Anyone remember that report published years ago about how back in spring 2008, allegedly Israel asked President Dubya if he would publicly support them if they commenced military airstrikes against the purported Iranian nuclear development sites? He said no, and said strikes never happened. If that anecdote is true, Dubya made the right decision.
With that in mind...
UK military steps up plans for Iran attack amid fresh nuclear fears
Quote:
Britain's armed forces are stepping up their contingency planning for potential military action against Iran amid mounting concern about Tehran's nuclear enrichment programme, the Guardian has learned.
The Ministry of Defence believes the US may decide to fast-forward plans for targeted missile strikes at some key Iranian facilities. British officials say that if Washington presses ahead it will seek, and receive, UK military help for any mission, despite some deep reservations within the coalition government.
Quote:
They made clear that Barack Obama, has no wish to embark on a new and provocative military venture before next November's presidential election. But they warned the calculations could change because of mounting anxiety over intelligence gathered by western agencies, and the more belligerent posture that Iran appears to have been taking.
Quote:
The Israeli cabinet was reported on Wednesday to be debating whether to launch air strikes on Iranian nuclear sites in the coming weeks. The prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, and the defence minister, Ehud Barak, are lobbying in favour of action, but other senior ministers are urging caution.
In response, Iran has warned, as it has in the past, that any attack by Israel would result in retaliation against the US. The Iranian news agency ISNA quoted Hassan Firouzabadi, Iran's military chief, as saying: "The Zionist regime's military attack against Iran will inflict heavy damages to the US as well as the Zionist regime."
Quote:
But Keane and other military colleagues giving evidence on Capitol Hill all stopped short of advocating an air strike against Iran. That has been line for years from the Pentagon, which sees all-out war against Iran as the worst of options.
who's up for a 4th war in a decade? We've got another trillion bucks under our couch cushions somewhere. God knows that there is no Anti-War movement in America, with the population on Iraq/Afghanistan either apathetic or not giving a shit while playing HALO instead.
the NeoCons are beating hard the same drums for more war, and Romney such a pussy push-over to that party base, he would start a war if he is elected. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that I could say the same thing to a degree with the current President when you read this:
Quote:
"I do not think the US has the stomach for it," Sam Gardiner, a retired air force colonel who taught strategy at the National War College and who has specialised in carrying out war games targeting Iran, said. But if Israel went ahead, it would be difficult for the US to stay out. "The US would have to be involved and finish it," he said.
Finish it?
Of course this all could be hot smoke, alot of this shit leaked simply a public posture of braun, deter the Tehran regime. I mean that first link talks of the British planning contingency plans, not planning to do it tomorrow after it picks up eggs and booze at the store. Big difference. Then you also read about the debate itself in Israel turning against the proposed strikes:
Quote:
In all the rising volume over Netanyahu and Barak’s plot to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilties, by far the most important sound in the air is silence – the silence of the heads of the IDF, IDF Intelligence, Mossad and Shin Bet. In his Friday column that broke it all open, Nahum Barnea wrote in Yediot Aharonot that the four security/intelligence chiefs – Benny Gantz (IDF), Aviv Cochavi (IDF Intelligence), Tamir Pardo (Mossad) and Yoram Cohen (Shin Bet) were all opposed to an attack. Since then, none of them have denied it, none of them or “sources close to” them have said a word. Which means it’s confirmed – all four leaders of Israel’s professional military-intelligence establishment are against bombing Iran.
Bombing Iran would almost definitely result in a massive increase of terrorist activity. Since Iran won't be capable of striking back themselves (they don't have the resources to hit America, probably not even Israel) they would likely retaliate with organizing terrorist attacks.
I think it would start a whole new chapter of terrorism activity.
Nuclear-armed Iran would destabilize the Middle East. Some countries fear Iran as much as Israel does--perhaps more, since they lack the military means to stop Iran. If Iran goes nuclear, so will Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and perhaps Syria. It has been widely reported that Saudi Arabia has been privately encouraging Israel to act, even offering some support.
The UN report that finally confirms Iran's nuclear activites could be viewed as a go-ahead for a preventive attack. But by whom? If the US attacks, Iran, which lacks the ability to strike directly at the US, will retaliate against Israel, possibly causing a major war. Knowing that, Israel might attack--but Israel would need guarantees of major diplomatic and possibly miitary support from the US.
BUT: US/Israel relations are at a near-alltime low--and got lower after the media reported on Obama's and Sarkozy's criticism of Netanyahu. Obama, who has said he doesn't want sanctions against Iran's central bank for fear of higher oil prices, isn't going to declare that any retaliatory attack on Israel by Iran would constitute an attack on the US. Very dangerous situation--not only for Israel and the entire Middle East, but for the world.
Nuclear-armed Iran would destabilize the Middle East. Some countries fear Iran as much as Israel does--perhaps more, since they lack the military means to stop Iran.
The Middle East (or at least the one we've known) has already destabilized in '11. Syria, Iran's only regional ally, might be next to fall. The brutal crackdown on democratic demonstrators after the '09 election was rigged really turned off all those people wanting to topple their tyrants as a possible alternative governmental model.* Not to mention it's heavily subsidized economy has gone to shit.
Iran is much weaker now than it was when the last U.S. President left office.
Originally Posted By: Turnbull
The UN report that finally confirms Iran's nuclear activites could be viewed as a go-ahead for a preventive attack. But by whom?
If the US attacks, Iran, which lacks the ability to strike directly at the US, will retaliate against Israel, possibly causing a major war.
Or, American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan (you know, the countries situated inbetween Iran) are targeted in the first strike retaliation. If Americans strike first, that is the inevitable expectation retaliation.
If its the first strike in a campaign not merely to delay the nuke program, but regime change...regardless of who launched first strike, those American forces will be the target.
Originally Posted By: Turnbull
Knowing that, Israel might attack--but Israel would need guarantees of major diplomatic and possibly miitary support from the US.
Paranoid hypothetical: Israel goes ahread with the pre-emptive strike without the American greenlight. What then? Would the outraged American electorate (and conversely Congress) push the government into a war it didn't start or agree with in the first place in order to finish it?
Unlikely, but I wouldn't dismiss it. Israel is an arrogant ally that pretty much bullies its way with the U.S. regarding foreign policy, and not necessarily always in America's best interest.
Originally Posted By: Turnbull
BUT: US/Israel relations are at a near-alltime low--and got lower after the media reported on Obama's and Sarkozy's criticism of Netanyahu. Obama, who has said he doesn't want sanctions against Iran's central bank for fear of higher oil prices, isn't going to declare that any retaliatory attack on Israel by Iran would constitute an attack on the US.
Totally disagree. That public threat would be enough. Come to think of it, what happened to Obama's "nuclear shield" promise to Israel back in '09? Unless I've misunderstood that, its still in place. If it was ever implemented.
I'm not worried about Iran attacking because it's like stepping on Superman's cape.
*=Turkey is the model. Islamic and democratic, which unsurprisingly is alot more appealing than a theocratic/fascist dictatorship.
iran wouldnt get any regional support. because of them being shiite muslims and not sunni. if their would be anyone helping them i think it would be turkey.
and i personally think that ahmedinejad is just a big bluffer.(how many times did he threat israel?)
Nice of this poxy Coalition government we have in the UK to offer support when they are currently ploughing through the biggest cuts to the military in recent years. I don't think we have any soldiers, planes or ships left to send anywhere??????
Nice of this poxy Coalition government we have in the UK to offer support when they are currently ploughing through the biggest cuts to the military in recent years. I don't think we have any soldiers, planes or ships left to send anywhere??????
That's alright, they'll just recruit from the working youth to whom the promise of actual employment is too tempting.
Nice of this poxy Coalition government we have in the UK to offer support when they are currently ploughing through the biggest cuts to the military in recent years. I don't think we have any soldiers, planes or ships left to send anywhere??????
That's alright, they'll just recruit from the working youth to whom the promise of actual employment is too tempting.
Not sure if that's sarcasm, Mick, but there's some truth to that.
Young people are oftentimes forced to join the military in order to survive catastrophic economic times (like right now).
iran wouldnt get any regional support. because of them being shiite muslims and not sunni. if their would be anyone helping them i think it would be turkey.
and i personally think that ahmedinejad is just a big bluffer.(how many times did he threat israel?)
Not to mention Ahmedinejad is a total bitch within his own government, if I remember the statistics correct, he's only the 11th most powerful figure within that regime. Nevermind publicly flogged by the Supreme Leader (the real boss) with open suggestions of outright eliminating the Presidency in his feud with his henchman.
Anyway that GOP debate confirmed a thought I already suggested, with Romney saying that if elected, "Iran will not get the bomb."
Honestly I'm not quite sure why Berlusconi stepped down. Was it the economy alone? I know he's had a reputation with young women but didn't think that was the reason. I mean in Italy?
Seriously, who is leading the country now or will there be another election?
Mario Monti is in charge right now for organizing a government for Italy. He's the commissioner for the EU. Complete opposite of Berlusconi.
The people wanted him out. Not so much about the women (some were underage and that was the issue with that), but his mob ties, the economy is toppling, etc.
I wonder now what will happen with Matteo Messina Denaro, #1 fugitive in Italy, now that Berlusconi isn't in charge. Somehow I think his time on the run is near over. But what do I know.
I wonder which European nation will be the next to go down the toilet??
So far we have had Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Italy and the thing that links these four is the fact i have been to these places which obviously makes me a jinx.
Also therefore means bad times ahead for Spain, Begium, Holland, Luxambourg, Norway and last (and certainly least) France!!
So far we have had Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Italy and the thing that links these four is the fact i have been to these places which obviously makes me a jinx.
So far we have had Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Italy and the thing that links these four is the fact i have been to these places which obviously makes me a jinx.
What if Iran gets the bomb? The most serious speculated scenario for war worth reading:
Quote:
[T]he Obama administration should not discount the possibility of an Israeli-Iranian nuclear conflict. From the very start, the nuclear balance between these two antagonists would be unstable. Because of the significant disparity in the sizes of their respective arsenals (Iran would have a handful of warheads compared to Israel's estimated 100-200), both sides would have huge incentives to strike first in the event of a crisis.
Israel would likely believe that it had only a short period during which it could launch a nuclear attack that would wipe out most, if not all, of Iran's weapons and much of its nuclear infrastructure without Tehran being able to retaliate. For its part, Iran might decide to use its arsenal before Israel could destroy it with a preemptive attack. The absence of early warning systems on both sides and the extremely short flight time for ballistic missiles heading from one country to the other would only heighten the danger. Decision-makers would be under tremendous pressure to act quickly.
An argument that the newly-released IAEA report actually decreases the likelyhood of war:
Quote:
The report also means that for the time being, an Israeli military strike will likely move to the back burner, and Jerusalem will focus instead on getting the world to impose crippling sanctions on Iran, not crippled sanctions like those that have already been passed.
That article posted above has something every American needs to read, specifically these passages:
Quote:
Netanyahu has refused to give any assurance to Obama or his top cabinet advisers that he would inform or ask permission before launching an attack on Iran that would likely spur the Iranians to launch a terrorist attack on the United States or Israel in response, according to U.S. and Israeli officials familiar with these meetings.
Quote:
One American close to the current prime minister said, “When Netanyahu came into office, the understanding was they will not make the same mistake that Olmert made and ask for something the president might say no to. Better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission.”
Quote:
The Israelis may be coy this time around because of the experience of then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. In 2007, the Israelis presented what they considered to be rock-solid evidence that Syria was building a covert nuclear facility at al-Kibar. They asked President Bush to bomb the facility, according to the new memoir from Condoleezza Rice.
“The president decided against a strike and suggested a diplomatic course to the Israeli prime minister,” she wrote. “Ehud Olmert thanked us for our input but rejected our advice, and the Israelis then expertly did the job themselves.”
They have been saying that for the past 20 years. The neo-cons are also really beating the drums over this. Witness the editorial by former CIA officer, PNAC participant and AEI approved neo-con Reuel Marc Gerecht.
Basically he wants to reconfigure Iranian sanctions to drive out European buyers of/ dealers in Iranian oil and let China get cheaper oil. This is of course the SAME China that is ramping up military spending, making noise about owning the entire South China Sea, polluting like crazy, propping up dictators over the world, and telling the US, Brazil and anyone else to go f*** themselves anytime someone brings up the indelicate fact of China's cheating and stealing on currency, tariff and intellectual property issues. And the writer wants to help give China cheaper oil...Yeah THAT makes sense.
I agree 100%, Lilo. I hate to make a blanket statment that may come across as not quite politically correct, but it's enough already with the friggin Chinese.
There's a great article in this week's Time Magazine called "China: Obama's Real Problem." I can't seem to find a link online, but it's one of this week's cover stories.
Did anyone actually read the recent IAEA report? (I didn't, to be honest.)
Quote:
The NIE left open the possibility that Iran could continue its weapons-relevant activities. With four years of additional perspective, the latest IAEA report gives greater detail on the weapons work that Iran did prior to 2003, then updates the available information on what lesser work occurred after 2003. The new activities included:
Quote:
- Engaging in experimental research, after 2003, on hemispherical initiation of high explosives.
- Further validation, after 2006, of a neutron initiator design.
- Conducting modeling studies, in 2008 and 2009, that could determine the yield of a nuclear explosion.
Carrying on scattered research activities does not amount to a full-fledged restart of an integrated weapons program. That type of activity still appears to have halted in 2003. The activities since seem more like Iran is refining its previous understanding of nuclear weapons design -- not breaking for a bomb.
Political scientist Igor Panarin believes that part of the British-American transnational elite is trying to use a war against Iran to save the dollar from collapse.
Political scientist Igor Panarin believes that part of the British-American transnational elite is trying to use a war against Iran to save the dollar from collapse.
However, recently the dollar has been gaining strength against foreign currencies.
My ignorant uninformed guess is that unlike continental Europe, we're not tap dancing on the side of a cliff. (Except of course we'll probably be dragged over with them if they fall.)
My friend, I never have liked Iran thought they should have been wacked from the start, we have lost lives, and nothing is gonna change over there. And yes they are getting worse and will continue until destroyed.
Former Mossad chief: Israel air strike on Iran 'stupidest thing I have ever heard'
Quote:
When asked about what would happen in the aftermath of an Israeli attack Dagan said that: "It will be followed by a war with Iran. It is the kind of thing where we know how it starts, but not how it will end."
The Iranians have the capability to fire rockets at Israel for a period of months, and Hizbollah could fire tens of thousands of grad rockets and hundreds of long-range missiles, he said.
At the same time, Tehran can activate Hamas, and there is also a danger that Syria will join the war, Dagan added.
Quote:
Dagan said that Iran has a clandestine nuclear infrastructure which functions alongside its legitimate, civil infrastructure. It is the legitimate infrastructure, he said, that is under international supervision by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Any strike on this legitimate infrastructure would be "patently illegal under international law," according to Dagan.
Dagan emphasized that attacking Iran would be different than Israel's successful air strike on Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. Iran has scattered its nuclear facilities in different places around the country, he said, which would make it difficult for Israel to launch an effective attack.
Thanks, I don't think anybody has one. Let the idiots in Washington play with it and they will get us into something.
What I don't understand is this idea thrown around that going to "war" with Tehran is simply bombing the supposed testing sites.
If we're that anal (understandable that it is) about Iran obtaining a nuclear arsenal, simply blowing up site A and site Z won't end the problem. If anything, that regime will keep at it, if not escalating their efforts. We'll be going back a few years later to do the same thing.
Fact is, the only solution then if diplomacy and tomahawk launches fail to satisfy this threat are then the two words politician are purposely avoiding saying, same words the Pentagon dreads more than anything in policy regarding Iran: Regime Change
Huntsman and Newt had their Lincoln/Douglas-stylized debate. Summary of their comments on Iran:
Quote:
Both took turns using hawkish rhetoric about Iran: While Gingrich equated allowing Iran to develop a nuclear weapon with allowing a second Holocaust, Huntsman said Iran was “the transcendent threat of this decade.”
Gingrich advocated forcing Iran to dismantle its nuclear weapons program – “we’re ideally going to do it nonmilitarily, but we are not going to tolerate an Iranian nuclear weapon” -- while Huntsman warned that additional sanctions on Iran “won’t work because the mullahs in Tehran have already decided they want to go nuclear.”
“I think we all need to conclude that this is going to be the United States doing it our way at the end of the day,” Huntsman said. “Which isn’t all bad. I think we work better when left to our own devices.”
U.S., Israel Discuss Triggers for Bombing Iran’s Nuclear Infrastructure
Quote:
The Obama administration is trying to assure Israel privately that it would strike Iran militarily if Tehran’s nuclear program crosses certain “red lines”—while attempting to dissuade the Israelis from acting unilaterally.
I can NOT believe people are even talking about this. Unbelievable. War, war and more war. Folks just need to stop. It's almost enough to make you vote for Ron Paul.
Now the Powers that be are talking about further sanctions on Iranian oil which would of course drive up prices for the West and strangle any economic recovery in the cradle. China would also ignore the sanctions and so another repressive country which is already a huge problem with regards to global warming and American jobs would get DISCOUNTED oil. Gee what does that mean. It would mean more of an incentive to move American production to China for cheaper oil.
And the US should not be seeking to "dissuade" Israel from attacking Iran. It should be a very clear NO. They take aid from us, not the other way around.
Something is really wrong with the American body politic. There's not an off switch on wars and rumors of war.
So, should Iran block the Straits of Hormuz or attempt its blockage, what should be the US response?
I agree with Lilo on being against another unilaterally launched, unprovoked war Baghdad 2.0.
But in regards to shutting down the Straits, which is another matter completely and potential military scenario all together...I would suggest not to back down, not one bit. If they're really (stupidly) going through with it, its technically an illegal act of war to shut down global trade and commercial sea routes in International friendly waters. Nevermind the economical ramifications as Lilo already pointed out.
But that aside, push the limits of their resolve, see how willing they are to enforce it. Don't open fire, let those assholes make the first move. Let them hang themselves. I say "stupidly" on their part because if one Iranian ship fires at one American ship or plane or submarine, the inevitable anger that will arise from the American domestic front will indeed bring upon "regime change." (I'm pretty certain many Americans are wet-dreaming such a scenario as we're speaking.)
Tehran is banking on American public's apathy for another war, which they're right. Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate against war w/ Iran, yet he's got the most military campaign donors of all the candidates in the field.
But push comes to our naval shove, Tehran will pussy out because they don't want to step on Superman's cape. Talk is cheap, action is expensive.
And the US should not be seeking to "dissuade" Israel from attacking Iran. It should be a very clear NO. They take aid from us, not the other way around.
Am I missing something here? If Iran were to finally become nuclear, Israel is target #1, whether directly or by one of Iran's terrorist clients getting it. Israel hardly needs - or should be required to ask - the approval of the U.S. to address the problem.
Furthermore, it should be obvious to anyone who isn't in denial that Iran is hellbent on becoming nuclear. When it will happen is debatable but it will happen sooner or later. And then the stability of the entire region is compromised. Regime change may ultimately be what is needed. And one shouldn't be too quick to try and draw parallels between Iraq under Saddam Hussein and Iran under Ali Khamenei as some sort of argument against a possible war.
And the US should not be seeking to "dissuade" Israel from attacking Iran. It should be a very clear NO. They take aid from us, not the other way around.
Am I missing something here? If Iran were to finally become nuclear, Israel is target #1, whether directly or by one of Iran's terrorist clients getting it. Israel hardly needs - or should be required to ask - the approval of the U.S. to address the problem.
Furthermore, it should be obvious to anyone who isn't in denial that Iran is hellbent on becoming nuclear. When it will happen is debatable but it will happen sooner or later. And then the stability of the entire region is compromised. Regime change may ultimately be what is needed. And one shouldn't be too quick to try and draw parallels between Iraq under Saddam Hussein and Iran under Ali Khamenei as some sort of argument against a possible war.
Some elements in Israel or the US have been claiming for the past twenty years that Iran is a year or two away from going nuclear. These people should not be listened to since they are war hawks and far too eager to use war as the first instrument of American foreign policy. These are the same neo-cons that started the PNAC and are now in the Foreign Policy Initiative.
