Who is the bigger threat to the world, the US or Iran? [Archive]

View Full Version : Who is the bigger threat to the world, the US or Iran?

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

03-26-12, 01:40 AM

Iran: Wants nuclear weapons. Sometimes threatens to destroy a certain, tiny country that is admittedly a little annoying.

US: Has nuclear weapons and the world's strongest military. Makes a LAW to destroy everyone elses' economies if they don't agree US policy on Iran. Any exceptions are at the grace of US.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-20/u-s-exempts-11-nations-from-iran-oil-sanctions-on-banking.html
(one of many, many on this topic)

A choice passage:
Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, said in an interview that the Obama administration’s action yesterday “begins to reduce some of the uncertainty in oil markets over how the administration will apply oil market sanctions.”

“It gives Japan, in particular, which needs to keep buying Iranian oil, a clear pathway to continue those purchases without putting their financial institutions at risk,” said Dubowitz, who has advised the administration and Congress on sanctions. “It also establishes an early precedent that puts pressure on South Korea, India, China, Turkey, South Africa and other major buyers of Iranian oil to also comply with U.S. law.”

Note the last part. Note that it is not with a UN resolution or anything of the sort. But "US law".

Used to be, the US at least tries to hide its claws.

How did the world come to such a state?

HunterICX

03-26-12, 05:21 AM

Biggest threat to the worldHuman beeings

How did the world come to such a state? when was it any different? from the dawn of mankind we've been in conflict over power the only thing that has changed are the means we are able to do so.

HunterICX

Jimbuna

03-26-12, 05:33 AM

Human beeings

when was it any different? from the dawn of mankind have we've been in conflict over power the only thing that has changed are the means we are able to do so.

HunterICX

^+1

gimpy117

03-26-12, 06:34 AM

well personally i'd like to see us staying out of other people's business it's the reason half the world hates us and the other half is to afraid to do anything

Skybird

03-26-12, 07:12 AM

Iran: Wants nuclear weapons. Sometimes threatens to destroy the only stabile, free and democratic nation that is based on the ideal of humanistic values in the region, which is admittedly a major threat to that country. Will cause a nuclear arms race in a highly instabile, irrationally driven and relgiously upheated region with generations of open bills. Will gain the potential for nuclear blackmailing of European politics to chnage them in favour of Shia ideology. High risk of nuclear proliferation and support of terrorist strikes with nuclear weapons by proxie factions.

Fixed that for you.

August

03-26-12, 07:17 AM

well personally i'd like to see us staying out of other people's business it's the reason half the world hates us and the other half is to afraid to do anything

What makes you think that would change if we did?

Skybird

03-26-12, 07:21 AM

well personally i'd like to see us staying out of other people's business it's the reason half the world hates us and the other half is to afraid to do anything
It is our all business. Iran withz nuclear weapons does not pose a threat to just Israel. It poses a threat to just everybody - neighbours, Russia, Europe, America.

Like it or not, the US military by far is more potent for an operation like that, than the Eurpoean forces alltogether. Europoe does not have the logistics, and numbers to go it all alone. It also does not have the will and backbone. Its not about quality only - it is about numbers.

Krauter

03-26-12, 07:38 AM

What makes you think that would change if we did?

:yep:

Everyone needs a boogey man, be it the Russians, the Iranians or the Americans...

Skybird

03-26-12, 07:50 AM

:yep:

Everyone needs a boogey man, be it the Russians, the Iranians or the Americans...

And Germans. Either the old Nazi ones, or the modern Euro ones. Germans now can be had in two versions, to fit every timeframe.

Sammi79

03-26-12, 08:07 AM

I think Iran has a reasonable case for developing a nuclear deterrent in order to protect itself from Israeli/US terrorism be it covert assassinations of civilian scientists, or measured tactical airstrikes on its facilities. The Israeli government talks a lot about the threats from Iran, but when the threats and indeed actions move in the other direction, they claim to be justified. This crime of nuclear proliferation that Iran is being accused of is a crime that Israel herself is already evidently guilty of. This bully is simply scared (like all bullies) that the bullied might be taking steps to even the odds.

