jews would fight and die for their new nation and decided to pack up and leave or (2) were driven off the land as a normal consequence of war.

When the 19 month war ended, Israel survived despite a 1% loss of it's entire population! Those Arabs who did not flee became today's Israeli-Arab citizens. Those who fled became the seeds of the first wave of "Palestinian Arab refugees."

The Arab propagandists and apologists almost never mentioned that in 1948, five Arab countries launched a war against a one-day-old Israel. Instead he focused on the main consequence of that war: the creation of Arab refugees, stating that Israel "short of genocide" expelled 800,000 of them. This not only disagrees with UN estimates of a bit over 400,000 refugees but also ignores the fact that most of the Arabs/Palestinians were encouraged to leave by the Arab World itself!

The end result of the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence was the creation of a Jewish State slightly larger than that which was proposed by the 1947 United Nations Resolution 181. What remained of that almost-created second Arab Palestinian State was gobbled up by (1) Egypt (occupying the Gaza Strip) and by (2) Trans-Jordan (occupying Judea-Samaria (a.k.a. the "West Bank" of the Jordan River) and Jerusalem. In the next year (1950) Trans-Jordan formally merged this West Bank territory into itself and granted all those "Palestinian" Arabs living there Jordanian citizenship. Since Trans-Jordan was then no longer confined to one side of the Jordan River, it renamed itself simply "Jordan." In the final analysis, the Arabs of Palestine ended up with nearly 85% of the original territory of Palestine... called Jordan but in reality their ARAB "Palestinian state! But that was still not 100% and thus the conflict between Arab and Jew for "Palestine" would continue through four more wars and continuous Arab terrorist attacks upon the Israeli citizenry. It continues to this very day.
From 1949-67 when all of Judea-Samaria [West Bank & Jerusalem] and Gaza ... were 100% under Arab [Jordanian & Egyptian] control, no effort was EVER made to create a second Palestinian State for the Arabs living there. Surely you do not expect Israel to now provide these same Arabs with their own country when their fellow Arabs failed to do so! And isn't it curious how Arafat and his PLO (formed in 1964) discovered their "ancient" identity and a need for "self-determination" and "human dignity" on this very same West Bank ONLY AFTER Israel regained this territory (three years later in 1967) following Jordan's attempt attempt to destroy Israel! Why was no request ever made upon King Hussein of Jordan by the Arabs living on the West Bank when he occupied it? Is it logical that the PLO was formed in 1964 to regain the lands they would lose three years later in 1967? This sort of logic makes sense only to those who who have not learned that the PLO was formed to DESTROY Israel. And that is STILL their goal! A cosmetic name change from PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) to PA (Palestinian Authority) does not change the stripes on THIS tiger!

zen_tom

There are a number of points worth making here:

The UN handling of the new Israeli state only happened after the British left due to escalating Jewish terrorism (bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 among others) and related escalating Arab violence.

The mandate declaring Israel was not agreed on by any of the directly affected parties i.e. The people who's land was being aquisitioned.

A huge population of displaced Europeans rapidly moved into a culturally sensitive location with the backing of the Allies/UN. Considering the issues people are making today over normal, controlled immigration, you can imagine how this might have appeared to the locals. Again, if this had happened in your home-town, how would you have felt?

It is of course, bound to cause conflict. Imagine the fuss if 1 million Arabs all decided to move into Las Vegas, with the support of all the US states except Nevada. How do you think the Nevadians would swallow that? Might there be some conflict?

The invasion of Israel after its inception was a logical thing to do, it would have been much easier (from the points of view of the surrounding nations) to nip Israel in the bud at the outset, rather than allow it to establish itself. That abortive attempt failed, and Israel remained.

Now conflict is conflict. Conflict against a vastly stronger (read better equipped by its allies) foe normally expresses itself as so-called terrorism. That's what terrorism is, you attack the weak parts of your enemy because the strong parts are too strong for you to do any damage.

The truth is that today, Israel is far too strong to seriously fear a millitary attack. Instead, it's neighbours fear Israel's further expansion.

We either make efforts to calm those tensions, or we consider the alternative which is for one side to win completely.

dksuddeth

so you support the removal of Israel as a nation state?

zen_tom

no I just don't support anything that involves blindly escalating violence

[edit] To rephrase that somewhat - If you follow the escalation route, then there are two ultimate outcomes:
1) No more Jews
2) No more Arabs

If that's the way you want to go, then choose sides now. Until every last one of [chosen-enemy] is dead and gone, outrages will continue to be committed on either side.

The alternative is to eschew any form of escalation - in some respects this means that Iran holding a nuclear device is not a bad thing. The US and the USSR proved that fear of nuclear conflict is a great way to avoid direct confrontation. Of course it raises the stakes somewhat, but if Israel and its surrounding nations have to think twice before committing an atrocity (supported by very valid claims and counter-claims of genocide etc) then the whole nasty boil of a situation might calm down some.

dksuddeth

Ok, your claim of nuclear deterrent makes sense ONLY if a land war is not really possible, as in the case of the US vs USSR back then. The problem here is that Iran and other arab states DO have land forces(although having the US in Iraq now stops Iran) and now Iran has a deterent to Israels use of nuclear arms should it come close to destruction in a land war.

zen_tom

I don't think a 'winnable' land-war has been possible for the last 10 years. Israel is far richer than its neighbours (due amongst other things, to its almost unparralelled trade links with the western world) and as such has a far superior millitary as well as having backing from the US.