The latest report is anything but definitive and at the very least the fact that the drums for war are being beaten by the same people who lied us into Iraq should give reasonable people pause. Fool me once and all that.
Israel is a client state of the US. Before it embarks on a journey that could see oil prices triple and more war break out in the Mid East and have deleterious political and economic effects worldwide, yes it should check with what the boss wants. If it finds this onerous it is quite free to reject US aid and assistance. It should be pointed out that Israel has nuclear weapons of its own-at least 200-300 warheads by most accounts and is completely capable of taking care of itself.
Deterrence worked with the Soviet Union and the US. The US and China have burgeoning trade relations despite the fact that each side has nuclear weapons aimed at each other's cities. Although the hate is massive India and Pakistan have not attacked each other with nukes. I am unwilling to send American troops to die and to kill Iranian civilians so some fat cat in a Washington think tank can feel like a tough guy.
I realize people will be quick bring up Iraq. But there is a religious zeal present in Iran's top leadership that wasn't present in the Hussein regime. And that could make them using a nuclear weapon more possible. Nobody is saying we need to race to war. But don't be surprised if it ultimately comes to that after all other options have been exhausted. And war weariness isn't an excuse to be in denial about the danger Iran poses.
Also, it should be pointed out that the U.S. aids Israel because it wants to. Not so much because Israel needs it. And that's due to the religious, sociological, and political similarities between the two nations. I realize this burns the ass of all the leftists with the heat of a thousands suns but oh well. You know, the ones who always bring up our aid to Israel but never mention the billions we give in aid to the Palestinians as well.
I realize people will be quick bring up Iraq. But there is a religious zeal present in Iran's top leadership that wasn't present in the Hussein regime. And that could make them using a nuclear weapon more possible. Nobody is saying we need to race to war. But don't be surprised if it ultimately comes to that after all other options have been exhausted. And war weariness isn't an excuse to be in denial about the danger Iran poses.
I seem to remember that some of the people who were howling for war with Iraq making insinuations that Hussein was linked to Al-Qaeda and this was why we had to move NOW. Now the very same people are running the very same production about Iran. Again people should remember what happened, not just with Iraq but with Iran. Iran has the form of government it has now in large part because the US and the UK thought it was a good idea to force a coup in 1953. Blowback can have unforeseen consequences. War is such an evil thing that the only moral reason for it is self-defense. This is clearly not the case with the increasing war talk around Iran. And the US and Israel (and others) are already conducting campaigns of murder and disruption inside Iran as this former CIA officer explains.
Pakistan has nukes and their leadership and large parts of the population have more religious intensity (insanity) than Iran. They've fought three wars with India (another country with many religious nutters) and had countless military exchanges. Large swaths of their territory are currently being bombed by the US. And yet they've refrained from nuclear weapons use.
If we still have a Constitution, war can only be declared by Congress and can not be used against a country that has not attacked us. We haven't even discussed the cost in terms of blood and gold.
Originally Posted By: IvyLeague
Also, it should be pointed out that the U.S. aids Israel because it wants to. Not so much because Israel needs it. And that's due to the religious, sociological, and political similarities between the two nations. I realize this burns the ass of all the leftists with the heat of a thousands suns but oh well. You know, the ones who always bring up our aid to Israel but never mention the billions we give in aid to the Palestinians as well.
This is a separate issue (the Palestinians) but it's not the Palestinians who are building settlements and kicking out the Israelis. But Israel can take care of itself. If it feels threatened by an Iranian nuclear program it can certainly disobey US directives and start a war on its own. That would be, as some Israeli commentators have said, an incredibly stupid idea but whatever.
The thing about Israel is, its a liberal free democracy worth defending (even if their Orthodox conservatives are trying their darn best to turn it into a Jewish Tehran.) But that said, why is a nation the size of New Jersey calling the shots of our alliance?
Listen to the GOP debates. They want "no sunshine" in policy between D.C. and Tel Aviv, and Perry said in print that we should be on the same page with their leadership. America should mindlessly follow another country's foreign policy. They call the shots, we don't. I'm sorry, but fuck that concept in general.
And if you disagree with that GOP proposal, or even dare publicly mutter the idea that America should control American foreign policy, those Neocons will call you an Anti-Semite Nazi who wants a Holocaust sequel.
Don't believe me? Read this recent hit piece where Margaret fucking Thatcher is dismissed as a Jew-hater. Why? Because she at the time supported the land-for-peace concept. Which now apparently is also approved by Adolf.
Iran’s threat makes no economic sense. Closing the strait would shut off Iran’s main source of income and deny its people necessary imports such as gasoline, food and consumer goods. The hardships of a closure would fall mainly on the Islamic regime as the rest of the world adjusted to the temporary and relatively minor oil shortage.
Closing the strait makes even less military sense. Iran would assume the role of the aggressor and lose whatever international legitimacy it has. Perhaps Tehran thinks disrupting the regional seaborne oil trade is a justifiable response to an oil embargo or other aspects of economic warfare. There are, however, significant legal ramifications for initiating the use of overt military force in an international waterway. The United Nations could authorize member states to take whatever means necessary to reopen the strait, and even if permanent U.N. Security Council members Russia or China decide to veto such a resolution, NATO or an ad-hoc international coalition could legally take action.
So, should Iran block the Straits of Hormuz or attempt its blockage, what should be the US response?
Blow them out of the fuckin' water.
Along with what Lilo had to say ! SC yer right fucken wack the bastards , and anyone standing around ! I gotta list of some we oughta send over so they can care and share
But to look at it objectively, international coalition's threaten to stop buying oil from Iran. That's the only thing that's kept the country afloat. If that's taken out of the equation, they rather go as a suicide bomber than going peacefully.
Still it doesn't make much sense. Even for Iraq, there was oil for food program and it made Saddam pretty darn rich for years. I doubt they actually go through with it. Still you can't tell what a moron might do.
The latest report is anything but definitive and at the very least the fact that the drums for war are being beaten by the same people who lied us into Iraq should give reasonable people pause. Fool me once and all that.
The latest report? Don't you think something like "antiwar.com" may have an agenda and not present all the facts objectively? Furthermore, while people can complain about the U.S. acting too swiftly on weak evidence - that most believed at the time despite the revisionist history - the tired accusations of lying is a stretch. But since we're talking false claims here, where is all that Iraqi oil we were supposedly fighting for. You know, the real reason we were there.
Originally Posted By: Lilo
I seem to remember that some of the people who were howling for war with Iraq making insinuations that Hussein was linked to Al-Qaeda and this was why we had to move NOW. Now the very same people are running the very same production about Iran. Again people should remember what happened, not just with Iraq but with Iran.
Exactly who is saying we need to move on Iran "now?"
Quote:
War is such an evil thing that the only moral reason for it is self-defense.
Yet it seems you would have the U.S. attempt to deny that to the Israelis.
Quote:
This is a separate issue (the Palestinians)
Hardly. The wider troubles in the Middle East have always been connected to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, directly or indirectly. Often at the insistence of the dictators in the Arab countries surrounding them. Israel has always been the perfect scapegoat. And there's the irony. You have a small, democratic, free nation in Israel surrounded by one basket-case, tyrant-led regime after another and it's Israel who is made out to be the bad guy and the bully.
Quote:
but it's not the Palestinians who are building settlements and kicking out the Israelis.
No, it's the Palestinians who (via Arafat) turned their nose up at a plum deal in the Oslo Accords. It's the Palestinians who chose a terrorist group (Hamas) as their government. A group which is funded in part by Iran. A group with whom peace will never be possible because they will never recognize Israel.
Quote:
But Israel can take care of itself. If it feels threatened by an Iranian nuclear program it can certainly disobey US directives and start a war on its own.
The underlying tone in your posts makes it sound like Israel is just itching to attack Iran - as if they get any benefit whatsoever out of that. Yes, Israel can take care of itself. But, again, it sounds like you are more or less saying they should not do anything and just hope that sanity in Iran prevails. You're falling into that same spin where Israel is made out to be the bad guy and I-freaking-ran is the victim. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems you simply couldn't care less if Israel was wiped out by a nuclear attack tomorrow. Or maybe you're willing to offer Israel up in order to placate the jihad nutjobs?
The latest report? Don't you think something like "antiwar.com" may have an agenda and not present all the facts objectively? Furthermore, while people can complain about the U.S. acting too swiftly on weak evidence - that most believed at the time despite the revisionist history - the tired accusations of lying is a stretch. But since we're talking false claims here, where is all that Iraqi oil we were supposedly fighting for. You know, the real reason we were there.
Amazing. Yes, Antiwar has a "bias" if you will, a bias against wars of choice and convenience. A bias against wars of self-aggrandizement and imperialism. A bias against the concentrating of powers into the executive branch that are part and parcel of war. This is something that is true across the political spectrum as antiwar's primary editor is a right-wing libertarian-the linked article was written by a conservative former CIA operative- but antiwar serves as a clearing house for various antiwar points of view from the left, right and all points in between. Many people across the board did not believe the claims made about Iraq and said so at the time. We were right. The other side was wrong. We didn't have to make up false claims about yellowcake in Niger or links to Al-Qaeda or run around yammering about Saddam and a mushroom cloud. So when the same people start up again about Iran, a wise person would at the very least check the evidence a little more closely.
Originally Posted By: IvyLeague
Exactly who is saying we need to move on Iran "now?"
War is such an evil thing that the only moral reason for it is self-defense.
Originally Posted By: IvyLeague
Yet it seems you would have the U.S. attempt to deny that to the Israelis.
Ok, see where did I write that? I didn't. It is not self-defense to attack someone because of what you think they MIGHT do. Every country , every individual on this planet has the right to self-defense. Israel can do what it wants to do. But if it wants US tax dollars, military tech, UN vetos, etc then it needs to listen to the US.
Originally Posted By: IvyLeague
Hardly. The wider troubles in the Middle East have always been connected to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, directly or indirectly. Often at the insistence of the dictators in the Arab countries surrounding them. Israel has always been the perfect scapegoat. And there's the irony. You have a small, democratic, free nation in Israel surrounded by one basket-case, tyrant-led regime after another and it's Israel who is made out to be the bad guy and the bully.
Again, this is a separate issue from Iran. Before the war on Iraq some of the same people that are now calling for war on Iran justified the removal of Hussein as dictator on the grounds that that would take the air out of the Palestinian national movement. It didn't and just showed that they didn't understand what was going on. Try tellling a Palestinian that Israel is democratic and free. Israel is an ethnic democracy. It is not a democracy for the residents of the West Bank or Gaza. They have been under military occupation longer than I've been alive. They are being forced off their land in a manner quite similar to what happened to the Cherokee, the Algonquin, the Ute, the Comanche, etc.
Originally Posted By: Lilo
but it's not the Palestinians who are building settlements and kicking out the Israelis.
Originally Posted By: IvyLeague
No, it's the Palestinians who (via Arafat) turned their nose up at a plum deal in the Oslo Accords. It's the Palestinians who chose a terrorist group (Hamas) as their government. A group which is funded in part by Iran. A group with whom peace will never be possible because they will never recognize Israel.
Just not true. The PA recognized Israel. What did they get? More settlements. You can not negotiate over how to share a pizza when one side is steadily gobbling it up. The new Israeli demand is that the Palestinians must formally recognize Israel as a Jewish state, which is something that is simply impossible for any self-respecting Palestinian to do. And that so-called plum deal wasn't that -it was a codification of "Palestine" as a collection of bantustan like reservations. Gush Shalom had a very good analysis of the offer. Israel doesn't recognize any Palestinian state.
I don't think a two-state solution is even possible at this point. The settlements in the West Bank are simply too entrenched. As the fortuitously leaked Wikileaks documents made clear Israel had zero intention of allowing anything approaching an independent Palestinian state-Israel would maintain border control, air space control, communications control, the right to arrest or kill whoever they wanted, etc-all things no state could tolerate.
The only solution is a non-sectarian state with equal rights for all, special rights for none with protections for religious or ethnic minorities.One person, one vote. There is already one state in existence-it's just that some people-those living under military occupation and those with the wrong religion inside the 1967 borders-have fewer rights than others. This is unsustainable. People who are Israel's friends recognize this.
Originally Posted By: IvyLeague
The underlying tone in your posts makes it sound like Israel is just itching to attack Iran - as if they get any benefit whatsoever out of that. Yes, Israel can take care of itself. But, again, it sounds like you are more or less saying they should not do anything and just hope that sanity in Iran prevails. You're falling into that same spin where Israel is made out to be the bad guy and I-freaking-ran is the victim. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems you simply couldn't care less if Israel was wiped out by a nuclear attack tomorrow. Or maybe you're willing to offer Israel up in order to placate the jihad nutjobs?
Gee, like that's not an unfair projection. Let's be clear. I don't want to see anyone wiped out by a nuclear attack. I don't think that anyone's life is worth less than anyone else's. That is true of people in Iran, Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and the entire planet. Pre-emptive war is immoral. Murdering Iranian scientists and their families is immoral. People have to find a way to live together without killing each other or claiming land that someone else is already living on. Period.
I despise that "invented people" argument used on the Palestinians, since that logic can be thrown back on the Israelis. Neither existed before WW2. Both were "national inventions" of the 20th century (along with Iraqis, Jordanians, most African countries, etc.)
Ivyleague, what do you think about the ultra-Orthodox in Israel wanting to ban Christmas trees, implement public sex segregation, wanting to ban women from billboards in Jerusalem, and other dickhead moves of imposing their will on everybody else?
My favorite? Influencing the government to run PSA TV ads telling citizens not to marry American Jews or else risk losing their jewishness that is only found in Israel. (Good to know our allies consider America to be a cauldron of unpurity. At least the Middle East all together finally agree on something apparently.)
~No wonder the Ultra-Orthodox and the Evangelical Neocons love each other. They deserve each other.
EU is on the verge of slapping oil purchase sanctions on Iran, and days after Iran threatened to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, two American Navy ships (1 an aircraft carrier) sailed through the Hormuz.
ARABIAN SEA (Jan. 5, 2012) A visit, board, search and seizure team, assigned to the guided-missile destroyer USS Kidd (DDG 100), board the Iranian-flagged fishing dhow Al Molai. Kidd's visit, board, search and seizure team detained 15 suspected pirates, who were holding a 13-member Iranian crew hostage for the last two months, according to the members of the crew.
The PA recognized Israel. What did they get? More settlements.
After Arafat died in 2005, leaving his family in Switzerland richer by the ~$2 billion he embezzled from the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas became head of the PA. He seemed to be a man interested in peace, so the Israelis returned Gaza to the PA--in the process ousting some 9,000 Jewish settlers, so the Gazans wouldn't be troubled by any Jews in their midst. The Gazans immediately ousted the PA and installed Hamas, an Islamic terrorist organization whose charter quotes the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," and is dedicated to Israel's destruction. What did Israel get? 7,000 rockets rained on Israel, and scores of injuries and deaths.
Quote:
The new Israeli demand is that the Palestinians must formally recognize Israel as a Jewish state, which is something that is simply impossible for any self-respecting Palestinian to do.
Does that invalidate the Islamic Republics of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Mauritius? Or is it only a Jewish state that's impossible to recognize? By that measure, why would any "self-respecting" American recognize a Communist state like China? Or, during the Cold War, the USSR and all its Communist satellites?
The reality is that Israel has formal relations with Mauritius. And, at various times, Israel has provided military and economic aid to Iran (during the Iraq/Iran war), Pakistan and Afghanistan.
BTW: Israelis are not an "invented people." Israel's history long precedes Christianity and Islam. Ca. 1000BCE, King David unified the kingdoms of Judea and Israel into a strong nation that endured for 400 years, was conquered and then restored. Jews remained in the Holy Land even after the Romans destroyed the Second Temple in 70 CE. As far back as 200 years ago, Jews were an absolute majority in Jerusalem. And, until the late Seventies, Jews from Middle Eastern countries (who were expelled from Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations following the '48 and '56 wars) were an absolute majority of Israeli citizens.
TB, I completely agree with your post. When the Palestinians accomplish democracy and gain control of terrorist groups such as Hamas, the Al Aqsa Martyrs, and Hezbollah, then they may enjoy my favor. Until then, I support Israel pretty much competely. Other than being a human occupyng part of this planet, I currently have nothing in common with Palestinians. Given the Israelis embrace and practice of democracy, I have everything in common with them.
TB, I completely agree with your post. When the Palestinians accomplish democracy and gain control of terrorist groups such as Hamas, the Al Aqsa Martyrs, and Hezbollah, then they may enjoy my favor. Until then, I support Israel pretty much competely. Other than being a human occupyng part of this planet, I currently have nothing in common with Palestinians. Given the Israelis embrace and practice of democracy, I have everything in common with them.
It's one thing to support an ally, but mindless allegiance? I'm reminded of the current GOP national candidates tripping over themselves to insist that we go in total sync with Tel Aviv, whatever they want, we'll do.
TB, I completely agree with your post. When the Palestinians accomplish democracy and gain control of terrorist groups such as Hamas, the Al Aqsa Martyrs, and Hezbollah, then they may enjoy my favor. Until then, I support Israel pretty much competely. Other than being a human occupyng part of this planet, I currently have nothing in common with Palestinians. Given the Israelis embrace and practice of democracy, I have everything in common with them.
So you're fine with Tel Aviv arguing that American Jews aren't real Jews?
Absolutism doesn't achieve absolution.
I'm completely fine with it. They can be as absolute as they want about it. It doesn't affect my support for the democracy that is Israel and my expectations that Palestinians adhere to those standards of democracy if they want my support.
I'm completely fine with it. They can be as absolute as they want about it. It doesn't affect my support for the democracy that is Israel and my expectations that Palestinians adhere to those standards of democracy if they want my support.
BTW: Israelis are not an "invented people." Israel's history long precedes Christianity and Islam. Ca. 1000BCE, King David unified the kingdoms of Judea and Israel into a strong nation that endured for 400 years, was conquered and then restored. Jews remained in the Holy Land even after the Romans destroyed the Second Temple in 70 CE. As far back as 200 years ago, Jews were an absolute majority in Jerusalem. And, until the late Seventies, Jews from Middle Eastern countries (who were expelled from Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations following the '48 and '56 wars) were an absolute majority of Israeli citizens.
With that logic, American Jews are actually Israelis. Same with Jews in Canada, Australia, Norway, Brazil...
The new Israeli demand is that the Palestinians must formally recognize Israel as a Jewish state, which is something that is simply impossible for any self-respecting Palestinian to do.
Does that invalidate the Islamic Republics of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Mauritius? Or is it only a Jewish state that's impossible to recognize? By that measure, why would any "self-respecting" American recognize a Communist state like China? Or, during the Cold War, the USSR and all its Communist satellites?
Lilo was talking about Palestinians, not Americans. They would hardly have peace, till everyone there agrees to some compromise. And as theological governments go, if you want to put Israel alongside Islamic Republics of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Mauritius, it says a lot. Find me one theological government that doesn't stink when it comes to human rights.
A Jewish person here in Iran, wouldn't have the same rights as a Muslim, and the same goes for a Muslim in a Jewish state. Why not a secular state everywhere, where people are respected as human beings, with equal rights for all regardless of their religion?
The new Israeli demand is that the Palestinians must formally recognize Israel as a Jewish state, which is something that is simply impossible for any self-respecting Palestinian to do.
Does that invalidate the Islamic Republics of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Mauritius? Or is it only a Jewish state that's impossible to recognize? By that measure, why would any "self-respecting" American recognize a Communist state like China? Or, during the Cold War, the USSR and all its Communist satellites?
Lilo was talking about Palestinians, not Americans. They would hardly have peace, till everyone there agrees to some compromise. And as theological governments go, if you want to put Israel alongside Islamic Republics of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Mauritius, it says a lot. Find me one theological government that doesn't stink when it comes to human rights.
A Jewish person here in Iran, wouldn't have the same rights as a Muslim, and the same goes for a Muslim in a Jewish state. Why not a secular state everywhere, where people are respected as human beings, with equal rights for all regardless of their religion?