The Israeli governments position seems to me to be mainly a diversionary tactic with the goal being to take the pressure off their continued expansion and new settlements in territories outside of the state of Israel. What it actually achieves is promoting anti-Israeli and anti-US sentiment, as well as likely reinforcing any ideas the Iranians may have that they surely need the nuclear deterrent tool for themselves. For Skybird to insinuate that no one apart from the US or Israel has any backbone is clearly nonsense (maybe he is just speaking for himself), without the US security council veto, direct military intervention against Israel in Palestine would have taken place a long time ago, with widespread public support from the countries involved.

Regards, Sam.

TLAM Strike

03-26-12, 08:16 AM

How did the world come to such a state?
It happened when the free nations of the world ceded their defense to the US. As the defender of the free nations its the US's responsibility to identify the threats and deal with them. For the defended they must facilitate the defender. :03:

August

03-26-12, 08:40 AM

I think Iran has a reasonable case for developing a nuclear deterrent in order to protect itself from Israeli/US terrorism be it covert assassinations of civilian scientists, or measured tactical airstrikes on its facilities.

Maybe you feel differently but I don't think the assassination of a scientist, especially by persons unknown, is a justification for a nuclear war, which is what a nuclear deterrent is all about.

without the US security council veto, direct military intervention against Israel in Palestine would have taken place a long time ago, with widespread public support from the countries involved.

The same countries that invaded Israel in the first place? Those are the ones you support?

Oberon

03-26-12, 08:47 AM

The Soviet Union is the bigger threat.

We cannot allow the spread of communism! There must not be a mine shaft gap!! :stare:

Skybird

03-26-12, 09:05 AM

Maybe you feel differently but I don't think the assassination of a scientist, especially by persons unknown, is a justification for a nuclear war, which is what a nuclear deterrent is all about.

Worse, it'S circular logic what Sammi said. The attempt to prevent/defend against the Iranian nuclear weapopn program becomes his argument what Iran wants to get them? If Iran would not grab for nukes, there would be (and have not been!) no targetted assassinations, cyberattacks, mysterious explosions of missiles ranges and the like.

On past wars. Israel now exists since more than two generations. More than two generations mived and sometimes died in and for Israel now. One could consider to discuss the legitimacy of the method in which it was installed after 2 or 3 or 5 years, but the Muslim Palestinians - which as an ethnic group or race or cultiural group anr non-existent, because in reality they are simply Arabs - have almost nobody anymore who can make any claims of circumnstances over how it once was and how he witnessed it. To question Israel'S right to exist today would mean to commit another , a new great injuzstice - to those many people who in the past 70 years turned Israel into what it is now. One is crying wolf over the "Palestinians" - but to repoeat the "cxrimne" agains them now again, this time against Israelis most of which had not say or hand in the evnts after WWII - this is pretty much okay for Westerners these days?

Guys, get real. Time has moved on. The houses and homes to which some people still claim to have the keys, have stopped to be there sinc elong before the same people, nmost of them, got even born. And the overwhelming majhority of thoese peple that today get labelled as "Palestinians" - in fact as migrants from Arabab neighbouring places who moved into the "occupied" territories AFTER the Israel state was founded. That they additionally multiply like rabbits without having the ifnratrsurcture and logistical and economical and sovereing financial basis to maintain and keep alive such a communal, national entitity, does not help anyone either.

It is all about creating an argument Israel against by mere numbers, by the crowds and masses. That most of them have an origin that had little or nothign to do with Palestine before the Israeli state was founded, for some reasons is of no concern for most commentators. We have seen the same in Kosovo, which later was claimed to be "Alabanians". That almost 80-90% of those Albenians now living in Kosovo have moved their from alabnian after the Yugoslavian republic was brought to its knees, while bringing Serbian control of Kosovo to an end over an argument that it already were so very much Albanian while in reality back then it was not, for some strange reason never gets reported.