For there to be any real threat of a land-based war, ALL of the neighboring nations would have to form a strong alliance and attack at once. (Yes that happened before, but against a much weaker target)

One of the goals of Al Kaida, is to bring the Arab nations together in a united front against Israel.

How best to achieve this goal?
By polarising the World's nations into Muslim vs Judeo/Christian camps.

How to do this?
By provoking the West (Israel + Allies) into ever more aggressive acts of pro-active defence that the Arab world feels threatened enough to forget historic rivalries and join together united against the Western threat.

tecoyah

I make it a point to refrain from...taking the bait you so liberally place in front of others. In this instance, I will bite. My worry (and susequent fear of underestimation) stems from the current , and obvious problems in a war against a country 1/3 the size of Iran, with far less than half the polpulation. I find it relatively disturbing that some find the use of force, an "easy" answer, and do not fully consider the possible implications of this mentality. Or at least I would hope it is a lack of consideration, versus an outright disrespect for the soldiers who will inevitably die should we decide on this sort of action.
The military forces availible to Iran do indeed pale in comparison to our own....as did Iraqs. Iraq obviously did not have, either the weapons, or the will to use anything resembling a WMD. I myself, do not have the confidence to proclaim the same in the case of Iran. The assumption that Iran would be an easy kill....frankly...scares me to no end, as I seem to remember a similar statement in the recent past....that was obviously in error.

If indeed , you feel the need to be critical of my opinion in the future....you are free to express yourself directly....I have not been nameless for some time.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Lebell

So let me see if I can boil this down.

-Iran has vowed to destroy Israel.
-Iran took over the American embassey and held Americans for 444 days.
-Iran has sponsored terrorists and sheltered them.
-Iran with nukes is OK because American might attack them and surely wouldn't attack Israel because Israel has nukes.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Mojo_PeiPei

It's amazing how some are so quick to concede nukes to Iran.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

pedro padilla

I´ve heard this tune before. Iraqi insiders (ones being paid large sums of cash and green immigration flags) swearing to the prescence of Saddam´s WMD´s. It´s the windup to the massive media blitz to be followed by yet another invasion. Israel? Isn´t it about time to worry about America? Israeli interests are dictating US policy. They got quite a few WMD´s themselves and would probably be much less hesitant about using them. Iran are arming themselves? Hell yeah, they´ve seen what happens to countries that don´t. Things are gonna get real bad, real soon and the blind unquestioning ignorance of the Fox news viewing public is going to recieve a major wake up call. Iran with WMD´s. In Israel they call it defense.

dksuddeth

the only problem with your argument is that while Iran (add Iraq before the war, syria, lebanon, and before the peace agreement egypt) openly says they do not recognize Israels right to survive, Israel is not spouting that Iran has no right to survive. Nor is America saying it.

WillyPete

Many far right wing Americans seem very happy to wave flags and quote the amendments to the constitution proclaiming the right to bear arms, citing that they foresee a time of oppression by government, yet the same folks denounce the larger scale of a nation arming itself due to the threat of the US foregin policy. Odd.

Mojo_PeiPei

This post screams of Ignorance. Point one, Israel never signed a nuclear proliferation treaty, Iran did. Secondly you have Iran, a country that openly funds and aids terrorists, publically saying on many occasions that they would not hesitate to nuke Israel. This isn't about Israel dictacting American Foreign Policy, because that's not the reality. This is about regional stability, in a region where we have several long term vested interests. Israel plays in a lot because they have been a long time ALLY. The bottom line is Iran is a wild card in the deck, a country run by ignorant radicals who think they are doing Allah's bidding. Take a guess at what happens when they have a new weapon with the ability to destroy the evil zionists.

**Also the tune about Iraqi insiders. Read the Jordian defectee who called Saddam on hidden anthrax and got clipped later for it.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

pedro padilla

Of course not. We´re talking about the masters of media manipulation and spin. It really boils down to actions not words. Israel and America always have many expert inside opinions to back up their story of the week. Do you think Sharon will ever recognize Palestines right to survive or come straight out and say he is systematically wiping out the Palestinian people in order to steal their land for Jewish settlers? Smoke and mirrors. Israel wants the land and water, U.S. wants total control of middle east oil production. Period.
A country run by ignorant radicals who think they´re doing God´s bidding? A country where we have vested interests? Regional stability? (thats a real good one) Israel our long time ALLIES in what? The bottom line is the USA is the fucking wild card. This is the reality. I think you just underlined every word of my ignorant post.

Coppertop

I'm sure glad this would never happen here in the States.

Mojo_PeiPei

Well this country isn't run by religious radicals. When we have an overlord council barring people's canidcy for office, along with a religious cleric with the final word come talk. It's baffling that you would even attempt to make the comparison.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.