Exactly. That will be the only solution.
As we speak there are new settlements being built. That makes peace impossible. We can't have peace with one side accepting the other's narrative as 100% legitimate, which is what the demand to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is. What would that mean for the 20% of Israelis who are non-Jewish?
The settlements are too well entrenched. Again there's been a military occupation and increasing settlements since 1967. Whether people like it or not there are different peoples there. The only fix is a secular state with equal voting rights for everyone regardless of their ethnicity or religion. Nothing else is tenable.
The ~20 percent of non-Jewish Israeli citizens have the same set of rights as the Jewish citizens. Israel is the only nation in the Middle East that grants full rights to every citizen, male and female, regardless of religious belief. Two other points:
Israel is a Jewish state, but it is not a theocracy in the way that some Christian and Muslim states are. The early Zionists were mostly atheists or agnostics. What they had in mind for a Jewish state was a state with a Jewish majority because they knew all too well what happened to Jews in every nation where they were a minority.
There are good reasons for people to oppose settlements. A lot of Israelis do, because settlements run the risk of creating a "Greater Israel" in which Jews would be a minority; and because settlements are often the pet cause of the religious lunatics, who are just as much a plague in Israel as they are in Islamic countries. But what's most irritating is why Israel is singled out for criticism, while no one says a word about the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the Indian occupation of Goa, the Ethiopians in Eritrea, the Russian troops in Estonia--and the US occupation of Guantanamo.
You beat me to it TB. I was going to point out that the 1+ million non-jewish people in Israel have the same rights as the jewish people there.
However, statehood for the palestinians will never get my support until they demonstrate that such a state will be a democracy and not a puppet state for the plethora of terrorist organizations that populate the middle east and also demonstrate that their thinking is a product of the 21st century and not the 6th century.
Its not "war" its Genocide,has nothing to do with nuclear shi*s only OIL,OIL and OIL.Same thing US did in Libya,u should take a look how people in Libya lived before with Gaddafi,and how they live now,when US came with their "democracy".They did same in my country back to 90's.Kids died mostly they throw bombs on hospitals etc. N.A.T.O - North American Terrorist Organisation.I love people in US but their politicans are awful and i hate them!
There is an inherent conflict between a state that privileges someone based on their accident of birth and one that is a full democracy. Increasingly Israelis themselves are discussing this openly.
Israeli Arab citizens don't enjoy all the same rights as the majority. The most apparent difference is the ability to buy a house where they want to. The Admissions Committee laws are still on the books AFAIK. Laws
I think most people on the planet want the same things for themselves and their children. I don't think we can or should say prove to me that you're decent before you're allowed to have a state.
A nuclear-armed Iran would not only be an existential threat to Israel, it would destabilize the entire region. Arab countries are more afraid of Iran than of Israel. If Iran gets nukes, then Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt will break all records to develop theirs, and others might follow them. Then the world will face nukes all across the most volatile region in the world.
Certainly, the recent standoff with the United States has damaged Iran’s deterrence posture. In less than a week, Khamenei challenged Obama twice and lost out on both occasions. First there was the threat that “not a drop of oil will pass through the Strait of Hormuz” if new sanctions are imposed by the U.S. and others. But sanctions were imposed anyway, with no apparent consequences. This move was followed by another threat, with the Islamic Republic this time vowing to take action “if the U.S. Navy moves an aircraft carrier into the Gulf.” Within hours, though, the U.S. government met that challenge by stating that it would keep sending carrier strike groups through the Persian Gulf regardless of the threats.
But while the potential international fallout of all this has been discussed, there’s been virtually no comment on the domestic implications of Khamenei’s loss of face. The reality is that the Iranian regime needs to show muscle abroad. Failure to do so could be interpreted as a sign of weakness by its opponents at home, and could even create division among the leadership’s supporters.
The basic question is: How do attack advocates propose to stop the Iranian nuclear program if Tehran refuses to roll over after one round of attacks? There are two logical responses to this question. One is regime change, presumably through invasion. But there are significant downsides to invasion, not least that such a war would likely prove protracted and costly. Attack advocates such as Kroenig effectively concede that the American people are unlikely to support this course.
The other is that the United States should be prepared to conduct repeated strikes over a long period of time to ensure the Iranian nuclear program is kept down. Unsurprisingly, Kroenig and others shy away from this answer, as it is a recipe for perpetual war.
The cost in lives, resources and America’s international reputation would be formidable, especially if done without diplomatic cover and international support that probably wouldn’t be forthcoming. Yet, even under the most favorable conditions in which Iranian retaliation stayed limited and international support was forthcoming, a long-term, limited-strike campaign might not work at a level of effort and damage in line with U.S. aims.
Iranian scientist involved in nuclear program killed in Tehran bomb attack By Thomas Erdbrink and Joby Warrick January 11, 2012
TEHRAN — A scientist linked to Iran’s nuclear program was killed in his car by a bomb-wielding assailant on Wednesday, a bold rush-hour attack that experts say points to a further escalation in a covert campaign targeting the country’s atomic officials and institutions.
The precision hit in a northern Tehran neighborhood killed the 32-year-old chemical engineer employed at Iran’s main uranium-enrichment facility and brought to four the number of Iranian scientists killed by bombs in the past two years. No one asserted responsibility for the bombing, which prompted a swirl of accusations and denials as well as renewed concerns about worsening tensions between Iran and the West.
Iranian officials immediately accused the United States and Israel of orchestrating the attack on scientist Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan, who was killed along with his bodyguard when an assailant on a motorcycle slapped a magnetic bomb on his car as he commuted to work, according to Iranian news reports. Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimiblamed the attack on “Zionists” and “those who claim they are against terrorism,” the semiofficial Fars News Agency reported.
The Obama administration denied involvement in the attack and distanced itself from the kind of lethal tactics used to kill the scientist.
“I want to categorically deny any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters shortly after the bombing was reported.
Israeli officials declined to address Iranian accusations linking Israeli intelligence operatives to the hit. “It is not our policy to comment on this sort of speculation when it periodically arises,” an Israeli official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity under government ground rules.
But the series of attacks against scientists — all of them employed in fields or institutions relevant to Iran’s nuclear program — underscored the perception of a sophisticated covert campaign to disrupt Iran’s nuclear efforts and intimidate key officials and scientists, according to security analysts and Iran experts. The killing bore strong resemblance to two 2010 attacks on nuclear scientists and came on the same day as a ceremony for the second anniversary of the killing of another professor, Massoud Ali Mohammadi, in an explosion.
The scientists’ deaths are part of a pattern of attacks and apparent sabotage. In recent years, Iran has experienced an increase in mysterious explosions at military and industrial sites and gas transportation lines. A computer virus called Stuxnet also has damaged the nation’s nuclear program.
“The idea clearly is to try to disrupt operations that could lead to a nuclear weapon, and to make their scientists feel less secure and less capable of doing their work,” said David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector and president of the Institute for Science and International Security.
Some current and former government officials worried that the tactics could backfire, bolstering Iran’s resolve to defy the West.
It never ends. You can't bring peace to people who don't want peace. And therein lies the problem.
But PB, what constitutes people? Iran's population is 70+ million. Over the past few years some of them have demonstrated their dissatisfaction with their government. So, obviously, there can be cleavage with Iran's population about their international relations.
It never ends. You can't bring peace to people who don't want peace. And therein lies the problem.
But PB, what constitutes people? Iran's population is 70+ million. Over the past few years some of them have demonstrated their dissatisfaction with their government. So, obviously, there can be cleavage with Iran's population about their international relations.
Well sure. I actually believe the extremists are the minority, but they're the ones capable of the most heinous acts. It only took 19 guys to bring down the Twin Towers.
I believe it's perfectly possible to suspect that Tel Aviv maybe didn't necessarily pull the trigger. Possible? Sure ofcourse. But I could say the same of Tehran's enemies like the Gulf States, America, etc.
Originally Posted By: gemini_killer
this guys gonna be a problem...I say shoot him, and everybody that looks like him..
And if an invasion and occupation are the only way to solve this "problem"?
More and more, I think people who believe simply throwing bombs will be enough to forcibly remove that nuclear scenario are naive.
Back in the 60's some made love , smoked dope , got wet, while others gave thar lives ! No Fucken War makes sense, or the killen on both sides ! It all sucks ! The ones who have to fight it GO ! While the ones who drew the first blood are home enjoying the nice warm bed .
Just Sayen ! If anyone has the answer to all this shit. Hell they might be as good as Steve Jobs I sure as the hell wish I had it !
With yet another Iranian nuclear scientist freshly assassinated--presumably by Israel--Jeffrey Goldberg asks a good question: Why is Israel doing this?
Goldberg thinks the most common answers are less than compelling. It's unlikely, he says, that "Iranian nuclear knowledge is so concentrated in the minds of a few scientists" that these killings are a major setback to the nuclear program. And he doubts that the killings will scare much Iranian talent out of the nuclear science business, since the Iranian government wouldn't tolerate such an exodus.
Does anyone have any doubt whatsoever that if Iran were sending hit squads to kill Israeli scientists in Tel Aviv, or was murdering a series of American scientists at Los Alamos (while wounding several of their wives, including, in one instance, shooting them in front of their child’s kindergarten), that those acts would be universally denounced as Terrorism, and the only debate would be whether the retaliation should be nuclear, carpet-bombing, or invasion? As always, Terrorism is the most meaningless — and thus most manipulated — term of propaganda; it’s always what They do and never what We do.
Quote:
UPDATE: There’s one point that should be added about why this matters so much: the fact that Terrorism has no fixed meaning does not mean it is inconsequential. The opposite is true. Terrorism is one of the most consequential words in our political lexicon. The term designates Supreme, Unmitigated Evil. Once someone is successfully branded a Terrorist, it means that anything and everything can and should be done to them without constraints (e.g., sure, I don’t love the idea that the President — in secret and with no due process – can target my fellow citizens for assassination, but I support its being done to Anwar Awlaki because he’s a Terrorist; I don’t like detention without trial but I can live with it as it’s being used to imprison Terrorists; it’s terrible when we slaughter children with drones but it has to be done to get the Terrorists, etc. etc.).
Iran's Dangerous Game: Iran Doesn't Know How to Negotiate?
Quote:
These “signals” represent a complete misreading of what it takes to begin a negotiation with the Obama Administration. There’s a reason for that: the Iranians–not just the regime, but even the reform movement–have been isolated from the rest of the world for too long. They have no idea how to play the hand they’ve been dealt because they don’t know very much about the other players at the table.
Quote:
[The Obama Administration] began its steady, successful campaign of increasing economic pressure on the regime. Through smart, patient diplomacy, it did what no one thought possible–bringing the Russians and Chinese into the sanctions regime. And now, both the Obama Administration and Europe seem ready to impose even tighter sanctions on Iran’s oil industry.
Quote:
We’re at a dangerous moment right now. The Iranians need to understand in the most precise manner possible what the consequences of their various attempts at saber-rattling will be. They need to understand just exactly what sort of concessions they will have to make to get negotiations started.
The lesson is there to follow. The Soviet Union fell for a number of reasons. One of them was the patience the US showed to allow Soviet leagers exposure to economic, political, and diplomatic alternatives. Eventually, that exposure caused conflicts within the Soviet hierarchy which allowed western ideas, products, and culture to find their way into the USSR and the people ate it up, demanded change, and got it. That paradigm will work with Iran.
I believe it's perfectly possible to suspect that Tel Aviv maybe didn't necessarily pull the trigger. Possible? Sure ofcourse. But I could say the same of Tehran's enemies like the Gulf States, America, etc.
That guy was of no consequence to Iran's nuclear program. To me, looked like an inside job, to infuriate ignorant Iranians. The thing is, we're a nation who believe everything is a conspiracy. Nothing is what it seems. Still many will get angry over this, good stuff before an election that many have boycotted.
It's sad to see Israel would keep quiet just to show off.
Why war with Iran would make the war in Afghanistan much more difficult?
Quote:
Shia Iran and the Sunni Taliban are not natural allies, they came close to war in 1998, but they are likely to work together against America if pressed. An American or Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would facilitate their rapprochement as Tehran seeks vulnerable openings. Senior Italian officials, with some 4,000 troops on a 300 mile long border frontier with Iran outside Herat, have told me they are horrified at the idea of a war with Iran and would immediately need substantial reinforcement.
Of course, I distinctly remember the same predictions 2 or 3 years ago about an Israeli attack the upcoming spring or summer. So take it for what it is. Sooner or later, though, Israel will probably have to act.
With this recent Friday sermon by the supreme leader, seems like he wants a war. I really don't want a war. But if there's going to be a war, one without regime change is even worse.
With this recent Friday sermon by the supreme leader, seems like he wants a war. I really don't want a war. But if there's going to be a war, one without regime change is even worse.
I just don't see a war happening without regime change. People who think otherwise are kidding themselves.
With this recent Friday sermon by the supreme leader, seems like he wants a war. I really don't want a war. But if there's going to be a war, one without regime change is even worse.
I just don't see a war happening without regime change. People who think otherwise are kidding themselves.
I happen to think we're headed where Iraq was heading. The first war was only to incapacitate Saddam, nothing more. As for Iran, since Obama would want to insist on his policy that only people of Iran should change their government (as if they could!), I think this war would only go as far as diminishing Iran's nuclear capabilities. But I really hope if there is a war, there would be a regime change. We've had it.
Bibi, Israel, curb your over-the-top war rhetoric toward Iran. I urge this as one who cherishes Israel and values military power. But you’ve got to understand that your constant threats to attack Iran to stop its nuclear program aren’t working. Unending military threats unite Iranians and fire up their resistance. Economic sanctions weaken and divide them—and often produce constituencies for compromise. Give sanctions time to play out.
Quote:
You cannot actually believe Iran will prostrate itself in the face of your threats. As Amos Yadlin, a retired Air Force general and former head of Israeli military intelligence, said Sunday: “These statements have reached the point where they have crossed the line from bringing benefit and are beginning to cause damage.” Your warnings will ignite war and will not foster Iran’s abandoning its nuclear program. Did Saddam Hussein kneel before George W. Bush’s threats? Did the Taliban handcuff itself when faced with America’s military might? Has Kim Jong-un bowed before his Western master? None capitulated even to the American superpower. Thus, it’s hard to believe that you truly calculate that Ayatollah Khamenei will cry “uncle.”
The most relevant points:
Quote:
Third, your attacks probably will destroy most of Iran’s nuclear facilities, but these can readily be reconstructed in one to two years—deeper and less vulnerable to future attacks. (Startling, last week, your Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi, the chief of Israeli military intelligence, stated publicly that Iran already had enough fissile material to build four nuclear bombs in one year. If true, that’s already enough to destroy Israel. So what’s to be gained by your attack?)
Quote:
Let me spell out what I think President Obama is saying to you: the unprecedented economic sanctions against Iran are already hurting and will hurt a lot more over the next year. Let them bite more. Meantime, the U.S. and Israel are both underlining to Tehran that all options are on the table. (That’s not a trivial phrase from a great power.) Israeli threats won’t reinforce the pressure from the sanctions; they’ll harden Iran’s heart. And we’ll all be heading for an incredibly dangerous war.
The White House moved to enforce tightened sanctions against Iran on Monday because of the country’s suspect nuclear program, freezing all property of the Central Bank of Iran, other Iranian financial institutions and the Iranian government in the United States.
The actions were announced in an executive order signed by President Obama that started the enforcement process for a tough measure he signed into law at the end of 2011. If fully carried out, that measure could isolate Iran’s central bank and effectively choke off the sale of Iranian oil by obstructing the means of payment. Most of the revenue for oil sales by Iran, one of the world’s biggest oil exporters, is processed by its central bank.
Of course, I distinctly remember the same predictions 2 or 3 years ago about an Israeli attack the upcoming spring or summer. So take it for what it is. Sooner or later, though, Israel will probably have to act.
i remember the same thing, i guess if it holds the same this time remains to be seen
panetta is a very respected guy as was gates, this past summer i met/worked with recently retired chairman of the joint chiefs mike mullen on some stuff in dc, very honorable/stand up guy
plus the pentagon was awesome if i do say so myself
The rising economic panic has illustrated — and possibly intensified — the bitter divisions within Iran’s political elite. A number of insiders, including members of the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, have begun openly criticizing Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in recent weeks. One of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s aides indirectly accused Ayatollah Khamenei of needlessly antagonizing the West in ways that pushed down the rial’s value, the latest sign of a rift between the president and the supreme leader that is helping to define the parliamentary elections, which are scheduled for March 2.
“They criticize Ahmadinejad and even the supreme leader by name now; it’s not like before,” said Javad, the 45-year-old manager of a travel agency in north Tehran.
Of course, I distinctly remember the same predictions 2 or 3 years ago about an Israeli attack the upcoming spring or summer. So take it for what it is. Sooner or later, though, Israel will probably have to act.
i remember the same thing, i guess if it holds the same this time remains to be seen
panetta is a very respected guy as was gates, this past summer i met/worked with recently retired chairman of the joint chiefs mike mullen on some stuff in dc, very honorable/stand up guy
plus the pentagon was awesome if i do say so myself
I don't see how strategically Israel could pull off such a raid. They would have to transit the airspace of several countries which, if not prepared for them on the way in, would be prepared for them on the way out. In addition, Iran's nuclear facilities are spread over a very wide geographical area which would require quite a few attack aircraft and cover aircraft. I suppose we are talking about squadron strength. They are flying F-15s and 16s which are probably capable of defeating any thing that Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, or Iran could throw against them. But it's not 1981.
Of course, I distinctly remember the same predictions 2 or 3 years ago about an Israeli attack the upcoming spring or summer. So take it for what it is. Sooner or later, though, Israel will probably have to act.
i remember the same thing, i guess if it holds the same this time remains to be seen
panetta is a very respected guy as was gates, this past summer i met/worked with recently retired chairman of the joint chiefs mike mullen on some stuff in dc, very honorable/stand up guy
plus the pentagon was awesome if i do say so myself
I don't see how strategically Israel could pull off such a raid. They would have to transit the airspace of several countries which, if not prepared for them on the way in, would be prepared for them on the way out. In addition, Iran's nuclear facilities are spread over a very wide geographical area which would require quite a few attack aircraft and cover aircraft. I suppose we are talking about squadron strength. They are flying F-15s and 16s which are probably capable of defeating any thing that Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, or Iran could throw against them. But it's not 1981.
with all the military aid/radar and satellite jamming stuff we've given the Israelis over the years im sure they can pull off such a raid across the airspace of these nations, they pulled it off against Iraq and Saddamm and Iran is just next door.
plus the Saudi's hate Iran and besides Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan and its King are very close US allies
so all that leaves is Syria which has its own problems now
the real questions is if they can get all the facilities successfully, but in reality if they managed to pull off such a feat it will just embolden Iran that much more to restart/continue with their nuclear ambitions. Also this will probably throw massive support from the Iranian people against the Israelis in turn bolstering the popularity of the Iranian government.
The rising economic panic has illustrated — and possibly intensified — the bitter divisions within Iran’s political elite. A number of insiders, including members of the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, have begun openly criticizing Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in recent weeks. One of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s aides indirectly accused Ayatollah Khamenei of needlessly antagonizing the West in ways that pushed down the rial’s value, the latest sign of a rift between the president and the supreme leader that is helping to define the parliamentary elections, which are scheduled for March 2.
“They criticize Ahmadinejad and even the supreme leader by name now; it’s not like before,” said Javad, the 45-year-old manager of a travel agency in north Tehran.
It's accurate. Some revolutionary guard personnel, those who served in war with Iraq have criticized Khamenei's behavior and compared it to the late Shah. Middle Class is being pushed below the poverty line, because they are the main opponents of the regime. There's massive economical panic across the nation. Dollar value is almost doubled from last April, and owning dollar bills are now a criminal offense. Everyone must give their dollars to the bank to be put into an account in their name.