I can only say once again: demographics and migration are WEAPONS. They do not make an effect as quickly as the impact of a bomb, but they make a much more pressing and long-lasting effect than even a thousand bombs. And there is no military defence against the, and poltical defence against them can easily be brandmarked as racism. That'S why demographis and migration get used as weapons. It'S a win - win situation for the side using them.

Tribesman

03-26-12, 10:05 AM

Who is the bigger threat to the world, the US or Iran?
China.

Sammi79

03-26-12, 10:49 AM

Maybe you feel differently but I don't think the assassination of a scientist, especially by persons unknown, is a justification for a nuclear war, which is what a nuclear deterrent is all about.

Hi August, personally I can't think of a rational justification for an attack using nuclear weapons and I invite you to explain how you came to think that I might. While I would hope you agree that Iran has neither threatened to do so nor would it consider it an option unless in appropriate defense or retaliation, as obviously it would be MAD suicide, you miss my point. Israel has nuclear weapons developed in secret and against global opposition. Iran is simply doing the same if they are doing it at all, which incidentally there is no empirical evidence for. I certainly would be if I were them, for exactly the same 'deterrent' arguments that all the nuclear armed nations use and I am not prepared to really believe them when they deny it, neither am I prepared to believe that either Mossad or CIA (or SAS, whomever you like) were not responsible for the attacks inside Iran when they likewise, deny it. Also, regardless of yours or mine opinions on the subject, assassinations of scientists who are civilians are acts of terrorism in and of themselves, and can only reinforce the attitudes of the governments the authorising bodies verbally aspire to curtail.

The same countries that invaded Israel in the first place? Those are the ones you support?

No, August. I support the concept of the United Nations, it is regretful that in regard to Israel they have a saboteur on the SC and are largely impotent because of it. Most Americans (and pretty much all non Americans) I converse with are against the idea of America becoming a global military police force, which is what the UN were setup to do. If the US government actually took their position there seriously 'in the spirit' so to say, rather than for purely selfish reasons, well, who knows. They cannot own the UN, but they can and do prevent it from achieving its aims. I do not assert they are exclusively guilty of this type of behaviour, but they do so with far more impunity and regularity than the others. I support people trying to do what is right, because it is right, and that is all. I should make it clear now that in no way do I think modern governments or their figureheads are truly representative of the human beings they supposedly govern, when I use a nations name in the singular I am only referring to its leaders. This is however irrelevant, what both you and Skybird (HI SKY! I didn't think your ignore list would work for too long.) have failed to address in my previous post is, with slight extrapolation :

What it actually achieves is promoting anti-Israeli and anti-US sentiment globally but especially in Iran, as well as likely reinforcing any ideas the Iranians may have that they surely need the nuclear deterrent tool for themselves, as well as global support for this probable intent, again especially in Iran.

Oh, and Sky if you are still not ignoring, if my logic is circular as you suggest, where is the evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons project? Where are the threats of nuclear action by Iran against Israel? Where are Saddams WMDs? It is just smoke and mirrors, for political and ideological reasons, and you should take your own advice to wake up to the fact. I have argued with you regarding Palestine before, and my position is set. What Israel does in occupied Palestine is criminal, if they want the righteous position they claim to have then they should either, cease occupation, or, simply claim the land as their own, and in doing so grant the same civilian rights to the inhabitants as are granted to the inhabitants already within their borders. Keeping people in a perpetual no mans land is not only criminal and inhumane, it is tantamount to genocide.

Now I am way off topic, apologies. The US is certainly more dangerous in capability, I'd say they were about even in intent.

Regards, Sam.

August

03-26-12, 11:37 AM

Hi August, personally I can't think of a rational justification for an attack using nuclear weapons and I invite you to explain how you came to think that I might.

Maybe (probably) I misread your post and if so I apologize but what made me think that may be the case is this statement:

I think Iran has a reasonable case for developing a nuclear deterrent in order to protect itself from Israeli/US terrorism be it covert assassinations of civilian scientists, or measured tactical airstrikes on its facilities.