Since it is traditionally acceptable for people to own gold, everyone is changing their liquid Rial properties into gold coins. Last week another law was put into effect that made taking gold out of the country illegal. There is huge request for gold coins at the bank and now they are getting orders for 4-6 months later, at almost twice the value of each coin last April. In other words economy is collapsing. Sepah, being in charge of everything imported into the country, faces real trouble to bring the goods here, since the UAE has halted the banking relations with Iran. Add to all these 4 Sepah members ages between 50-52 have died under suspicious circumstances. I wonder if there would be a military coup in the making, or if the Supreme Leader could avert these problems successfully. Add to all these Syria's recent problems and taking Iranians (probably members of Sepah) hostage in Syria. What's clear is that Iranian ties with Hamas could be weakening if Assad is to go and the next in line is not exactly friendly with Iran.
Things are bad here and will be getting worse. But to the point of people toppling the regime? I doubt it. When people are struggling to make ends meet, they are meeker than sheep. Unless there's a military coup and I'm not sure if the result of which would not be worse than present circumstances.
THE public debate in America and Israel these days is focused obsessively on whether to attack Iran in order to halt its nuclear weapons ambitions; hardly any attention is being paid to how events in Syria could result in a strategic debacle for the Iranian government. Iran’s foothold in Syria enables the mullahs in Tehran to pursue their reckless and violent regional policies — and its presence there must be ended.
Ensuring that Iran is evicted from its regional hub in Damascus would cut off Iran’s access to its proxies (Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza) and visibly dent its domestic and international prestige, possibly forcing a hemorrhaging regime in Tehran to suspend its nuclear policies. This would be a safer and more rewarding option than the military one.
Off-topic, but brainchild Richard Dreyfuss wrote this in the Nation:
Quote:
"It’s worth noting that the United States and Al Qaeda are on the same side in Syria."
Another self hating lefty actor who hasn't been relevant in over twenty years (if he was ever relevant to begin with). He should get together with Ellen Barkin, scream some more insane rhetoric in hopes that the attention will get them work. Newsflash, guys: It won't.
It's a shame, too. I always liked Dreyfuss as an actor. "Let it Ride" is one of my favorite popcorn comedies of all time.
Iran trumpets nuclear advances, deepening standoff with West By Parisa Hafezi | Reuters February 15, 2012
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran proclaimed advances in nuclear know-how on Wednesday, including new centrifuges able to enrich uranium much faster, a move that may hasten a drift towards confrontation with the West over suspicions it is seeking the means to make atomic bombs.
Tehran's resolve to pursue a nuclear program showed no sign of wavering despite Western sanctions inflicting increasing damage on its oil-based economy.
"The era of bullying nations has passed. The arrogant powers cannot monopolize nuclear technology. They tried to prevent us by issuing sanctions and resolutions but failed," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a live television broadcast. "Our nuclear path will continue."
However, Iran's Arabic-language Al Alam television said the government had handed a letter to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton expressing readiness to "hold new talks over its nuclear program in a constructive way."
An Ashton spokeswoman confirmed receipt of the letter, saying she was evaluating it and would consult with the United States, Russia, China and other partners among the big powers.
Iran has long refused to negotiate curbs on its nuclear program, saying it is intended to produce electricity for booming domestic demand and for other civilian uses.
The United States and Israel have not ruled out military action against Iran if diplomacy and sanctions fail.
Washington however played down Iran's latest announcement, saying its reported advances were "not terribly new and not terribly impressive."
"We frankly don't see a lot new here. This is not big news. In fact it seems to have been hyped," a State Department spokeswoman said.
IRAN DENIES BANNING OIL EXPORTS TO EU
Iran's Oil Ministry denied a state media report that it had cut off oil exports to six European Union states.
"We deny this report ... If such a decision is made, it will be announced by Iran's Supreme National Security Council," a spokesman for the ministry told Reuters.
Iran's English language Press TV said Tehran had halted oil deliveries to France, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Netherlands and Spain -- its biggest EU customers -- in retaliation for an EU ban on Iranian crude due to take effect in July.
The Islamic Republic is the world's No. 5 oil exporter, with 2.6 million barrels going abroad daily, and the EU consumes around a fifth of those volumes.
With Western sanctions now spreading to block Iran's oil exports and central bank financing of trade, Tehran has been resorting to barter to import staples like rice, cooking oil and tea, commodities traders say.
The most recent talks between world powers and Iran failed in January 2011 because of Tehran's unwillingness to discuss transparent limits on enrichment, as demanded by several U.N. Security Council resolutions passed since 2006.
British foreign secretary William Hague unequivocally against unilateral Israeli action
Quote:
In an interview with BBC1's Andrew Marr Show, the Foreign Secretary repeated his warning that a nuclear-armed Iran would result in another cold war in the Middle East."They would either be attacked and there would be a war, or there would be a cold war in which Iran for the long term would be subject to these very intense economic sanctions and they would find that other nations in their region developed nuclear weapons," he said.
But he urged against military action, although he said it was not ruled out as an option. "I don't think a wise thing at this moment is for Israel to launch a military attack on Iran," he said.
As a journalist, there’s a buzz you can detect once the normal restraints in your business have been loosened, a smell of fresh chum in the waters, urging us down the road to war. Many years removed from the Iraq disaster, that smell is back, this time with Iran.
You can just feel it: many of the same newspapers and TV stations we saw leading the charge in the Bush years have gone back to the attic and are dusting off their war pom-poms. CNN’s house blockhead, the Goldman-trained ex-finance professional Erin Burnett, came out with a doozie of a broadcast yesterday, a Rumsfeldian jeremiad against the Iranian threat would have fit beautifully in the Saddam’s-sending-drones-at-New-York halcyon days of late 2002.
UN watchdog says nuclear talks with Iran failed By Fredrik Dahl February 22, 2012
VIENNA (Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Wednesday it had failed to secure an agreement with Iran during two days of talks over disputed atomic activities and that the Islamic Republic had rejected a request to visit a key military site.
In the second such trip in less than a month, a senior team from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had travelled to Tehran to press Iranian officials to start addressing mounting concerns that the Islamic Republic may be seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
The outcome seems likely to add to already soaring tension between Iran and Western powers, which have ratcheted up sanctions on the major oil producer in recent months.
"During both the first and second round of discussions, the agency team requested access to the military site at Parchin. Iran did not grant permission for this visit to take place," the Vienna-based IAEA said in a statement after the Feb 20-21 talks.
The IAEA named Parchin in a detailed report in November that lent independent weight to Western fears that Iran was working to develop an atomic bomb, an allegation Iranian officials reject.
"It is disappointing that Iran did not accept our request to visit Parchin. We engaged in a constructive spirit, but no agreement was reached," said IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano.
Earlier, Iran's envoy to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, told the country's ISNA news agency that Tehran expected to hold more talks with the U.N. agency, whose task it is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in the world.
But Amano's spokeswoman, Gill Tudor, made clear no further meetings were planned: "At this point in time there is no agreement on further discussions," she said.
Iran rejects accusations that its nuclear program is a covert bid to develop a nuclear weapons capability, saying it is seeking to produce only electricity.
But its refusal to curb sensitive atomic activities which can have both civilian and military purposes, and its track record of years of nuclear secrecy has drawn increasingly tough U.N. and separate U.S. and European punitive measures.
The United States and Israel have not ruled out using force against Iran if they conclude diplomacy and sanctions will not stop it from developing a nuclear bomb.
In Washington, no immediate comment was available from the U.S. State Department on the IAEA statement.
The five-member IAEA team led by Deputy Director General Herman Nackaerts was seeking answers from Iran about intelligence suggesting its declared civilian program is a facade for a weapons program.
STILL TIME FOR DIPLOMACY?
Last year's IAEA report suggesting Iran had pursued military nuclear technology helped precipitate the latest rounds of European Union and U.S. sanctions, which are causing economic hardship in Iran ahead of a parliamentary election in March.
One key finding was information that Iran had built a large containment chamber at Parchin southeast of Tehran in which to conduct high-explosives tests, which the U.N. agency said were "strong indicators of possible weapon development."
The IAEA said intensive efforts were made to reach agreement in the talks on a document "facilitating the clarification of unresolved issues" in connection with Iran's nuclear program, particularly those relating to possible military dimensions.
"Unfortunately, agreement was not reached on this document," it said in an unusually blunt statement.
The IAEA mission's lack of progress may also have an impact on the chances of any resumption of wider nuclear negotiations between Iran and the six world powers, the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany.
The West last week expressed some optimism at the prospect of new talks, particularly after Iran sent a letter to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton promising to bring "new initiatives," without stating preconditions.
But the United States and its allies may become more reluctant if they feel that the Islamic state is unlikely to engage in substantive discussions about its nuclear activities.
The deputy head of Iran's armed forces was quoted on Tuesday as saying Iran would take pre-emptive action against its enemies if it felt its national interests were endangered.
"Our strategy now is that if we feel our enemies want to endanger Iran's national interests, and want to decide to do that, we will act without waiting for their actions," Mohammad Hejazi told the Fars news agency.
In retaliation for oil sanctions, Iran, the world's fifth-largest crude exporter, has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, conduit for a third of the world's seaborne oil, while the United States signaled it would use force to keep it open.
The White House said there was still time for diplomacy.
"Israel and the United States share the same objective, which is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon," White House spokesman Jay Carney said when asked about a weekend visit to Israel by National Security Advisor Tom Donilon.
"There is time and space for diplomacy to work, for the effect of sanctions to result in a change of Iranian behavior."
"Iran rejects accusations that its nuclear program is a covert bid to develop a nuclear weapons capability, saying it is seeking to produce only electricity."
Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that some of those who accuse certain people of being war mongers who are looking to go to war with Iran are people who don't have war as one of several options on the table; if they ever did at all.
In other words, only a madman would want war. I don't believe Netanyahu wants war. I don't believe John Bolton wants war. I think there are people who would resort to war if it came to that. Others immediately take that off the table, no matter what happens, and accuse others who don't of being war mongers.
It often makes me wonder what these people would have done back in the 1930's when Hitler was rising to power.
Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that some of those who accuse certain people of being war mongers who are looking to go to war with Iran are people who don't have war as one of several options on the table; if they ever did at all.
In other words, only a madman would want war. I don't believe Netanyahu wants war. I don't believe John Bolton wants war. I think there are people who would resort to war if it came to that. Others immediately take that off the table, no matter what happens, and accuse others who don't of being war mongers.
It often makes me wonder what these people would have done back in the 1930's when Hitler was rising to power.
I bring up Hitler because everyone seems to agree that WWII was a "noble war." Notice how there isn't much debate about fighting Hitler. The lefties in Hollywood always give a positive look at that war. But it's the wars after that where their view - and movies - suddenly turns negative.
As much as some may want to believe it, I don't think George Bush, Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld wanted war. Maybe you can accuse them of being too quick to resort to war but I don't think it's fair to think they wanted it.
My point is, I wonder if there are people who would not consider war no matter what happens. In other words, is there anything Iran or whoever could do that would make these people decide that war was the only option or are they content to drive around with "War is Not the Answer" and "Gore 2000" bumper stickers, living in la la land?
What the Chairman of the JCS was saying is, if say Tel Aviv goes at it alone against our wishes (unlikely, but the possiblity can't be dismissed), then American targets overseas would be part of the retaliation package from Tehran. It's one thing if this comes about because we struck first (inevitable to expect), but if we don't (or worse, we didn't sign off), well that's a completely different thing all together.
I thought everything he said was quite logical. Just surreal how the most supposed "patriotic" flag-waving Americans would believe a foreign government's leader over their own Chairman of the fucking JCS. Just imagine 9 years ago if the political parties were reversed. We would never hear the end of betrayal and treason.
Of course all this is academic, since war is apparently inevitable and worse, only invasion can solve this problem. Just lobbing bombs will bring us the negative consequences without the positive ones.
Tucker Carlson (a dork I usually have no use for) got flack earlier this week for saying we should "annihilate" Iran. He said he was overtaken by emotion and gave his opinion that Obama might go ahead with war regardless if he thinks it's warranted or necessary because not doing so will damage his re-election chances.
I bring up Hitler because everyone seems to agree that WWII was a "noble war." Notice how there isn't much debate about fighting Hitler. The lefties in Hollywood always give a positive look at that war. But it's the wars after that where their view - and movies - suddenly turns negative.
Again, I pose the question, what would Iran have to do to make some of you guys (ronnierocket, Lilo) believe war was the only solution left? Launching a nuclear strike against Israel? Supply a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group? Is there anything?
In your opinion, war was rushed into against Iraq. So does that mean the "international community" should drag it's feet in dealing with Iran? And would you be so content if you were living in Israel or one Iran's other neighbors?
Again, I pose the question, what would Iran have to do to make some of you guys (ronnierocket, Lilo) believe war was the only solution left? Launching a nuclear strike against Israel? Supply a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group? Is there anything?
First off, calm down. I don't want you to get upset and accuse me or Lilo of being Chamberlain.
Second, why do you assume Israel doesn't have nukes? Why do you assume it's not covered under a nuclear shield? (Obama announced it, but I'm certain Dubya offered privately the same promise.)
Third, what happened to Deterrence? Did it fail us somewhere or something, because it's become unsexy all of a sudden. You know the whole goddamn idea of deterrence was that the risk for going to war against you wouldn't be worth it (i.e. you probably die.) Why would that fail with Iran if it did go nuclear? They may make all their bullshit speeches, but in the end they're just bureaucrats who don't want to die. Which is what would happen if we have invasion.
Fourth, why not ring the alarm bell on Syria? The State Department just today sent out warnings to our allied states in that region about the possible dispersal of WMDs if the Syrian regime falls and that country gets emboiled in civil war. Better yet, why not Pakistan? They've been busted in their collaboration with the Taliban, Al Qaeda, knew where Bin Laden was hiding...and they have nukes for real.
Fifth, what military action do you have in mind for Iran? Do you disagree with my belief that mere throwing bombs won't solve the nuclear problem? Do you instead favor invasion? I mean Iran won't be fucking Libya. Just you can understand that if you believe mere strikes will do the job.
Sixth, just for your joy and benefit: PEACE IN OUR TIME!
Originally Posted By: IvyLeague
In your opinion, war was rushed into against Iraq. So does that mean the "international community" should drag it's feet in dealing with Iran?
War wasn't "rushed," the post-war occupation was poorly planned, and we paid dearly for it. Then there is the idea that maybe we shouldn't have gone to war in the first place. Saddam was contained, quarantined. His only friend was Syria and terrorist groups, but otherwise nobody in that region wanted to help piss on him if he was on fire. (Invading your neighbors tends to do that.)
America fights wars if it's the absolute last option forced upon us. (In theory at least.) Just because we can fight wars (or hell), doesn't mean you go to war. I say give the sanctions time. Notice how the government has taken this entire term to set up sanctions, to get a diplomatic consensus, let Iran possibly hang itself. In the end, if you believe a nuclear Iran is ultimately unacceptable, we will have war.
Thankfully for your sake IvyLeague, you're getting that war. It's going to happen. Why? Because them going nuclear would be the only regime security against invasion. So we're fucked in one regard: why wouldn't they go nuclear? The Supreme Ayatollah don't wanna die and get sodomized on tape by his own people like ole Gaddafi.
Originally Posted By: IvyLeague
And would you be so content if you were living in Israel or one Iran's other neighbors?
Knowing them and the last few decades: they'll plead to us in private, but then outside closed doors spit on our faces. Even the one who respects us the most of those "aliies" in Tel Aviv, they don't publicly respect us. It's remarkable how little they hold us in gratitude. I mean we made that state possible and helped them when everybody in that region wanted to destroy it.
I think it's remarkable how little respect Tel Aviv pays us, and how much we tolerate...no love...being disrespected by a relative piss-ant state. Imagined if Portugal pulled this shit on us. Thankfully Jesus never went there. Or worse, imagined if he lived in France.
Come to think of it, their contempt of their savior really does remind me of the Paris government.
All that tying and you didn't (or couldn't) answer my question. I don't know if I'd compare you guys to Chamberlain but the main difference between yourselves and those you see as warmongers is that war isn't even among the options you guys would have on the table in dealing with Iran. And that's basically my point. Whether we're talking Iran, or Iraq a decade ago, or North Korea, or whoever, I seriously question if there is anything they could do that would make the peacenik crowd finally resort to war.
P.S...
I know Israel has nuclear weapons. But that's a hell of a lot different than Iran getting them. Anyone who says different is either ignorant or in denial.
I'm all for deterrence. My hypothetical question is if that fails.
And I don't know where this idea comes from that Israel is so dependent on the U.S. that it should do whatever the U.S. says. It may have been that way at one time but not anymore. The two countries maintain their relationship out of choice more than necessity. If anything, it's only from dealing with U.S. concerns that Israel hasn't hit Iran already.
I imagine a person has to have their nuts screwed on tight, facing the threat of war everyday in their own backyard.
I'm here. I suppose this is one of the times that I should be thankful I've got no nuts.
Since the time I can remember from my childhood, Iran was at war with Iraq. That bloody war took 8 years. My whole childhood was spent in an atmosphere as if war was something normal. Granted, at that time we were living in a town an hour away from Esfahan, and all I felt from war were the sounds of Iraqi airplanes passing the speed of sound, just getting back from bombing Esfahan. It's like a bomb being dropped down further away. Or I remember orientation classes as to how make gas masks at school, in case of a chemical attack. I remember not one child was scared. I compare the attitude toward such a threat of an American with that of ours and I see a great deal of difference. Not sure why there's not that much frenzy toward the face of doom here.
I suppose if I want to be completely honest, I've not taken the threat of war seriously. Nobody here has. And even if I did, that wouldn't be a very positive feeling for my everyday life.
... all I felt from war were the sounds of Iraqi airplanes passing the speed of sound, just getting back from bombing Esfahan.
Still, that had to be unnerving. I heard, quite loudly, the fighter jets scrambled to protect the airspace over New York City after the September 11th attacks. That freaked me out (thinking that my city was a war scene).
Still, that had to be unnerving. I heard, quite loudly, the fighter jets scrambled to protect the airspace over New York City after the September 11th attacks. That freaked me out (thinking that my city was a war scene).
Keep safe, afs!!
I'll try. Thanks SC!
Of course it was. All the glasses were trembling like they were going to break down. We'd taped all the windows in X type shapes. I remember my aunt had just had an open heart surgery and they brought her to our house to recover and she was positively frightened when she would hear the sound. But it is different when you are a child and you don't know what's really going on. To hear that sound everyday and think that's normal while you're just realizing what's what in the world is really damaging. And so are we. It's not normal to hear people die everyday. I'm relatively apathetic and that has to be the explanation.
I imagine a person has to have their nuts screwed on tight, facing the threat of war everyday in their own backyard.
I'm here. I suppose this is one of the times that I should be thankful I've got no nuts.
THERE you are. Sorry, a person has to have their tits strapped on tight, i believe would be the more appropriate adage in your case.
Originally Posted By: afsaneh77
it is different when you are a child and you don't know what's really going on. To hear that sound everyday and think that's normal while you're just realizing what's what in the world is really damaging.
Now that is profound as hell, man. Of course, I guess it can also be said that in some ways the fears in a child's mind pales in comparison to the horrors of the adult mind, who understand just how terrible things really are. But tell that to the 95,000 Iranian children killed in the Iraq-Iran war, I guess.
It's no wonder Iranians aren't afraid of conflict anymore. We Americans think we know the horrors of war but we have NO idea compared to some. No idea at all.
Off-topic, but about the region in general. Tell me what you think of this op-ed from the National Review.
Quote:
That, however, cannot be the end of it. If, according to the president, we need to apologize to Muslims because we must accept that they have such an innate, extraordinary ardor for their religion that barbaric reactions to trivial slights are inevitable, then they should not be invited to enter a civilized country. At the very least, our immigration laws should exclude entry from Muslim-majority countries unless and until those countries expressly repeal repressive sharia laws (e.g., the death penalty for apostates) and adopt American standards of non-discrimination against, tolerance of, and protection for religious minorities.
If you really want to promote freedom in Islamic countries, an immigration policy based on civil-rights reciprocity would be a lot more effective, and a lot less expensive, than dispatching tens of thousands of troops to build sharia “democracies.” It would also protect Americans from people whose countries and cultures have not prepared them for the obligations of citizenship in a free society.
It represents the most dangerous form of bigotry: that which is disguised as patriotism. It also bastardizes our most fundamental immigration value. We have always given highest priority to accepting immigrants fleeing oppressive regimes. For instance we have accepted Cubans with open arms.
This piece states that we should not accept Muslims until their nations embrace democratic change. I find this passage to be the most hypocritical:
"At the very least, our immigration laws should exclude entry from Muslim-majority countries unless and until those countries expressly repeal repressive sharia laws (e.g., the death penalty for apostates) and adopt American standards of non-discrimination against, tolerance of, and protection for religious minorities."
These standards seem to elude the author's values.
Israeli officials say they won't warn the U.S. if they decide to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, according to one U.S. intelligence official familiar with the discussions. The pronouncement, delivered in a series of private, top-level conversations, sets a tense tone ahead of meetings in the coming days at the White House and Capitol Hill.
Israeli officials say they won't warn the U.S. if they decide to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, according to one U.S. intelligence official familiar with the discussions. The pronouncement, delivered in a series of private, top-level conversations, sets a tense tone ahead of meetings in the coming days at the White House and Capitol Hill.
Israeli officials say they won't warn the U.S. if they decide to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, according to one U.S. intelligence official familiar with the discussions. The pronouncement, delivered in a series of private, top-level conversations, sets a tense tone ahead of meetings in the coming days at the White House and Capitol Hill.
It's really scary. We visited the Holy Land when my children were little. I'd really like to go back some day and take it all in without the pressure of entertaining the kids, but you couldn't get me to feel safe enough right now.
First of all, I can't imagine the strategic plan Israel would employ against Iran. I posted elsewhere that a typical squadron contains about 20-25 planes. Israel would have to fly several squadrons to hit Iran's nuclear facilities (which are scattered across Iran) and that would be about all the combat aircraft that Israel could assign to the attack. Israeli aircraft would have to traverse the airspace of at least two hostile countries. Once over Iran they could encounter Iranian aircraft and flack which is bound to down a few of them. Then there is the problem of refueling since it's a 2,000 mile roundtrip.
First of all, I can't imagine the strategic plan Israel would employ against Iran.
Not just that, but what plan is there for afterwards?
If the strikes happen, what is the follow-up military/diplomatic response to keep nukes out of Iran? What if the strikes fail to stop a nuclear Iran? Response to last question, do you then commence more strikes or invasion? What if Israel goes it alone with America's knowledge or consent? If that happens, how will they help the Americans that become targets of terrorism for something they're not even in league with?
There's more, but I'm too depressed to consider them.
If they really do this without our support, Obama should grow a apair and do in response as Eisenhower told Israel/UK/France over the Suez Canal: No Thank You. It might cost him the election, but god dammit you're the Commander-in-Chief of the American Armed Forces. You don't take your orders from a foreign government, much less pander to their little games.
The whole idea of a nation the size of New Jersey bullying a big nation like America into war is just fucked up. Even with our "stupid" wars, America went into them willingly by initiative or response.
I don't think Israel will attack for the reasons you expressed.
I'm not that optimistic. Why wouldn't Netanyahu think he's got the administration by the balls on this issue?
Or put it another way: Netanyahu is Chris Brown, America is Rihanna. Where logic is trumped by nonsense.
Originally Posted By: olivant
Also, there's no guarantee that the attack would succeed.
If you mean "succeed" as in actually destroying the program, I'm not sure how it can? The Iranian government may be run by sociopathic evil people (necessary component for dictatorships), but they're not stupid. Not all of their nuclear materials are stored at the locations, spots on the map that's passed around the Internet lately. Or even at targets on our confidental maps.
For all we know, they've quietly smuggled them into the basement of the local McDonalds. Or better yet: A hospital! A Mosque!
Netanyahu and his advisers briefed a group of senators and senior congressmen during the past two weeks on the Iranian issue, and asked them to pressure Obama on the matter. Last week, Netanyahu met a group of five senior senators over lunch, headed by Sen. John McCain, who ran four years ago against Obama for president. Netanyahu reportedly told the senators he was not interfering in U.S. politics and expected U.S. officials not to interfere in Israeli politics either.
A new poll of Israeli public opinion found surprisingly low levels of support for a military strike against Iran -- and especially if Israel has to go it alone. Just 19 percent of Israelis believe that Israel should strike Iran's nuclear facilities if it must do so without American support. A significantly higher number -- 42 percent -- support a military strike if Israel has American support. Thirty-four percent do not support a military strike at all.
A new poll of Israeli public opinion found surprisingly low levels of support for a military strike against Iran -- and especially if Israel has to go it alone. Just 19 percent of Israelis believe that Israel should strike Iran's nuclear facilities if it must do so without American support. A significantly higher number -- 42 percent -- support a military strike if Israel has American support. Thirty-four percent do not support a military strike at all.
What a pair ! Not only talking about what is in M's purse the queen LMAO ! But the pair together ! YUK ! Gag me with a spoon and then give me !!! Lady Gag, Gag, doesn't even come close !!!!!!
Hope that I have got my point across ! With the Obama gang ! YUK !
I would vote for fricken Mickey @ Minnie Mouse over most of this shit ! You can take that to the bank !
Just Sayen, From the Heart ! And also what most of the USA feels !
Still waiting for an answer to my question: What would Iran have to do, if there's anything at all, that would make some folks here believe that military action was the only solution left?
The fact that those folks have not been able to answer this question tells me they've already taken military action off the table, if it was ever there to begin with. Which, in turn, kills their credibility on this issue all together.
Still waiting for an answer to my question: What would Iran have to do, if there's anything at all, that would make some folks here believe that military action was the only solution left?
How about a legit nuke stockpile? I mean for real, not speculation or nightmares or whatever. I don't mean maybe their making it, they could but for real they wipe their ass with the NPT and publicly trump their regime security trump card by marching warheads down Tehran boulevard. Not to be cynical, but remember Iraq? All that hot air, used by a dictatorship as a deterrent against invasion.
I mean Cuba 1962, when the folks at the Pentagon looked at those photos and SHIT THEIR PANTS. That's what I want. That's when war is acceptable. In one possible scenario. I won't play your game of destructive simplicity.
What next, we strike Beijing because they could potentially invade Tawain next year? Strike Moscow because they could potentially molest Georgia again? Invade Egypt because they could go religiously insane? Hell if we're going on that logic train, let's attack Pakistan because they have nukes and they clearly don't like us. (You know, a REAL stockpile of nukes.)
There's something to be said about letting the bad guys DO SOMETHING and then go N.W.A. on their asses. Usually they won't "do something" because of our overwhelming military deterence. But when they do, BAM! That's the point.
Better question, why aren't most Israelis (if that poll is accurate and not a fluke) apparently not having a boner for this potential war? Let me guess, you'll dismiss them as naive cowards too? Will you paint them as waving a peace paper in the air just after an airflight? Can you explain that?
(OK I'll play your game sorta. Remove the nuclear issue all together, if Iran tried to legit close the Strait of Hormuz...that would be absolutely unacceptable. We would send a badass Navy fleet down their throat to piss on their bullshit blockade. If they do fire first, give'em hell. And Lead.)
There was another part of that Israeli poll I posted earlier:
Quote:
For starters, the poll shows that when it comes to the coming presidential election itself Jewish Israelis prefer President Obama to all four of the remaining Republican candidates. Mitt Romney gets closest — Obama 32%, Romney 29%. Santorum does the worst — Obama 34%, Santorum 21%.
Ironically (or perhaps not ironically — who knows?), when the poll was opened up to all Israelis (i.e., Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs), Mitt ties Obama.
How about a legit nuke stockpile? I mean for real, not speculation or nightmares or whatever. I don't mean maybe their making it, they could but for real they wipe their ass with the NPT and publicly trump their regime security trump card by marching warheads down Tehran boulevard. Not to be cynical, but remember Iraq? All that hot air, used by a dictatorship as a deterrent against invasion.
I mean Cuba 1962, when the folks at the Pentagon looked at those photos and SHIT THEIR PANTS. That's what I want. That's when war is acceptable. In one possible scenario. I won't play your game of destructive simplicity.
What next, we strike Beijing because they could potentially invade Tawain next year? Strike Moscow because they could potentially molest Georgia again? Invade Egypt because they could go religiously insane? Hell if we're going on that logic train, let's attack Pakistan because they have nukes and they clearly don't like us. (You know, a REAL stockpile of nukes.)
There's something to be said about letting the bad guys DO SOMETHING and then go N.W.A. on their asses. Usually they won't "do something" because of our overwhelming military deterence. But when they do, BAM! That's the point.
Better question, why aren't most Israelis (if that poll is accurate and not a fluke) apparently not having a boner for this potential war? Let me guess, you'll dismiss them as naive cowards too? Will you paint them as waving a peace paper in the air just after an airflight? Can you explain that?
(OK I'll play your game sorta. Remove the nuclear issue all together, if Iran tried to legit close the Strait of Hormuz...that would be absolutely unacceptable. We would send a badass Navy fleet down their throat to piss on their bullshit blockade. If they do fire first, give'em hell. And Lead.)
We're agreed on the Strait of Hormuz. But it seems you're asking for an almost impossible level of proof before doing anything to Iran. What if their style isn't to parade missiles in front of everybody but slip a nuclear weapon to one of their terrorist clients? And when it comes to letting them "do something," it doesn't take a lot if that "something" is nuclear. It's not a game of destructive simplicity. I just want to make sure I'm talking to people who would, at least theoretically, be willing to go the military route. And that includes not narrowing the goal posts so much as to make military action virtually impossible because you're of the belief that Israel or the U.S. wants it to come to that. Because, if it does, it will be Iran who pushes it to that point.
Still waiting for an answer to my question: What would Iran have to do, if there's anything at all, that would make some folks here believe that military action was the only solution left?
The fact that those folks have not been able to answer this question tells me they've already taken military action off the table, if it was ever there to begin with. Which, in turn, kills their credibility on this issue all together.
Sorry but that makes no sense. According to the best intelligence estimates, 2007, 2010 and currrent , Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. All the people calling for war seem to elide this fact. Talk about credibility. They have none. The people calling for war seem to be living in a fact free world when it comes to this. They want war. Period.
If Iran attacks the United States, the United States will destroy Iran. Everyone knows that. It's unquestioned. The question is why are some people so eager to attack a country which has not attacked us? It's like we're living in a surreal world where this quote never existed.
"War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
American officials who have assessed the likely Iranian responses to any attack by Israel on its nuclear program believe that Iran would retaliate by launching missiles on Israel and terrorist-style attacks on United States civilian and military personnel overseas.
Quote:
The Iranian targets, General Cartwright and other American analysts believe, would include petroleum infrastructure in the Persian Gulf, and American troops in Afghanistan, where Iran has been accused of shipping explosives to local insurgent forces.
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg interviews President Obama over Iran.
Quote:
It means a political component that involves isolating Iran; it means an economic component that involves unprecedented and crippling sanctions; it means a diplomatic component in which we have been able to strengthen the coalition that presents Iran with various options through the P-5 plus 1 and ensures that the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] is robust in evaluating Iran's military program; and it includes a military component. And I think people understand that. I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff.
And he actually gives an argument for why Iran going nuclear armed would be a disaster. I'll admit, it's eloquent and logical. You can poke holes in it, but this is much more to the point and realistic than the doomsday scare-mongering we've heard in the GOP debates.
Quote:
If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, this would run completely contrary to my policies of nonproliferation. The risks of an Iranian nuclear weapon falling into the hands of terrorist organizations are profound. It is almost certain that other players in the region would feel it necessary to get their own nuclear weapons. So now you have the prospect of a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the world, one that is rife with unstable governments and sectarian tensions. And it would also provide Iran the additional capability to sponsor and protect its proxies in carrying out terrorist attacks, because they are less fearful of retaliation ... [Even taking Israel out of the equation], it would ... be a profound national-security interest of the United States to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
Notice how this coincidentally comes out before Netanyahu makes his war-now! pitch next week. Makes me very hopeful that he will have Frosty's brass balls and tell him to calm the fuck down and don't bully our government into a war prematurely.
Sorry but that makes no sense. According to the best intelligence estimates, 2007, 2010 and currrent , Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. All the people calling for war seem to elide this fact. Talk about credibility. They have none. The people calling for war seem to be living in a fact free world when it comes to this. They want war. Period.
If Iran attacks the United States, the United States will destroy Iran. Everyone knows that. It's unquestioned. The question is why are some people so eager to attack a country which has not attacked us? It's like we're living in a surreal world where this quote never existed.
"War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
I don't think we're ever going to come to an agreement on this because of the following reasons:
1. Iran not having a nuclear weapons program at this moment does not mean it isn't working on it and could have nuclear weapons capability in only a few years. It's sitting on a sea of oil and it needs nuclear energy?
2. I do not believe those people you call "war hawks" actually want war. Only a madman wants war. I believe the fundamental difference between them and you is that war is simply one of several options they're willing to consider, while you seem to have taken that off the table a long time ago (if it was ever there at all) and wouldn't consider it no matter what Iran does.
3. Yes, war is an evil thing, but sometimes it's a necessary evil. To say that it's never warranted is simplistic, pie-in-the-sky nonsense.
"Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident, or miscalculation, or by madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us" JFK
Iran wants nothing more than Nuclear weapons and even though I myself consider Ahmadinejad a joke and the Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei an old evil motherfucker we must not underestimate the fact that they are moving in directions which are actually quite frightening and the situation must be dealt with carefully...
I live in one of the most remote countries in the world here in New Zealand but this war, or potential war I should say, worries me. I respect the States for stepping up on a military front in some cases when no-one else would... But, I just wish that the States would leave it for once. I don't know. I can't think of a time when America hasn't been in some form of combat, I'm not trying to bring down America's efforts for world peace and while I read the news etc, I don't consider myself educated on world politics so I don't know. Just sick of getting de-sensitised to violence etc from war on the news!
Sorry but that makes no sense. According to the best intelligence estimates, 2007, 2010 and currrent , Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. All the people calling for war seem to elide this fact. Talk about credibility. They have none. The people calling for war seem to be living in a fact free world when it comes to this. They want war. Period.
If Iran attacks the United States, the United States will destroy Iran. Everyone knows that. It's unquestioned. The question is why are some people so eager to attack a country which has not attacked us? It's like we're living in a surreal world where this quote never existed.
"War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
I don't think we're ever going to come to an agreement on this because of the following reasons:
1. Iran not having a nuclear weapons program at this moment does not mean it isn't working on it and could have nuclear weapons capability in only a few years. It's sitting on a sea of oil and it needs nuclear energy?
2. I do not believe those people you call "war hawks" actually want war. Only a madman wants war. I believe the fundamental difference between them and you is that war is simply one of several options they're willing to consider, while you seem to have taken that off the table a long time ago (if it was ever there at all) and wouldn't consider it no matter what Iran does.
3. Yes, war is an evil thing, but sometimes it's a necessary evil. To say that it's never warranted is simplistic, pie-in-the-sky nonsense.
1) It is not a crime to have a nuclear program. And it's not worth going to war over. And going to war because you think someone might have a capacity at some time in the future to start a nuclear weapons program is an extremely bad and immoral idea. You don't kill people because of what they might do.
2) Cheney, Rumsfeld, Kristol and others most certainly did want war. Post 9-11 the first thing they were trying to do is bend the US outrage towards an attack on Iraq. They created their own intelligence office to feed the President and others what they wanted to hear. Factual. You write as if Iran is blockading US ports or murdering US scientists and I am counseling no response. I have been clear that I believe the only justification for war and any other killing is self-defense. I am not willing to countenance the deaths of between another 100,000 to one million humans just so some neo-colonialists can play tough guy with other people's lives. That is the fundamental difference between me and people of that ilk.
3) Again, I don't think I or for that matter anyone else here wrote that war is never warranted. The quote references the initiation of aggressive war as a crime, which it is. Attacking a country which has not attacked you is criminal. Iran can't even protect its scientists from being murdered or its ships from being hijacked by a bunch of ragtag Somalis and some people are speaking of Iran as if it's the Third Reich. Ridiculous.
Lilo - You can't argue with someone who trusts another foreign government (acting in their own self-interests) over their own and would gladly commit to charity war for them.
"Probably"? If someone could explain Israel's strategic attack plan,I might believe that an attack is more probable than not. However, as I posted elsewhere. I don't see how Israel can carry out such an attack without unacceptable losses.
"Probably"? If someone could explain Israel's strategic attack plan,I might believe that an attack is more probable than not. However, as I posted elsewhere. I don't see how Israel can carry out such an attack without unacceptable losses.
Unless of course they're fully expecting somebody else to do the job for them.
Well, Saudi Arabia for one is a valued U.S. ally and Iran's biggest rival in the region. (The semitic Arabians and indo-european Iranians do not share bonds of kin or blood as far as I know.)
There's still 80,000 U.S troops in Iraq. Were Saddam Hussein still in power there could be problems but he's not.
Plus, Iran is also surrounded by hundreds of U.S. military bases in Afghansitan, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Qatar, Azerbaijan, Saudi, Iraq, etc..
If the U.S. even remotely dangles its toes in this conflict I don't forsee Israel having many problems on their end as far as running a few bombing missions goes.
1) It is not a crime to have a nuclear program. And it's not worth going to war over. And going to war because you think someone might have a capacity at some time in the future to start a nuclear weapons program is an extremely bad and immoral idea. You don't kill people because of what they might do.
2) Cheney, Rumsfeld, Kristol and others most certainly did want war. Post 9-11 the first thing they were trying to do is bend the US outrage towards an attack on Iraq. They created their own intelligence office to feed the President and others what they wanted to hear. Factual. You write as if Iran is blockading US ports or murdering US scientists and I am counseling no response. I have been clear that I believe the only justification for war and any other killing is self-defense. I am not willing to countenance the deaths of between another 100,000 to one million humans just so some neo-colonialists can play tough guy with other people's lives. That is the fundamental difference between me and people of that ilk.
3) Again, I don't think I or for that matter anyone else here wrote that war is never warranted. The quote references the initiation of aggressive war as a crime, which it is. Attacking a country which has not attacked you is criminal. Iran can't even protect its scientists from being murdered or its ships from being hijacked by a bunch of ragtag Somalis and some people are speaking of Iran as if it's the Third Reich. Ridiculous.
Two things...
First, I think your comment that they are "neo-colonialists playing tough guy with people's lives" is based more on emotion than on reality.
Second, I'm not saying war is the answer right now. And I don't think anyone else is. I'm all for seeing if the sanctions, etc. does the job. But it's becoming more and more clear to me that you and some others here would only resort to military action against Iran once they had nuclear weapons AND used them. In other words, nothing short of a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv or a terrorist detonating a bomb in some U.S. or European city could happen before you'd finally say, "Well, OK, maybe we should deal with this."
My modest proposal in the event that an Iranian program for developing nuclear weapons continues:
1. Calculate (as best as possible) the financial cost of a war with Iran, including cost of occupation, rebuilding, etc.
2. Double it- in fact- triple it- because the cost of human lives of all sides never seems to make the cost/benefit analysis.
3. Gather your allies and instruct it's time to ante up. Everyone has something at stake, especially the US and Israel, who will contribute the lion's share.
4. Approach Iran and put the cards on the table by saying, "Listen. We can tighten sanctions, life can get more miserable and dangerous each day, but if you agree to abandon your quest, we have a reservoir of cash, payable over 20 years. The funds must be applied to peaceful ends (food, public works, education, the arts, etc.).
5. Moreover, we will maintain regular UN inspections.
6. Payment will increase according to democratic reform that takes place within the country over 20 years. If these reforms occur on a scheduled basis, you'll get the whole pot, pluswe will further commit to reducing our nuclear arsenal (along with the other nuclear nations). If not, you will get a negotiated percentage.
7. As an added condition of the annuity, oil production and exports must continue at a level deemed fair and appropriate.
Yes, this wouldn't be popular, but it's pretty much how we're dealing with North Korea. It's buying a measure of security, stability and peace, the price of which is determined by the extent of the threat. While the present Iranian regime would certainly not agree to democratic reform, the possibility is real that another cry for freedom will come from the Iranian people in the coming years. Can the Arab Spring be in its infancy?