A nuclear deterrent does not really protect a nation against covert assassinations or non nuclear attacks on facilities, or just about any other conventional military action for that matter. It's a one shot deal to be used in only the most dire of circumstances like national survival.

The way I see it there are only two situations where a nuclear weapon provides a deterrent against attack:

1. A response in kind. "Nuke me and i'll nuke you back" (MAD). That assumes both protagonists have the capability not to just make a strike but cause unsurvivable or at least unacceptable amounts of damage.

2. A last resort in the event of an invasion that is going to be successful. This is what I think Israel keeps nukes for. If the Arab nations ever gang up on them again they have to know that if it looks like Israel is going down this time they just might decide to take their enemies with them.

As for the occupied territories, it should be remembered that Israel occupied those territories in the first place because they were used by the surrounding nations as staging areas for invasion. For Israel to give them back would (imo) be the equivalent of handing back a baseball bat to an assailant who just tried to use it to beat you to death.

BTW you mentioned annexation. Israel has annexed both the Golan heights and east Jerusalem but no other country, including the US, has recognized it.

Skybird

03-26-12, 12:09 PM

Sammi, after some time I put everybody - well: most people at least - off that list for a second attempt, sometimes earlier, sometimes later. Just after a second listing I never look back for that somebody a third time.

The IAEA just weeks agi has strongly warned of - and effectively u-turned - of nuclear weapon developement in Iran. This organisation under Al Baradei was effectiovely hindering the publication of intel info on the status of that program, and was delaying publication, and assisted Iran in final effect to hide it's project. The existence of all tehcnical omponents and wqorkin g processes needed to sneak not towards nuclear energy but putting together a fucntional warhead, is beyond doubt. So there developemnt for an according long-ranmge carrier system. Certain technologies are not used for creating nuclear energy and only makes sense when you want to build a bomb. Said tec hnolgies and installatrions makes sense for nothing else than this. Like you can use a knife for cutting fruits or throats - but a pistol is never used for kitchen work.

Iraq and Saddam is irrelevant here, since it Irqui dveelopement of WMDs int he 80s and 90s, and Iran today are two totally different countries and governments and developements and issues. The US claim to know Iraq still had (nobody ever denied that they once had WMDs in the years before 2000) and developed WMDs in 2003, was absurd and suspicious and questionable from all eginmning on. The claims against Iran are not like that.

The CIA that in 2003 accepted orders to construct faked evidence, is the same CIA that now all of a sudden is rated trustworthy when it makes another sudden u-tzurned claim, about Iran, becasue Obama doe snot want a war now and want to weaken Israeli claims working as an excuse for a strike. That especially the former lame dog IAEA openly confronts the CIA's claim that Iran has not made a decision to bzuild a bomb, should m,ake one think,m also that russia and China have becom increasingly uncomfrotable about what goes on in Iran.

Practically, there can be no doubt that Iran is building the components to create nuclear warheads and carrier systems. Satellite intels and the intense Iranian construction work in hidden secret bunkiers inside mountains speak a clear language. What Iran does, is this: getting as close to assemble all neededc compenenbts as possible wiothout triggering a war. And then by surprise making a final rushing sprint to put them together so quickly that any reaciton by the West comes too late . Onmce Iran has enough weapons-capable uranium in a suitcase and can hide it just anywhere, the game is over and lost for israel and the West. We cannot allow to let it get that far. This is what many "diplomats" - I prefer the ohrase "useful idiots" intentionally ignore, because the want to abble on and claim thnat their abbling i useful and makes an effect. Else they would need to admit that they failed in their ambitions.