Also, this would not likely be a popular solution here either with people complaining why we're investing in an oppressive regime when we're having financial shortages domestically. Yet they'd have no problem fighting another long war on a credit card.
Finally, under the scenario it is imperative that we use the 20 years to build a bond, foster friendships, and commit to peace and justice in the region.
Anyone else find it a little annoying that we've come to the point where we basically have to pay certain countries to behave? It's like they're extorting us. And how much benefit to do the people of North Korea get from our aid?
Anyone else find it a little annoying that we've come to the point where we basically have to pay certain countries to behave? It's like they're extorting us. And how much benefit to do the people of North Korea get from our aid?
How much aid the people get is immaterial; the focus is how much security do we get for the price we pay.
We've been paying other countries to behave in certain ways for decades. How much money did we pay to keep the Shah in power to maintain our political and economic interests viable in that region. That money was used to brutalize and suppress his own people. We bankrolled dictatorships and never worried where our money went as long as the oil kept coming from the Middle East and bananas kept coming from Central America.
We lavishly dropped billions on Mubarak, essentially buying a measure of peace. Can anyone provide an itemization of how the funds were disbursed.
Iran is in a unique position, and presents a threat. If the threat is not real, we don't deal with it. If it is real, we have to evaluate it objectively. But our security isn't free. War is an awful, expensive alternative.
Is it annoying to pay certain countries to behave? You're damn right it is. But it's also annoying to pay for years of war, to pay to rebuild other countries after wars, to pay high energy prices as a result of instability. It's also annoying to see filled body bags coming stateside.
I don't remove war as an option if absolutely necessary and justified, but if every avenue of peace isn't exhausted before we enter into war, we have failed regardless of the outcome.
Anyone else find it a little annoying that we've come to the point where we basically have to pay certain countries to behave? It's like they're extorting us. And how much benefit to do the people of North Korea get from our aid?
How much aid the people get is immaterial; the focus is how much security do we get for the price we pay.
We've been paying other countries to behave in certain ways for decades. How much money did we pay to keep the Shah in power to maintain our political and economic interests viable in that region. That money was used to brutalize and suppress his own people. We bankrolled dictatorships and never worried where our money went as long as the oil kept coming from the Middle East and bananas kept coming from Central America.
We lavishly dropped billions on Mubarak, essentially buying a measure of peace. Can anyone provide an itemization of how the funds were disbursed.
Iran is in a unique position, and presents a threat. If the threat is not real, we don't deal with it. If it is real, we have to evaluate it objectively. But our security isn't free. War is an awful, expensive alternative.
Is it annoying to pay certain countries to behave? You're damn right it is. But it's also annoying to pay for years of war, to pay to rebuild other countries after wars, to pay high energy prices as a result of instability. It's also annoying to see filled body bags coming stateside.
I don't remove war as an option if absolutely necessary and justified, but if every avenue of peace isn't exhausted before we enter into war, we have failed regardless of the outcome.
I was just listening to Netanyahu's former Chief of Staff about the President's AIPAC speech. Madonne! Some people are never satisfied. He is a perfect example of what is radical in people. He's insistent that the US apply sanctions that will paralyze Iran right now. Thank God that the Fox moderator countered some of his statements by quoting the President.
I was just listening to Netanyahu's former Chief of Staff about the President's AIPAC speech. Madonne! Some people are never satisfied. He is a perfect example of what is radical in people. He's insistent that the US apply sanctions that will paralyze Iran right now. Thank God that the Fox moderator countered some of his statements by quoting the President.
I saw that, Oli. And he did come off as rather unreasonable.
I was just listening to Netanyahu's former Chief of Staff about the President's AIPAC speech. Madonne! Some people are never satisfied. He is a perfect example of what is radical in people. He's insistent that the US apply sanctions that will paralyze Iran right now. Thank God that the Fox moderator countered some of his statements by quoting the President.
Nothing our government does is good enough save for us volunteering to bomb Iran ourselves.
If anything, notice how they never chew out Dubya for (wisely) saying No back in 2008 to the same strikes they're currently screaming for.
"Over the last few weeks, such talk has only benefited the Iranian government, by driving up the price of oil, which they depend upon to fund their nuclear program. "
Mitt Romney:
Quote:
"If Barack Obama gets re-elected, Iran will have a nuclear weapon."
You gotta give Tehran credit, they're making good money off our drumbeat.
Why don't the Republican candidates just come out and state that upon election to the Presidency they will order US military forces to attack Iran?
I thought they have at the debates with their doomsday talk about Iran and nukes if they're not "stopped" or if "we survive"? What Mittens said today and which I posted above, he's been saying that for months.
Whether it'll work or not, notice how the President pre-emptively tied gas prices to flag waving. How Rovian of him.
Regardless of whether he does or not, the following is part of his AIPAC speech this morning:
" ... when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say."
"That includes all elements of American power.
Mine was sort of a rhetorical comment. The point was that Obama, who many here are obviously in the bag for, believes Iran is working on a nuclear program and hasn't taken anything off the table; including military action.
Why don't the Republican candidates just come out and state that upon election to the Presidency they will order US military forces to attack Iran?
I thought they have at the debates with their doomsday talk about Iran and nukes if they're not "stopped" or if "we survive"? What Mittens said today and which I posted above, he's been saying that for months.
Whether it'll work or not, notice how the President pre-emptively tied gas prices to flag waving. How Rovian of him.
They've only made comments about not letting Iran possess a weapon.
Olivant - It's code talk that even a hung over monkey can decipher. (Which is the point.)
Anyway, this nugget from the AIPAC conference this weekend:
Quote:
Among the speakers was Liz Cheney, a former State Department official and daughter of George W. Bush's vice president. There was widespread applause for her attacks on Barack Obama including when she said the president is more interested in "containing Israel" by discouraging it from attacking Iran than blocking Tehran from developing a nuclear bomb. There was also applause when she said there was no president who had done more to "undermine and delegitimise" Israel. There were loud cheers when she predicted that the next Aipac conference will be held under a new US president.
Nothing less than outright war (invasion would be cherry on top) would satisfy that 5th column.
True RR, but why won't they just come out and say it? Well, they know they'd lose votes over it. I guess they're smart enough to know that the last thing Americans want is another military action.
True RR, but why won't they just come out and say it? Well, they know they'd lose votes over it. I guess they're smart enough to know that the last thing Americans want is another military action.
I'm sure that's why they do that, but considering how we're seriously debating venturing forth into a fourth war in that region in the last decade, I think they might be just a tad too cautious.
Anyway this brings something I found on-line earlier today. Over-exaggerated fear or...not? I don't know, you tell me.
Quote:
My worry is that once the Likudniks begin to realize Obama may not be defeated by the GOP at home, the current Israeli government would launch a war without warning to create a crisis to humiliate the president, rally end-times evangelicals to vote, send oil prices soaring, and force the US president to coopt a war he does not want and does not yet believe is necessary. If that helps the GOP nominee, so much the better.
First, I think your comment that they are "neo-colonialists playing tough guy with people's lives" is based more on emotion than on reality.
Second, I'm not saying war is the answer right now. And I don't think anyone else is. I'm all for seeing if the sanctions, etc. does the job. But it's becoming more and more clear to me that you and some others here would only resort to military action against Iran once they had nuclear weapons AND used them. In other words, nothing short of a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv or a terrorist detonating a bomb in some U.S. or European city could happen before you'd finally say, "Well, OK, maybe we should deal with this."
1) You are of course entitled to your opinion as are we all. Have you read works by Max Boot, Victor Davis Hanson, Niall Ferguson and others? Neo-colonialist is not just an epithet. It is an accurate description of their political positions and general wordview. They won't be the ones cowering in basements while their cities are bombed or watching their children be born deformed from depleted uranium munitions usage. No, they'll just be going to Washington parties and writing books or columns about new "threats".
2) Wow. Again with the apocalyptic imagery. That is the same hypothetical that former Secretary of State Rice used to justify the war on Iraq. And we know how that turned out.
Obviously they have a nuclear program, since Israel and MEK someone has been assassinating their scientists and sabotaging the program. The question is whether they have a nuclear weapons program, which to date the latest and greatest intelligence says no. And this is why those who want war are talking about stopping their capability to have a nuclear weapon at some time in the future instead of stopping their nuclear weapons program.
My worry is that once the Likudniks begin to realize Obama may not be defeated by the GOP at home, the current Israeli government would launch a war without warning to create a crisis to humiliate the president, rally end-times evangelicals to vote, send oil prices soaring, and force the US president to coopt a war he does not want and does not yet believe is necessary. If that helps the GOP nominee, so much the better.
Obviously they have a nuclear program, since Israel and MEK someone has been assassinating their scientists and sabotaging the program. The question is whether they have a nuclear weapons program, which to date the latest and greatest intelligence says no. And this is why those who want war are talking about stopping their capability to have a nuclear weapon at some time in the future instead of stopping their nuclear weapons program.
I think you're being intentionally obtuse on this. Anyone with an IQ above 50 should be able to recognize the fact that Iran, which is sitting on a sea of oil, is one of the last countries in the world to need nuclear energy. Couple that with Iran's longstanding support of terrorist groups, as well as it's longstanding desire to wipe Israel off the map, well, it doesn't take a genius to see the problem here.
The fact is, while there is a window where there are other avenues besides military action, that window has a ever-shrinking time frame. But I've become convinced that you and some others here have already resigned yourselves to Iran getting nuclear weapons. So you start from that point and work backward, trying to find any quotes, data, etc. that supports your preconceived conclusion that under virtually no circumstances would military action be justified.
The most desirable outcome for all (starting with the Iranian people) would be a regime change. An attack on Iran would probably strengthen the regime by making Iranians instinctively rally behind their government. But that government shows no signs of softening its hard line stance. The opposition sat out the most recent election because they perceived (probably correctly) that the results were a foregone conclusion, and the regime threatened them not to contest the (foregone) results. Plus, the regime does not hesitate to brutally suppress dissent of any kind. So, the "winners" were Khamani and Ahmadinejan, the same two who have no incentive whatsoever to abandon their nuclear ambitions and their dictatorship.
The most desirable outcome for all (starting with the Iranian people) would be a regime change. An attack on Iran would probably strengthen the regime by making Iranians instinctively rally behind their government. But that government shows no signs of softening its hard line stance. The opposition sat out the most recent election because they perceived (probably correctly) that the results were a foregone conclusion, and the regime threatened them not to contest the (foregone) results. Plus, the regime does not hesitate to brutally suppress dissent of any kind. So, the "winners" were Khamani and Ahmadinejan, the same two who have no incentive whatsoever to abandon their nuclear ambitions and their dictatorship.
I recall the Iranian protesters back in 2009 wanting some kind of international assistance. The protesters in Syria have been asking for it for a year now. They probably have different ideas on what kind of assistance they want but, if any of these people would rally around the same despots that have their boots on their necks, they deserve the situation they're in. It's why it's hard for me to have any sympathy for the Palestinians, since they voted Hamas into power.
The most desirable outcome for all (starting with the Iranian people) would be a regime change. An attack on Iran would probably strengthen the regime by making Iranians instinctively rally behind their government. But that government shows no signs of softening its hard line stance. The opposition sat out the most recent election because they perceived (probably correctly) that the results were a foregone conclusion, and the regime threatened them not to contest the (foregone) results. Plus, the regime does not hesitate to brutally suppress dissent of any kind. So, the "winners" were Khamani and Ahmadinejan, the same two who have no incentive whatsoever to abandon their nuclear ambitions and their dictatorship.
I recall the Iranian protesters back in 2009 wanting some kind of international assistance. The protesters in Syria have been asking for it for a year now. They probably have different ideas on what kind of assistance they want but, if any of these people would rally around the same despots that have their boots on their necks, they deserve the situation they're in. It's why it's hard for me to have any sympathy for the Palestinians, since they voted Hamas into power.
I understand your point, but the Palestinians voted Hamas in cause Hamas were the only ones willing to go up against the Israeli aggression that the people are forced to go through on a daily basis. They were elected out of frustration with the lack of a viable peace solution to the problem.
I understand your point, but the Palestinians voted Hamas in cause Hamas were the only ones willing to go up against the Israeli aggression that the people are forced to go through on a daily basis. They were elected out of frustration with the lack of a viable peace solution to the problem.
In my opinion, the only difference between Hamas and Fatah/PLO is that Hamas is more upfront and honest about their desire to destroy Israel.
Things are looking to get ugly very quickly, on one hand we have increasing calls for American involvement on some level in Syria and then there's the whole issue with Iran and the real possibility that we might be involved there if things go south in the future. The Middle East would erupt in a huge uproar if we send our troops/attack these two places. Imagine the craziness!!!
In retrospect, I'm kinda surprised the GOP debates didn't demand air strikes over Syria. If I remember right, Santorum (at least him) outright said NO to military intervention and he was the most NeoCon of that bunch. Surprising for me considering Syria is the one reliable ally of Tehran in that region. A contract hit, right there for the taking.
Strategically, it makes sense. (It also only risks a bloody civil war (right on Israel's border) that might happen anyway, but should be noted.)
It's why it's hard for me to have any sympathy for the Palestinians, since they voted Hamas into power.
Me, too.
After Arafat died in 2005(leaving his family in Switzerland richer by the >$1 billion he embezzled from his own people), Mahmoud Abbas took over the Palestinian Authority. Israel thought he was interested in peace, so they returned Gaza to the PA--in the process uprooting 9,000 Jewish settlers, some of them forcibly, so the Gazans wouldn't be troubled with any Jews in their midst. Gazans ousted the PA and installed Hamas, an Islamic terrorist organization that quotes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in its charter and vows to destroy Israel. Result: >7k rockets rained on Israel, causing scores of deaths and injuries.
If an Islamic terrorist organization like Al Queida, which wants to destroy America because we're a Christian-majority nation, were to win an election in southern Canada or northern Mexico, and start raining down rockets on Michigan or Arizona, how long would it take any of us to demand that our government stop them?
After Arafat died in 2005(leaving his family in Switzerland richer by the >$1 billion he embezzled from his own people), Mahmoud Abbas took over the Palestinian Authority. Israel thought he was interested in peace, so they returned Gaza to the PA--in the process uprooting 9,000 Jewish settlers, some of them forcibly, so the Gazans wouldn't be troubled with any Jews in their midst. Gazans ousted the PA and installed Hamas, an Islamic terrorist organization that quotes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in its charter and vows to destroy Israel. Result: >7k rockets rained on Israel, causing scores of deaths and injuries.
If an Islamic terrorist organization like Al Queida, which wants to destroy America because we're a Christian-majority nation, were to win an election in southern Canada or northern Mexico, and start raining down rockets on Michigan or Arizona, how long would it take any of us to demand that our government stop them?
Refreshing to see that somebody on this board recognizes this and just doesn't go on and on about "Israeli aggression."
In early February 2006, Hamas offered Israel a 10-year truce "in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories: the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem," and recognition of Palestinian rights including the "right of return."
After the election, the Quartet on the Middle East (the United States, Russia, the European Union (EU), and the United Nations) stated that assistance to the Palestinian Authority would only continue if Hamas renounced violence, recognized Israel, and accepted previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements, which Hamas refused to do.The Quartet then imposed a freeze on all international aid to the Palestinian territories.
In 2006 after the Gaza election, Hamas leader sent a letter addressed to George Bush where he among other things declared that Hamas would accept a state on the 1967 borders including a truce. However, the Bush administration didnt reply.
In an interview on May 2010, Mashaal said that if a Palestinian state with real sovereignty was established under the conditions he set out, on the borders of 1967 with its capital Jerusalem and with the right of return, that will be the end of the Palestinian resistance, and then the nature of any subsequent ties with Israel would be decided democratically by the Palestinians.
In July 2009, Khaled Meshal, Hamas's political bureau chief, stated Hamas's willingness to cooperate with a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict which included a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders, provided that Palestinian refugees be given the right to return to Israel and that East Jerusalem be recognized as the new state's capital.
It's why it's hard for me to have any sympathy for the Palestinians, since they voted Hamas into power.
Me, too.
After Arafat died in 2005(leaving his family in Switzerland richer by the >$1 billion he embezzled from his own people), Mahmoud Abbas took over the Palestinian Authority. Israel thought he was interested in peace, so they returned Gaza to the PA--in the process uprooting 9,000 Jewish settlers, some of them forcibly, so the Gazans wouldn't be troubled with any Jews in their midst. Gazans ousted the PA and installed Hamas, an Islamic terrorist organization that quotes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in its charter and vows to destroy Israel. Result: >7k rockets rained on Israel, causing scores of deaths and injuries.
If an Islamic terrorist organization like Al Queida, which wants to destroy America because we're a Christian-majority nation, were to win an election in southern Canada or northern Mexico, and start raining down rockets on Michigan or Arizona, how long would it take any of us to demand that our government stop them?
technically, al-qaeda wants to destroy america for a number of reasons chiefly our undying support both militarily and economically for israel, the "occupation of arab lands" eg Saudi Arabia, etc by US troops, and outrage toward the U.S. for being a secular, domineering presence in the Arab world
again in not saying i hate israel or anything like that (i dont, i have lots of close jewish friends) i am just sharing some comments as I see things
"If some of these folks think that it’s time to launch a war, they should say so. And they should explain to the American people exactly why they would do that and what the consequences would be,"
Quote:
"“I see some of these folks who have a lot of bluster, and a lot of big talk, but when you actually ask them specifically what they would do, it turns out they repeat the things that we’ve been doing over the last three years — it indicates to me that that’s more about politics than actually trying to solve a difficult problem.”"
In early February 2006, Hamas offered Israel a 10-year truce "in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories: the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem," and recognition of Palestinian rights including the "right of return."
After the election, the Quartet on the Middle East (the United States, Russia, the European Union (EU), and the United Nations) stated that assistance to the Palestinian Authority would only continue if Hamas renounced violence, recognized Israel, and accepted previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements, which Hamas refused to do.The Quartet then imposed a freeze on all international aid to the Palestinian territories.
In 2006 after the Gaza election, Hamas leader sent a letter addressed to George Bush where he among other things declared that Hamas would accept a state on the 1967 borders including a truce. However, the Bush administration didnt reply.
In an interview on May 2010, Mashaal said that if a Palestinian state with real sovereignty was established under the conditions he set out, on the borders of 1967 with its capital Jerusalem and with the right of return, that will be the end of the Palestinian resistance, and then the nature of any subsequent ties with Israel would be decided democratically by the Palestinians.
In July 2009, Khaled Meshal, Hamas's political bureau chief, stated Hamas's willingness to cooperate with a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict which included a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders, provided that Palestinian refugees be given the right to return to Israel and that East Jerusalem be recognized as the new state's capital.
The Palestinians have been wanting a return to the 1967 borders ever since, well, their 1967 attack on Israel failed. They attack Israel, Israel kicks their butts and takes more land, and afterward the Palestinians are like, "Oh, never mind. Let's just pretend like none of this ever happened." And so Israel is supposed to give away land they've had for over 40 years in return for what? A meaningless 10 year promise of peace? Then what? Seriously, Dapper, open your eyes. I realize you're an Obama fan but you've bought into the liberal bullshit that paints Israel as the tyrant and the Palestinians as the victim.
Originally Posted By: Dapper_Don
technically, al-qaeda wants to destroy america for a number of reasons chiefly our undying support both militarily and economically for israel, the "occupation of arab lands" eg Saudi Arabia, etc by US troops, and outrage toward the U.S. for being a secular, domineering presence in the Arab world
again in not saying i hate israel or anything like that (i dont, i have lots of close jewish friends) i am just sharing some comments as I see things
What's ironic is, ol' Bin Laden and his mujahideen buddies were fine with U.S. assistance in their war against the Soviet Union. But afterward? Get out! The Muslim world does have a lot of ground to talk as far as the immoral, corrupt, secular influence of the west. But, then again, many of these Muslim countries in the middle east have been dysfunctional dictatorships who run things by fear, torture, murder, etc. Israel, and the U.S. support of it, has been the least of their problems. But for years they allowed their tyrant leaders to keep their focus on what they claimed was the source of all their problems - Israel.