On Palestine, a people that is formed for the most by people who moved into a place after that place was taken over, have no claim to make for that place on basis of historic records - effectively the individual people remain to be foreigners in that place. That is true for the Albanians who moved into Kosovo after the Serbs were driven out, and that is true for the Arabs who moved into the zones controlled by Hamas and PLO. It is also true for those Jerws who after the WWII moved to the place and took it over. I never have defended the way in which Israel was founded, their religiously founded claims mean nothing to me. What I have made clear many times now is that it is simple pgramatism denying me from driving all those Jews into the ocean just to hand over the countrxy to a people that migrated to the place after Israel was folunded, and that this would mean a repetition of the injustice that already has been seen in that place. Today'S young and medium and older generations on both sides have no claim over the events 70 years ago. Neither are Jews born in Israel after the state was founded in any way guilty for what happened before their birth, nor have the Arabs who moved their after Israel was founded any claim to make for land that before also was not theirs. Damn it, if you want to drive a people into the ocean over events 70 years ago - now that would border genocide!

Again I remind of the fact that there is no ethnicity or race like "Palerstinian". Today'S Paletinians for the most are simply Arabs whose families moved there from Arab countries after Israel'S foundation. It is a scandal that this usually never gets mentioned in the coverage of the issue.

I have no special sympathy for Isarael, also no special antipathy, I am very much feeling neutral towards it. Heck, i even doubt the long-lasting chnaces for strategic survival of region, I think it simply is too exposed and too viulnerable to stay there forever - it will fall, and in violence sooner or later. But I think that this position of mine makes people with my thinking a much more reliable potential ally for Israel than the lip-confessions of EU states that say "We are not anti. Jewish", but act anti-zionistic most of the time, gloss over growing antisemitism in the West, demand Israel to offer its throat to its enemies, suppoort actions and polticies that if Israel would comply mean self-destruction and inner-self-erosion to Israel, talk bull$h!t like EU-bitch Ashton just did once again some days ago, and mean that UN blue helmets act not nutreally but work by proecdurres that are not neutral but allow terrorist to benefit from their intel on Israeli military manouvering, while demanding Israel to sit still and form a nice, juicy target.
It'S calm rationality that makes me a friend of Israel. Not personal friendship. What i comes down to, is this: the level of civilisational developement in Israel is superior to that of any Arab or Mulsim state there is. Why I should prefer to have just another corrupt regime with death squads huntin the opposition in that place, or another Islamic theocracy, is beyond me. Israel may be vulnerable and not perfect - but it is way better, way more potent, way more competent, way more advanced and way more humane and law-and-order than any Arab or Muslim state there is.

That's what many people prefer to ignore. Because Israel's big fault is - that it is Jews living there. Let'S face it, anti-Jewish sentiment once again is blossoming in Europe, we just do noit clal it like that, we call ourselves "friends of Israel", but hide a dagger behind our backs. This hate may a long tradition, but in the modern time it also is about appeasing oil-producing countries of Muslim belief and Musliom countries in North Africa whith whom some Europeans want to form an Eurabic block. Israel - ist just an annoyance for these ideologic ambitions and economic interests.

I admit, though, I have zero love for those orthodox Jews and trouble-makers that currently seem to blossom there.

My advise for Israel is short, and just this: be on your guard against Europe like you be on your guards against your neighbours. Europe will betray you. Jews do not have friends. Never had, never will have.

Stealhead

03-26-12, 02:52 PM

I agree with the human race being the greatest threat to the world/ourselves. Ultimately no one nation can fully trust any other nation in the long run.Humans have always fought over resources which makes us no different than animals they also will fight another of a resource(food).

the way I see it we have always been at war with each other to some extent and you simply can not rely on being peaceful because if you do and have nothing to do if the other side uses force and you have no military capacity to stop him then you will certainly lose.

Sammi79

03-26-12, 03:35 PM

Hi August, thank you for reply. I would like to elaborate a bit, maybe my words were not so well chosen, but the word deterrent was crucial in my statement. Nuclear deterrent (an Orwellian double-speak term if ever there was one) is perhaps not seen as a deterrent against more conventional attacks, however I think it does work in this way somewhat. If Iran had nuclear weapons I feel Israel would certainly be less inclined to engage in either covert ops or tactical airstrikes against them. I may well be wrong, but I don't see our (or any) governments inflicting attacks like these on North Korea for example.