Facts are facts, First of all, the Palestinians did NOT attack Israel first in 1967. The contrary is correct.
The Six-Day War fought between June 5 and 10, 1967, by Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt , Jordan, and Syria. After a period of high tension between Israel and its neighbors, the war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise air strikes against Arab forces. The outcome was a swift and decisive Israeli victory. Israel took effective control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.
At the commencement of hostilities, both Egypt and Israel announced that they had been attacked by the other country. Once it was established that Israel had struck first, the Israeli government claimed that it was a pre-emptive strike in the face of a planned invasion by the Arab countries.On the other hand, the Arab view was that it was an unjustified attack.In the leadup to the war, the United States advised Israel that America's military intelligence saw no signs of Egypt preparing to invade Israel.
I havent bought into any bullshit from anybody. Personally, i look at the facts on the ground as I see them and then I support the policies that I think should be in place. this is why I support Obama, Obama has been one of the few leaders (well until recently) to call Israel out on its aggressive behaviors, its treatment of the Palestinians, and its reluctance to accept the 1967 borders in exchange for a lasting peace agreement. A spade is a spade as I see it.
Yes, I am Liberal but I DONT vote according to party lines. In fact, I have voted a few times for conservative candidates in the past. I vote on the ISSUES and the adequate solutions that I think are needed and presented by all candidates involved.
The fact of the matter is, I am not blaming one side over the other. BOTH sides are guilty in certain respects for the lack of a peace agreement in the region.
In early February 2006, Hamas offered Israel a 10-year truce "in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories: the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem," and recognition of Palestinian rights including the "right of return."
After the election, the Quartet on the Middle East (the United States, Russia, the European Union (EU), and the United Nations) stated that assistance to the Palestinian Authority would only continue if Hamas renounced violence, recognized Israel, and accepted previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements, which Hamas refused to do.The Quartet then imposed a freeze on all international aid to the Palestinian territories.
In 2006 after the Gaza election, Hamas leader sent a letter addressed to George Bush where he among other things declared that Hamas would accept a state on the 1967 borders including a truce. However, the Bush administration didnt reply.
In an interview on May 2010, Mashaal said that if a Palestinian state with real sovereignty was established under the conditions he set out, on the borders of 1967 with its capital Jerusalem and with the right of return, that will be the end of the Palestinian resistance, and then the nature of any subsequent ties with Israel would be decided democratically by the Palestinians.
In July 2009, Khaled Meshal, Hamas's political bureau chief, stated Hamas's willingness to cooperate with a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict which included a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders, provided that Palestinian refugees be given the right to return to Israel and that East Jerusalem be recognized as the new state's capital.
The Palestinians have been wanting a return to the 1967 borders ever since, well, their 1967 attack on Israel failed. They attack Israel, Israel kicks their butts and takes more land, and afterward the Palestinians are like, "Oh, never mind. Let's just pretend like none of this ever happened." And so Israel is supposed to give away land they've had for over 40 years in return for what? A meaningless 10 year promise of peace? Then what? Seriously, Dapper, open your eyes. I realize you're an Obama fan but you've bought into the liberal bullshit that paints Israel as the tyrant and the Palestinians as the victim.
Originally Posted By: Dapper_Don
technically, al-qaeda wants to destroy america for a number of reasons chiefly our undying support both militarily and economically for israel, the "occupation of arab lands" eg Saudi Arabia, etc by US troops, and outrage toward the U.S. for being a secular, domineering presence in the Arab world
again in not saying i hate israel or anything like that (i dont, i have lots of close jewish friends) i am just sharing some comments as I see things
What's ironic is, ol' Bin Laden and his mujahideen buddies were fine with U.S. assistance in their war against the Soviet Union. But afterward? Get out! The Muslim world does have a lot of ground to talk as far as the immoral, corrupt, secular influence of the west. But, then again, many of these Muslim countries in the middle east have been dysfunctional dictatorships who run things by fear, torture, murder, etc. Israel, and the U.S. support of it, has been the least of their problems. But for years they allowed their tyrant leaders to keep their focus on what they claimed was the source of all their problems - Israel.
Facts are facts, First of all, the Palestinians did NOT attack Israel first in 1967. The contrary is correct.
The Six-Day War fought between June 5 and 10, 1967, by Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt , Jordan, and Syria. After a period of high tension between Israel and its neighbors, the war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise air strikes against Arab forces. The outcome was a swift and decisive Israeli victory. Israel took effective control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.
At the commencement of hostilities, both Egypt and Israel announced that they had been attacked by the other country. Once it was established that Israel had struck first, the Israeli government claimed that it was a pre-emptive strike in the face of a planned invasion by the Arab countries.On the other hand, the Arab view was that it was an unjustified attack.In the leadup to the war, the United States advised Israel that America's military intelligence saw no signs of Egypt preparing to invade Israel.
I havent bought into any bullshit from anybody. Personally, i look at the facts on the ground as I see them and then I support the policies that I think should be in place. this is why I support Obama, Obama has been one of the few leaders (well until recently) to call Israel out on its aggressive behaviors, its treatment of the Palestinians, and its reluctance to accept the 1967 borders in exchange for a lasting peace agreement. A spade is a spade as I see it.
Yes, I am Liberal but I DONT vote according to party lines. In fact, I have voted a few times for conservative candidates in the past. I vote on the ISSUES and the adequate solutions that I think are needed and presented by all candidates involved.
The fact of the matter is, I am not blaming one side over the other. BOTH sides are guilty in certain respects for the lack of a peace agreement in the region.
First, you must have missed the part in the history books where Egypt, Jordan, and Syria were mounting their forces on the Israeli border in preparation for attack. Israel simply beat them to the punch.
Second, so Israel should give up land it's had for over 40 years in return for a promise of a "lasting peace agreement" that the Palestinians will never adhere to? Every time the Israelis have given up land, it's been used to launch rockets further into Israel. And even if some Palestinians were willing to abide by the agreement, others wouldn't. So, in the end, Israel is being asked to give up a lot in return for.....wait for it.....NOTHING.
Third, yes, neither side is perfect or pure as the driven snow. But the fault for failing to find lasting peace certainly isn't 50/50 or even close to it.
Facts are facts, First of all, the Palestinians did NOT attack Israel first in 1967. The contrary is correct.
The Six-Day War fought between June 5 and 10, 1967, by Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt , Jordan, and Syria. After a period of high tension between Israel and its neighbors, [b]the war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise air strikes against Arab forces.
Let's look at the period of "high tension":
May 15: President Nasser of Egypt ordered two armored divisions into the Sinai Peninsula.
May 17: Nasser ordered UNEF, the UN force in the Sinai, to depart from Egyptian territory. Three Egyptian divisions and 600 tanks then deployed in the Sinai.
May 22: Nasser announced the closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, cutting off all shipping to Israel’s port of Eilat. which was responsible for 30% of israel's exports. Nasser's move was also illegal. As part of the post-1956 war settlement, the Gulf of Aqaba had been declared by maritime nations in 1957 as an international waterway.
May 25: Nasser, in a speech to the Egyptian National Assembly, said: "The problem presently before the Arab countries is not whether the port of Eilat should be blockaded or how to blockade it - but how to totally exterminate the State of Israel for all time."
May 30: Mutual defense pact signed between Egypt, Jordan and Syria.
But, you're right: Israel did strike first. What a bunch of warmongers! Why would a peace-loving state ever take seriously an extermination threat from a neighboring state and its Soviet-armed allies?
Facts are facts, First of all, the Palestinians did NOT attack Israel first in 1967. The contrary is correct.
The Six-Day War fought between June 5 and 10, 1967, by Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt , Jordan, and Syria. After a period of high tension between Israel and its neighbors, [b]the war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise air strikes against Arab forces.
Let's look at the period of "high tension":
May 15: President Nasser of Egypt ordered two armored divisions into the Sinai Peninsula.
May 17: Nasser ordered UNEF, the UN force in the Sinai, to depart from Egyptian territory. Three Egyptian divisions and 600 tanks then deployed in the Sinai.
May 22: Nasser announced the closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, cutting off all shipping to Israel’s port of Eilat. which was responsible for 30% of israel's exports. Nasser's move was also illegal. As part of the post-1956 war settlement, the Gulf of Aqaba had been declared by maritime nations in 1957 as an international waterway.
May 25: Nasser, in a speech to the Egyptian National Assembly, said: "The problem presently before the Arab countries is not whether the port of Eilat should be blockaded or how to blockade it - but how to totally exterminate the State of Israel for all time."
May 30: Mutual defense pact signed between Egypt, Jordan and Syria.
But, you're right: Israel did strike first. What a bunch of warmongers! Why would a peace-loving state ever take seriously an extermination threat from a neighboring state and its Soviet-armed allies?
I agree there was high tension but I was just making a point that Israel did technically strike first thats all.
The Israeli view was that its initiation of the Six-Day War was a pre-emptive strike in the face of a planned invasion of Israel by the Arab countries.A number of sources support this view.
On the other hand, the Arab view was that it was an unprovoked attack.The view that the Arab states were not a threat justifying a preemptive strike is also supported by a number of sources.
After the war senior Israelis have acknowledged that Israel wasn't, in fact, expecting to be invaded when it initiated hostilities against Egypt.
Neither U.S. nor Israeli intelligence assessed that there was any kind of serious threat of an Egyptian attack.On the contrary, both considered the possibility that Egypt might invade as being extremely slim.
Facts are facts, First of all, the Palestinians did NOT attack Israel first in 1967. The contrary is correct.
The Six-Day War fought between June 5 and 10, 1967, by Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt , Jordan, and Syria. After a period of high tension between Israel and its neighbors, the war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise air strikes against Arab forces. The outcome was a swift and decisive Israeli victory. Israel took effective control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.
At the commencement of hostilities, both Egypt and Israel announced that they had been attacked by the other country. Once it was established that Israel had struck first, the Israeli government claimed that it was a pre-emptive strike in the face of a planned invasion by the Arab countries.On the other hand, the Arab view was that it was an unjustified attack.In the leadup to the war, the United States advised Israel that America's military intelligence saw no signs of Egypt preparing to invade Israel.
I havent bought into any bullshit from anybody. Personally, i look at the facts on the ground as I see them and then I support the policies that I think should be in place. this is why I support Obama, Obama has been one of the few leaders (well until recently) to call Israel out on its aggressive behaviors, its treatment of the Palestinians, and its reluctance to accept the 1967 borders in exchange for a lasting peace agreement. A spade is a spade as I see it.
Yes, I am Liberal but I DONT vote according to party lines. In fact, I have voted a few times for conservative candidates in the past. I vote on the ISSUES and the adequate solutions that I think are needed and presented by all candidates involved.
The fact of the matter is, I am not blaming one side over the other. BOTH sides are guilty in certain respects for the lack of a peace agreement in the region.
First, you must have missed the part in the history books where Egypt, Jordan, and Syria were mounting their forces on the Israeli border in preparation for attack. Israel simply beat them to the punch.
Second, so Israel should give up land it's had for over 40 years in return for a promise of a "lasting peace agreement" that the Palestinians will never adhere to? Every time the Israelis have given up land, it's been used to launch rockets further into Israel. And even if some Palestinians were willing to abide by the agreement, others wouldn't. So, in the end, Israel is being asked to give up a lot in return for.....wait for it.....NOTHING.
Third, yes, neither side is perfect or pure as the driven snow. But the fault for failing to find lasting peace certainly isn't 50/50 or even close to it.
It's not really giving up land when you have Jewish settlers who refuse to move from the land that you are "giving back" still on it. I am not denying Israel is under constant rocket attacks, suicide bombings, etc and they should exercise their right to respond. But lets not forget the various human rights violations the Israelis have been perpetuating against the Palestinians like declaring West Bank areas closed military zones to deny activists access to them; arresting, detaining, indicting, convicting, and imprisoning activists as a deterrent; and dispersing demonstrations with excessive force, using rubber-coated metal bullets, at times live rounds, stun grenades, tear gas, and other repressive measures against peaceful protesters. Lets also not forget Israel's overwhelming use of force in Lebanon a few years back which earned/continues to draw international condemnation.
It is a tough situation overall, hence why there hasnt been a lasting agreement/breakthrough. I wish there were a viable peace agreement though cause I feel that would help quell a lot of the ills that both America and Israel have in the Middle East. I dont favor one side or the other I just think both sides are to blame for the lack of progress.
Sen. John Kerry -- chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- in a Washington Post op-ed criticized Mitt Romney's foreign policy approach to Iran. "I join this debate because the nuclear issue with Iran is deadly serious business," Kerry writes. "It should invite sobriety and thoughtfulness, not sloganeering and sound bites. The stakes are far too high for it to become just another applause line on the stump. Idle talk of war only helps Iran by spooking the tight oil market and increasing the price of the Iranian crude that pays for its nuclear program."
You'd think these chicken hawks who are always planning the next war would have learned from Iraq and Afghanistan. War is the last resort, not the first.
It appears that many posts about this subject are borne out of ignorance about the hierarchy of Iran's national government. Its military is in the hands of the ruling mullahs, not its president.
I've posted elsewhere that Israel's strategic capability to carry out an attack is significantly limited and even more so to carry it out successfully.
Since prevailing winds over Iran are west to east, several countries would be subject to the radioactive fallout that any attack could engender. However, prevailing winds do not always prevail; thus, Iraq and points west could be swept with radioactivity.
There is a basic core difference between the American and Israeli governments on this issue.
Washington doesn't want Tehran to have a bomb, Tel Aviv doesn't want Tehran to have the capability to make a bomb.
Good point, Ronnie. And therein lies the problem.
And that's because the Israelis will be the likely first target even before America. So they don't have the same luxury of waiting indefinitely for "diplomacy" to work as the U.S. and other nations.
And that's because the Israelis will be the likely first target even before America. So they don't have the same luxury of waiting indefinitely for "diplomacy" to work as the U.S. and other nations.
You're obviously pretty damn certain that if Tehran becomes nuclear armed, that they'll immediately press the button without haste.
You're obviously pretty damn certain that if Tehran becomes nuclear armed, that they'll immediately press the button without haste.
Taking everything into consideration, as well as dispensing with wishful thinking, it would be reckless not to assume they would use it sooner or later. And not just a direct attack on Israel or whoever but also use it as leverage to further influence/destabilize the region.
But, hey, maybe the Iranians really are just sick of using all that oil under the ground and really do want to convert to nuclear energy.
Taking everything into consideration, as well as dispensing with wishful thinking, it would be reckless not to assume they would use it sooner or later.
You hear that? That's the sound of a mullah counting his money earned from such war talk. KA-CHING!
Really, they'll "use it sooner or later?" Based on what? Your fears? Newsmax?
Not including tests, the only time nuclear weapons have been detonated was in 1945.
Not even an evil government like the Soviet Union ever used them, and they were quite frankly a real legitimate scary threat worth shitting your pants over. Proven history of having little to no regard or respect for their neighbors, I'm certain they would've tried to overwhelm Western Europe militarily sometime in the Cold War era if not for the nuclear deterrent.
China has had them since the 1950s, doesn't that scare you? Or hell, Pakistan/India? You know, two nations who hate each other for a living and been to war three times? Remember back in the 2000s when they had their own little stand-off which threatened to spill over into war?
(Off-topic, but I'll get back to my point: Why isn't the GOP scaremongering about Pakistan? They have nukes. They don't like us, they're proven without a shadow a doubt that they've undermined us greatly in Afghanistan. They're not a friend as much as a drug dealer you need for that fix at the moment. God I hope we kick those assholes to the curb whenever we escape Afghanistan.)
Originally Posted By: IvyLeague
And not just a direct attack on Israel or whoever but also use it as leverage to further influence/destabilize the region.
That region is already destabilized. (Or the more appropriate terminology, dysfunctional.)
BTW off-topic, what did you personally think of when George W. Bush vetoed the same airstrikes that Israel demanded in '08?
Originally Posted By: IvyLeague
But, hey, maybe the Iranians really are just sick of using all that oil under the ground and really do want to convert to nuclear energy.
With zero evidence, I've wondered if they're punking us over that shit. If Saddam played mind games with us over his imaginary WMD stockpile (like the Iranian agent "Curveball" that we believed), why wouldn't they do it too?
Apparently, there's enough evidence of Iran working on a nuclear program to cause a lot of countries, in addition to the U.S. and Israel, concern.
First, you guys argue that military action is not the answer now. But the more I read, it's like you guys are really answering that military action will never be the answer. That Iran is not really up to much and, even if they were, they really don't have any bad intentions about it.
As much as you may think some are rushing into war, I think some of you guys go too far the other way. I fall somewhere in the middle. I think there's still time for "diplomacy" but it has a time clock and the window of opportunity is shrinking.
As for Bush not going along with air strikes back in 2008, it wouldn't surprise me if he felt he didn't have enough to support the attack and was trying to be extra careful considering the military action already going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. He probably thought, "I leave this for the guy who replaces me."
The former head of Israel's intelligence service believes the Iranian regime is a rational one and even its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - who has called for Israel to be annihilated - acts in a somewhat rational way when it comes to Iran's nuclear ambitions. The regime in Iran is a very rational one," says the former top Israeli spymaster. And President Ahmadinejad? "The answer is yes," he replies, but "Not exactly our rational, but I think he is rational," Dagan tells Stahl.
It's a different kind of rational says Dagan, not rational in the Western-thinking sense. "But no doubt, they are considering all the implications of their actions...They will have to pay dearly...and I think the Iranians at this point in time are...very careful on the project," says Dagan. "They are not running..."
So he doesn't advocate a pre-emptive Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear industry anytime soon, an attack that he said would have to be against "a large number of targets."
Israel is not going to strike Iran. They don't have the horses and there is no guarantee of success. Before the US strikes, there are plenty of things to consider such as the number of US warplanes that would be downed, potential prisoner pilots, lack of success, and the resulting unrest in the region.
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) — Israel pounded Gaza for the second day in a row Saturday, trading airstrikes and rocket fire with Palestinian militants and killing 15 of them as the deadliest Gaza violence in over a year showed no signs of abating.
Despite Egyptian efforts to mediate a cease-fire, Palestinians fired more than 100 rockets, some striking major cities in southern Israel and seriously wounding an Israeli civilian. The military responded with more than a dozen airstrikes and the targeted killings of Palestinian militants from various Gaza organizations.
Israel's lauded Iron Dome missile defense system intercepted more than 25 projectiles. Still, residents were told to stay close to home and the cities of Beersheba, Ashdod and Ashkelon called off school for Sunday.
Tit-for-tat exchanges between Israel and Palestinians have been routine since the 2009 war, but a flare-up of this intensity is rare. The Arab League called the Israeli attacks a "massacre."
The United Nations and the State Department condemned the violence and called on both sides to exercise restraint.
"This round in Gaza is far from being over," Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in a visit to southern Israel. "We will not allow anyone to harm the citizens of the country and we will act against anyone who attempts to launch rockets. They will pay a heavy price, and no one will have immunity."
The latest spate of violence got under way Friday afternoon, when an Israeli airstrike on a car in Gaza City killed top militant commander Zuhair al-Qaissi and two of his underlings. It was the highest-profile killing Israel has carried out in many months, interrupting a period of relative calm on the volatile southern front.
Almost immediately, Gaza militants unleashed a barrage of rockets toward southern Israeli border communities.
So far, militants have fired more than 100 rockets since al-Qaissi's killing, a major escalation from recent months.
Palestinian militants fired some 50 rockets toward Israel in the previous three months.
Gaza's militant Islamic Hamas rulers condemned the Israeli strike but, pointedly, their fighters did not fire rockets at Israel. Instead, they quietly allowed other smaller Palestinian militant groups to unleash salvos.
In previous flare-ups, Hamas has used such a strategy to allow Palestinian militants to burn off their anger, with an eye toward the exchange of strikes eventually quieting down.