And, thank you Skybird that is gentlemanly of you. I do not wish to argue with you about Palestine or the (il)legitimacy of their claim to nationhood, other than to add that all the arguments you present against them can be just as easily applied to Israel. I care not for ethnic, religious or other imaginary arbitrary boundaries. Israel is a nation, ill conceived IMO but that is history. You both ignore the second option I proposed, that Israel could simply claim all the occupied lands, even take the entire land of Palestine and redraw its own borders, and in doing so grant all the inhabitants their civil and human rights, which are being denied to them now, for generations since 1967, and it seems if Israel has its way, for all future generations. It is significant that no other nations accept the legitimacy of this occupation, and it is my main bone of contention regarding Israel. Like I said, the UN would have stepped in several times without the US veto. I don't think Israel could complain that the UN would allow a land invasion through its forces either.

If the real intention is to stop Iran achieving its own nuclear deterrent, the only way to succeed would be to invade and occupy, full scale. Anything smaller will just inspire them to double their efforts, which is what is happening right now. If you do not break their will, you will only slow them down, and there is little evidence to show that it causes a lasting setback, if any at all. Add this to the fact that bombing nuclear facilities is mind numbingly stupid, these things need to be dismantled carefully in order to avoid causing lasting damage to the environment and people, the human beings, who do not have a say in the actions of their government, for unacceptable periods of time. That they shouldn't have built them is not a valid argument after the fact, comparably the political idiocy that gave birth to Israel is not a valid argument against their continued existence.

I posit that plausibly this is not the real intent, that being diversion from political issues closer to home for both Israel and the US. I think maybe Iran is fanning these flames, knowing that Israel would find it difficult and costly to mount tactical strikes, going up against a reasonably well equipped air force at distance, even with the help of the US, which is not automatically assured currently as the American people are quite rightly suspicious of their leaders intent and honesty, after the recent WMD spin, and are also traditionally (and quite sensibly) isolationalist when it comes to sorting out other nations problems. I bet the US wishes it were as easy as here in the UK, where politicians do what they like when they like, and the people all roll over every time. The fact that the CIA and IAEA U-turned on their warnings could indicate a cynical reverse psychology - the people are sure we are lying, so we will tell them the truth (we have no evidence), and they will follow the lie again. YeeeeHAAAAH! :D that actually makes me laugh thinking about it. Tony Blair would be proud. Smoke and Mirrors.

Nevermind, I have made my points and I think they stand. All are simply opinions of course.

Regards, Sam.

CaptainHaplo

03-26-12, 04:33 PM

Tribesman

03-26-12, 04:49 PM

Answer me this one... If Israel was a threat - how come it was able to live in peace and goodwill with Jordan and Egypt?
Well thats easy, a few hundred million dollars in handouts.

Oberon

03-26-12, 05:18 PM

Well thats easy, a few hundred million dollars in handouts.

That and the Six Day War. Admittedly in Egypts case though it got its own back in Yom Kippur, but it wasn't exactly a stunning Egyptian victory. :hmmm:

Skybird

03-26-12, 06:11 PM

You both ignore the second option I proposed, that Israel could simply claim all the occupied lands, even take the entire land of Palestine and redraw its own borders, and in doing so grant all the inhabitants their civil and human rights, which are being denied to them now, for generations since 1967, and it seems if Israel has its way, for all future generations. It is significant that no other nations accept the legitimacy of this occupation, and it is my main bone of contention regarding Israel. Like I said, the UN would have stepped in several times without the US veto. I don't think Israel could complain that the UN would allow a land invasion through its forces either.

First, the main body and general assembly of the UN is extremely islamophile so their support for causes against Israel is not a convincing argument, but shows the bias as much as the vetos in the security council do. I personally have stopped to see the UN as a a variable I care for anymore several years ago. IMO it has no reasonable legitimation, it certainly has no potence that goes beyond bribery, and the level of corruption makes it implausible to rely on the UN as a trustworthy authority, no matter what issue you look at. A solid ammount of naivety and incompetence does not help to improve that impression it. I think we should save the costs to run it, and install direct hot wires between interested governments instead.

On Israel and letting all Palestinians in, you comfortably ignore the conseqeunces, and a Palestinian claim there is: The Palestinians claim that ALL Palestinians claiming to have a cause in that Israeli territory shall have the right to return. Which would mean that the Israeli Jews would become an endangered minority inside their own state. Also, as I explained, the legitimacy of most Palestinians' claim for property in former Palestine is questionable, to put it mildy - most of the people being there now, moved there AFTER Israel was founded. So what claim basing on the conditions before the Israeli foundation do they have to make? Finally, Islam is inherently strongly racist and anti-semitic from all beginning on, it goes back to the time of ol' Muhammad himself. Mind you, the Jewish pharisees who already under the Romans were known for their nervekilling, hair-splitting philosophic arguments, demonstrated him his inferiority in understanding in the "theologic" disputes he asked them for. This was such an offense to his big ego that he reacted not by preparing himself better (what would be the proper way to react, I assume), but launching war against the three tribes at Medina, driving away two and finally annihilated the third tribe in what effectively was genocide by modern legal understanding of the term - all males of that tribe, no matter their age, were executed on the Mednaiese market place, all girls and women were led into slavery or got distributed under Muhammad's closest commanders and supporters. Islam IS antisemitic, and always was, and the Quran clearly states the inferiority of the people fo the book to Islam as well. To expect that Jews and Muslims will live peacefully side by side in one state run by a Jewish minority and on territories Islam claims for itself and Palestinians/Arabs claim to be their own, is hopelessly illusory. If you want to solve the conflict there once and for all - destroy Jerusalem and devastate all of Palestine alltogether and make it inhabitable.

I finally have an issue with your timeframe aregument, you earlier said that no matter how long ago the events around the founding of Israel are, the Palestinians nevertheless had the inborn right to call it theirs. If timeframe and prgamaticism plays nor role then, you must go back much longer. Before that, Palestine was a British protectorate where Jews and Arabs lived and both called themselves "Palestinians". More centuries back, the place was officially Chhristzian (by Roman state relgion), and inhabited by Jews mostly. What now, if timefreame plays no role? Make the whole place Jewish again? Christian? Or Italian? We then need Italian divisions guarding the Hadrian wall in Britain too, I assume!?

You see the problem I have there. Thus my time criterion. I would sympathise with your thinking on the issue if Israel were founded just 3 or 5 years ago. But it is in place now for almost one man-year. Millions live, have lived and have died inside of it, and for it. I am not willing to ignore that. Call it pragmatism, or Realpolitik, or whatever. The place is fought over, with different reigns, since not centuries, but millenia. Ask yourself why this is so.

Finally you ignore that the Palestinian question is not really what drives the coflicts in the Muslim world. Said conflicts truly base on the civil war within that Muslim world, the conflict between Sunni and Shia. These two sides both use the place and the people as a proxy, and namely Saudi arabia and Iran will not stop fighting just because Israelis and Palestinians suddenly shake hands - becasue the latter conflict is not really the important key issue, although many people in the West think it is. But it isn't. For the same reason - and for the reason of seeking regional dominance - any nuclear armament of Iran necessarily will be the starting shot for Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey entering a nuclear arms race as well. And that is a historic path I do not trust the world would survive. The cold war we had was harmless, compared to that possibility now. and I mean the cold war that saw things like the false missile alarm of I think 1983, and the Cuba crisis.

If the real intention is to stop Iran achieving its own nuclear deterrent, the only way to succeed would be to invade and occupy, full scale.
You cannot invade and occpy a country the size of Iran. I was there for quite a moplkignber time, I also have an idea of the topograpohy therefore. Forget it, but learn from Afghanistan. the mountains. And hiuge areas of heavily rugged terrain. And the population i giot an impression of in the mid 90s of being extremely proud and patriotic. Even the opposition of the mullahs and their theocracy will rally around the nation'S flag and unite to resist to any invader.