Hamas hasn't been eager to participate in rocket barrages since Israel conducted a punishing three-week war against the militant group in 2009. Hundreds of Palestinian civilians and militants were killed and the air and ground assault destroyed much of Hamas' infrastructure.
Since then, Hamas has sought to shore up its Gaza rule and amass a better weapons arsenal. Still, Israel's military said Hamas, as the territory's ruler, would "bear the consequences" for any attacks that emerged from Gaza.
Egypt, which has helped arrange truces in the past, said Saturday it was trying to cobble together a cease-fire.
"(We) won't give this occupation a free truce while our leaders and heroes are being killed," said Abu Mujahid, spokesman for al-Qaissi's group.
The U.N. and the State Department on Saturday called for an end to the violence.
"We deplore the fact that civilians are once again paying the price," said Richard Miron, a spokesman for Robert Serry, the U.N.'s special coordinator for the Middle East peace process. He called the situation in Gaza "very fragile and unsustainable."
In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said, "we condemn in the strongest terms the rocket fire from Gaza by terrorists into southern Israel in recent days, which has dramatically and dangerously escalated in the past day. We call on those responsible to take immediate action to stop these cowardly acts."
Israel released a number of video clips showing militants who were apparently hit by airstrikes moments before they were to fire rockets.
Palestinian rockets against Israeli communities have killed more than a dozen Israelis in the past decade.
This weekend's events are the deadliest in Gaza in more than a year.
Last April, Israeli killed 11 Palestinians, including four civilians, after Palestinian militants fired a rocket that hit a school bus and badly wounded a 16-year-old boy.
In August, Israel assassinated Kamal al-Nairab, al-Qaissi's predecessor as leader of the Popular Resistance Committees, after the group carried out an attack from Sinai that killed eight Israelis and injured 40.
Barak said al-Qaissi was preparing a similar attack. He said he couldn't say yet whether the plan had been completely thwarted. The Popular Resistance Committees is a group closely aligned with Hamas that is best known for the 2006 abduction of Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit. Schalit was freed last year in exchange for over 1,000 Palestinian prisoners.
The current fighting could spiral out of control if Palestinian militants manage to kill Israeli civilians or if the Israeli strikes kill Palestinian civilians or another top militant.
On Saturday, the low whooshing noise of rocket fire from border areas toward Israel was palpably heard inside Gaza City. Israeli drones hovered in the skies above. Tens of thousands of Palestinian mourners marched through the streets in funeral processions. They carried slain militants in coffins, their bodies too torn up to be wrapped in cloth, as Muslim tradition dictates. Masked militants sprayed machine gun fire above the mourners' heads in angry grief.
"Revenge, revenge!" chanted the crowds.
Airstrikes continued throughout the day. The latest airstrike hit militants in the southern city of Rafah, near where an elaborate network of smuggling tunnels runs between the coastal strip and Egypt's Sinai peninsula. Palestinian officials said one militant was killed and three others wounded. An earlier strike killed two Palestinian militants on a motorbike in the border town of Bani Suheila in southeast Gaza.
Palestinian officials acknowledged that several of the dead were preparing to fire rockets.
Imagine if Israel would launch a successful preemptive strike against a country that is building a nuclear bomb that threatens its very existence, and the American president would describe it as “a tragedy”.
And then, not only would the U.S. administration fail to “stand by its ally”, as Republicans pledged this week, but it would actually lend its hand to a UN Security Council decision that condemns Israel, calls on it to place its nuclear facilities under international supervision and demands that it pay reparations (!) for the damage it had wrought.
And then, to add insult to injury, the U.S. president would impose an embargo on further sales of F-16 aircraft because Israel had “violated its commitment to use the planes only in self-defense”.
Can you imagine the uproar? Can you contemplate the brouhaha? I mean, if Mitt Romney believes that President Obama “threw Israel under the bus” just for suggesting that a peace settlement with Israel be based on the 1967 borders - what would he say about a president who actually turns his back on Israel in its greatest time of need? That he hurled Israel over the cliff with a live grenade in its pocket and into a burning volcano?
And what if that very same president, only a few months later, would decide to sell truly game-changing sophisticated weaponry to Saudi Arabia, an Arab country that is a sworn enemy of Israel? And not only would this president dismiss Israeli objections that these weapons endanger its security, but he would actually warn, in a manner that sent shivers down the spines of American Jews, that “it is not the business of other nations to make American foreign policy”. And his Secretary of State would mince no words, just in case Walt or Mearsheimer hadn’t heard the first time, saying ominously that if the deal would be blocked by Israeli influence, there would be “serious implications on all American policies in the Middle East... I’ll just leave it there.” And then the two of them would extend the abovementioned arms embargo, just to twist Israel’s arm a little bit more....
EDIT - this passage stands out and should be bigger news than it is unfortunately.
Quote:
Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace whose views are closely studied at the Obama White House, argues that the Iranian regime is gradually bleeding itself to death for the sake of its nuclear program. He likens the process to the demise of the Soviet Union, which bankrupted itself in an arms race with the United States.
Sadjadpour likes to invoke an old saying about dictatorships: “While they rule, their collapse appears inconceivable. After they’ve fallen, their collapse appeared inevitable.” Iran, he argues, is “at the crossroads of that maxim.”
The article seems to have the built-in assumption that sanctions will lead to eventual regime change in Iran and/or the end of it's nuclear program. As I've said before, I'm all for sanctions, political pressure, etc. But Iran still has to know that, if push came to shove, the U.S. and Israel would use military action.
The article seems to have the built-in assumption that sanctions will lead to eventual regime change in Iran and/or the end of it's nuclear program. As I've said before, I'm all for sanctions, political pressure, etc. But Iran still has to know that, if push came to shove, the U.S. and Israel would use military action.
For once in this entire thread, we absolutely agree on something.
The Iranian regime is “very rational” and is moving deliberately in its secretive nuclear program, the former head of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency says.
“Maybe it’s not exactly rational based on what I call ‘Western thinking,’ but no doubt that they are considering all the implications of their actions,” Meir Dagan said in an interview with CBS‘ “60 Minutes” that aired Sunday.
Asked whether he believes Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is also rational, Mr. Dagan said yes. “Not exactly our rational, but I think that he is rational.”
Mr. Dagan’s remarks come as the U.S. and Israeli governments tussle over Iran, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu favoring a military strike on the country’s nuclear program in coming months.
President Obama said in a speech last week that there is “too much loose talk of war” and that he believes “that an opportunity still remains for diplomacy — backed by pressure — to succeed.”
Mr. Dagan, who retired from Mossad in 2010, sided with Mr. Obama.
“An attack on Iran before you [are] exploring all other approaches is not the right way how to do [it],” he said in the interview.
He said there is “more time” — perhaps as much as three years — to slow Iran’s nuclear program through other means.
Mr. Dagan has angered many in Israel’s political and security establishment by going public with his reservations about an Israeli attack on Iran.
In the interview, he expressed his fear that such a strike would precipitate a “regional war” and would invite large-scale retaliation against Israel from Iran and its proxies.
An attack on Iran’s nuclear program would be extremely difficult because it would involve “dozens of sites,” he said.
Many analysts have said they believe a U.S. strike would be far more effective than an Israeli one due, in part, to a superior arsenal of bunker-busting bombs that could penetrate some of Iran’s heavily fortified sites.
Most Israeli officials say they are skeptical that Mr. Obama has the stomach for an armed conflict with Iran, but Mr. Dagan said he believes the president is sincere.
“I heard very carefully what President Obama said, and he said openly that the military option is on the table, and he is not going to let Iran become a nuclear state,” he said.
Asked whether this meant he was hoping that the U.S. would do the job, Mr. Dagan said, “If I prefer that someone will do it, I always prefer that the Americans will do it.”
There's no reason that a nation would not want a nuclear capability if it was in its national interests. North Korea figures that its national interest includes just being able to say that it has a nuclear capability. Iran is the same. Iran is not going to attack anyone with a nuclear weapon even through a proxy. There's alot of hyperbole by and about Iran. It's necessary to sift through it.
There's no reason that a nation would not want a nuclear capability if it was in its national interests. North Korea figures that its national interest includes just being able to say that it has a nuclear capability. Iran is the same. Iran is not going to attack anyone with a nuclear weapon even through a proxy. There's alot of hyperbole by and about Iran. It's necessary to sift through it.
I disagree about Iran not using nuclear weapons if they had them but, even if that were the case, them having nuclear weapons at all would have enough of a destabilizing effect.
Like I said before, it seems like you're basically saying, "Sure, let's do all we can to dissuade Iran from developing it's nuclear program but, if and when they eventually do have nuclear weapons, oh well."
I agree with the fact that an nuclear armed Iran is a big treat to stability in the Middle East. But I'm not so sure there is a need to act this year, or even to act at all. Even the ex-chef of the Mossad Dagan seems to think we have at least three years left. Plus Israel has been running a pretty effective counter-program the last years by releasing computer viruses into nuclear facility's in Iran, as well as blowing up nuclear scientists all over the country.
This, combined with heavy sanctions against the regime, gives the world some time. Obama doesn't want war. But when push comes to shove, I think he will do what's necessary. Or what he is pushed into.
Americans show substantial pessimism about Iran and its nuclear program. Six in ten believe that Iran has decided to try to produce nuclear weapons and is actively working to do so. Nine in ten believe that it is likely that Iran will eventually develop nuclear weapons.
Quote:
If Israel goes ahead with a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program and Iran retaliates (but not against American targets), only one in four favors the US providing military support for Israel and only 4 in 10 favor the US providing even diplomatic support. Few would support open opposition. The most popular position is for the US to take a neutral stance.
One of the things that does not get discussed on this Board or among the Republican presidential candidates, their spokespeople, or the media is when and how an attack on Iran will take place. I take it that within some timeframe, if Iran does not power down its nuclear arms effort, the President will order US military forces to attack Iran.
Reasonably, I don't think such an attack can be launched by the US from anywhere except the Sea of Oman or Iraq. Both have their problems. Iran is probably already prepared for such an attack and we could lose quite a few pilots. Like some of youthough,I am not sure a nulclear armed Iran affects anything.
A high-level advisor to Iran's supreme leader said his country is ready to allow "permanent human monitoring" of its nuclear program in exchange for Western cooperation but also warned Iran is prepared to defend itself against military strikes.
Mohammad Javad Larijani, who serves as Secretary-General of Iran's Human Rights Council and key foreign policy advisor to Ayatollah Khamenei, said the West should sell Iran 20 percent enriched uranium and provide all the help that nuclear nations are supposed to provide to countries building civilian nuclear power plants. He also said the U.S. and the West should accept his country's right to continue what Iran calls its peaceful nuclear program. In return for cooperation from the West, he said, Iran would offer "full transparency."
The only thing I'll comment is what I bolded. I mean that might be one of the cruelest oxymorons I've ever come across. Along with the South African School for Racial Tolerance, the Nazi Germany Department of Shulchan Aruch, and the African Obese Institute.
Hamas only wants Iran's money, it's not gonna drag itself down with Iran. They already are making nice with Abbas, since sanctions are making Iran unable to transfer money around. I'm wondering with all the big talks on Iran backing these groups, why there was not such sanctions before.
Pentagon Finds Perils for U.S. if Israel Were to Strike Iran
A classified war simulation exercise held this month to assess the American military’s capabilities to respond to an Israeli attack on Iran forecast that the strike would lead to a wider regional war, which could draw in the United States and leave hundreds of Americans dead, according to American officials.
The officials said the so-called war game was not designed as a rehearsal for American military action — and they emphasized that the exercise’s results were not the only possible outcome of a real-world conflict. But the game has raised fears among top American planners that it may be impossible to preclude American involvement in any escalating confrontation with Iran, the officials said. In the debate among policymakers over the consequences of any possible Israeli attack, that reaction may give stronger voice to those within the White House, Pentagon and intelligence community who have warned that a strike could prove perilous for the United States.
The results of the war game were particularly troubling to Gen. James N. Mattis, who commands all American forces in the Middle East, Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia, according to officials who either participated in the Central Command exercise or who were briefed on the results and spoke on condition of anonymity because of its classified nature. When the exercise had concluded earlier this month, according to the officials, General Mattis told aides that an Israeli first-strike would likely have dire consequences across the region and for United States forces there.
The two-week war game, called “Internal Look,” played out a narrative in which the United States found it was pulled into the conflict after Iranian missiles struck a Navy warship in the Persian Gulf, killing about 200 Americans, according to officials with knowledge of the exercise. The United States then retaliated by launching its own strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
The initial Israeli attack was assessed to have set back the Iranian nuclear program by roughly a year, and the subsequent American strikes did not slow the Iranian nuclear program by more than an additional two years. However, other Pentagon planners have said that America’s arsenal of long-range bombers, refueling aircraft and precision missiles could do far more damage to the Iranian nuclear program — if President Obama were to decide on a full-scale retaliation.
The exercise was designed specifically to test internal military communications and coordination among battle staffs in the Pentagon, Tampa, where the headquarters of the Central Command is located, and in the Persian Gulf in the aftermath of an Israeli strike. But the exercise was written to assess a pressing, potential, real-world situation.
In the end, the war game reinforced to military officials the unpredictable and uncontrollable nature of a strike by Israel, and a counterstrike by Iran, the officials said.
American and Israeli intelligence services broadly agree on the progress Iran has made to enrich uranium. But they disagree on how much time there would be to prevent Iran from building a weapon if leaders in Tehran decided to go ahead with one.
With the Israelis saying publicly that the window to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb is closing, American officials see an Israeli attack on Iran within the next year as a possibility. They have said privately that they believe that Israel would probably give the United States little or no warning should Israeli officials make the decision to strike Iranian nuclear sites.
Officials said that, under the chain of events, Iran believed that Israel and the United States were partners in any strike against Iranian nuclear sites and therefore considered American military forces in the Persian Gulf as complicit in the attack. Iranian jets chased Israeli warplanes after the attack, and Iranians launched missiles at an American warship in the Persian Gulf, viewed as an act of war that allowed an American retaliation.
Internal Look has long been one of Central Command’s most significant planning exercises, and is carried out about twice a year to assess how the headquarters, its staff and command posts in the region would respond to various real-world situations.
Over the years, it has been used to prepare for various wars in the Middle East. According to the defense Web site Globalsecurity.Org, military planners during the cold war used Internal Look to prepare for a move by the Soviet Union to seize Iranian oil fields. The American war plan at the time called for the Pentagon to march nearly six Army divisions north from the Persian Gulf to the Zagros mountains of Iran to blunt a Soviet attack.
In December 2002, Gen. Tommy Franks, who was the top officer at Central Command, used Internal Look to test the readiness of his units for the coming invasion of Iraq.
Many experts have predicted that Iran would try to carefully manage the escalation after an Israeli first-strike in order to avoid giving the United States a rationale for attacking with its far superior forces. Thus, it might use proxies to set off car bombs in world capitals or funnel high explosives to insurgents in Afghanistan to attack American and NATO troops. While using surrogates might, in the end, not be enough to hide Iran’s instigation of these attacks, the government in Tehran could at least publicly deny all responsibility.
Some military specialists in the United States and in Israel who have assessed the potential ramifications of an Israeli attack believe that the last thing Iran would want is a full-scale war on its territory. Thus, they argue that Iran would not directly strike American military targets, whether warships in the Persian Gulf or bases in the region.
Their analysis, however, also includes the broad caveat that it is impossible to know the internal thinking of the senior Iranian leadership, and is informed by the awareness that even the most detailed war games cannot predict how nations and their leaders will react in the heat of conflict.
Yet these specialists continue their work, saying that any insight on how the Iranians will react to an attack will help determine whether the Israelis launch a strike — and what the American position will be if they do.
Israeli intelligence estimates, backed by academic studies, have cast doubt on the widespread assumption that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would set off a catastrophic set of events like a regional conflagration, widespread acts of terrorism and sky-high oil prices.
“A war is no picnic,” Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Israel Radio in November. But if Israel feels itself forced into action, the retaliation would be bearable, he said. “There will not be 100,000 dead or 10,000 dead or 1,000 dead. The state of Israel will not be destroyed.”
Slightly off topic but March 20, marks the first day of the Persian New Year, the year 1391 in the Persian Calender.
happy New Year to Afsaneh and anyone else celebrating today!
The occassion, called Nowruz in Persian-Speaking countries which translates into 'New Day', is one of the richest parts of the Persian Heritage (something Iranians pride themselves in ). The festival is celebrated throughout the Persian Speaking world and Greater Iran. The festival is thought to have originated from the Achaemenid era.
The UN's General Assembly in 2010 recognized the International Day of Nowruz, describing it a spring festival of Persian origin which has been celebrated for over 3,000 years
Each Persian family makes a special table filled with all sorts of goods like:
sabzeh - Wheat Barley or Lentil sprouts growing in a dish - symbolizing rebirth Samanu - a sweet pudding made from Wheat_germ - symbolizing affluence senjed - the dried fruit of the Elaeagnus angustifolia tree - symbolizing love "sir" - Garlic - symbolizing medicine "sib" - - symbolizing beauty and health somaq - Sumac berries - symbolizing (the color of) sunrise serkeh - Vinegar - symbolizing age and patience.
Other items on the table may include:
Sonbol - Hyacinth (plant) Sekkeh - Coins - representative of wealth Traditional Iranian pastries such as Baklava ,White Mulberry , naan-nokhodchi Aajeel - dried nuts, berries and raisins lit Candle (enlightenment and happiness) a Mirror (symbolizing cleanness and honesty) Egg decorating , sometimes one for each member of the family (fertility), the Flag of Iran, for a patriotic touch a holy book (e.g., the Avesta ,Qur'an, Bible ,Torah or Kitáb-i-Aqdas) and/or a poetry book
And lots of other goodies, I'm sure, which I'm not familiar with! Besides that, from what I understand family members visit each other (big family gathering) and even involves spring cleaning!
Apparently, Israel has now gained access to airports in Azerbaijan, which would make an attack on Iran a lot easier for the Israelis, since Azerbaijan is Iran's neighbor.
US aid to Israel: 115 billion dollars Wed Apr 4, 2012
New data shows Washington has given more than 115 billion dollars in financial aid to Israel over the years, indicating Tel Aviv’s great dependence on the US.
According to the report published by the Congressional Research Service Israel has received more assistance from the US than 15 European countries did to recover from the devastation caused during World War II.
More than 67 billion dollars of the Washington's aid to Israel has been in military, the report said.
The astonishing report adds that the US has allocated 3.1 billion dollars, around one-fifth of its defense budget, to Israel this year alone.
Americans also allow the Israeli army to use their emergency reserve ammunition stored in Israel. The value of the weapons held in the US emergency supplies is 1.2 billion dollars.
The US gives billions of dollars in American taxpayers' money to the Tel Aviv regime each year in the form of military and economic aid, legally justified as part of US government's foreign aid package.
Washington has never downsized its annual 3 billion dollars grant to the Israeli regime despite going through its worst recession in decades which has prompted the government to impose major cuts on most public service programs for citizens.
This certainly reminds me of the old USSR. Certainly reminds me too why their famed space program, despite that impressive technological head start compared to the Americans, fizzled out.
Quote:
In a study of Iranian human-resource practices, the management analysts Pari Namazie and Monir Tayeb concluded that the Iranian regime has historically shown a marked preference for political loyalty over professional qualifications. "The belief," they wrote, "is that a loyal person can learn new skills, but it is much more difficult to teach loyalty to a skilled person." This is the classic attitude of authoritarian managers. And according to the Iranian political scientist Hossein Bashiriyeh, in recent years, Iran's "irregular and erratic economic policies and practices, political nepotism and general mismanagement" have greatly accelerated. It is hard to imagine that the politically charged Iranian nuclear program is sheltered from these tendencies.
Quote:
The historical record strongly indicates that the more a state has conformed to the professional management culture generally found in developed states, the less time it has needed to get its first bomb and the lower its chances of failure. Conversely, the more a state has conformed to the authoritarian management culture typically found in developing states, the more time it has needed to get its first bomb and the higher its chances of failure...
This is the very same ship Iran threatened not to come back to the Persian Gulf. 
.