You may remember that my conclusion alsways has been - since years - that if one seriously wants to destroy the program, a campaign of assassinations of their technical elite as well as the use of small nukes on certain key targets harbouring key installations of the weapon production, seems to be the only realistic chance. Cyberattacks only caused a small delay. Minor level of assassinations only caused delays. Economic sanction so far did nothing. Some air raids with conventional bombs so far appear to me as being able to only cause some delays, and probably can no longer reach certain installations anymore anway.

I personally think that we probably should have started to frequently bomb them while the installations were still in the phase of being build and constructed 15 years ago, and still were not readied inside of mountains.

Sure, that would not be nice. I never said that it would be. What I said is that I am so pissed by the situation with Pakistan and the high global danger it poses that I would will to do anything to prevent the establishing of a second Pakistan. Better a regional mess, than a global one.

The fact that the CIA and IAEA U-turned on their warnings could indicate a cynical reverse psychology - the people are sure we are lying, so we will tell them the truth (we have no evidence), and they will follow the lie again. YeeeeHAAAAH! :D that actually makes me laugh thinking about it. Tony Blair would be proud. Smoke and Mirrors.

To make that one thing clear - the CIA and the IAEA are not saying the same, but say opposite claims now.

Sammi79

03-26-12, 06:35 PM

Sammi,

There is one problem with the issue of "deterrent" nuclear capability. What can be used defensively, can be used offensively. Remember - there are a limited number of nations currently with that ability. Even so, world stability is dependant on the rationality of the LEAST STABLE ruler of such countries.

No, I am afraid it is far worse than that. The stability provided by nuclear deterrents is dependent on human individuals with their fingers on the launching buttons, who are worryingly fallible regardless of national or personal ideology. This was made painfully clear by US military exercises close to the U.S.S.R. during the cold war. Do you really think Iran would willingly sentence their whole country to death by atomic fire by authorising a nuclear strike? The religious claptrap is a tool of manipulation - the manipulators do not truly 'believe' in it. I believe in belief but it is not necessarily present in those who claim it.

Now - I am sorry if this offends, but I am going to point out a huge fallacy in your "deterrent" arguement. This idea that Iran is somehow threatened by Israel. Have you ever seen a map of the middle east? There are 2 countries and ~400 miles between the Israeli border and the Iranian one. So is Iran afraid that Israel is going to just drive its tanks through Syria/Iraq or Jordan/Iraq to invade? That whole premise is lacking in not only logic and common sense, but it also defies logistical possibility given the state of relations within the ME.

Additionally - this whole thing of "Israel is a threat" - HOW? Its not Israel that calls for people to blow up another country. Its not Israel that threatens to wipe another country off the map. Its Iran that does that...

I am aware of the geography having already mentioned the distance factor for Israeli air strikes, but thank you you for your concern (though that was an attempt at belittlement I think, no?). Threats? OK how's this; Israel is calling for prompt conventional attacks against Iran, and is trying desperately to get the US on side. This is what more than half the discussion here is about. Are you denying the fact that Israel is at this moment threatening Iran? In view of the 'special relationship' between Israel and the US, should Iran not feel threatened by the fact that their entire country is surrounded by US military bases?

Iran is a belligerent looking for a tool to bully others with. No country in the ME wants the Iranians to get a nuke. There are substantial arab governments working covertly and overtly to make sure they don't.

No need for Israel to worry, they already have their nuclear deterrent, eh? and no one wanted them to get it either did they?

Answer me this one... If Israel was a threat - how come it was able to live in peace and goodwill with Jordan and Egypt?

Hmmm. Tricky. Maybe because of a modernised military force and a demonstration of preemptive tactical doctrine and an economy (and therefore military capability) propped up by a particular superpower amongst others? You answer me this: Why does Israel need nuclear capability? Given the evident preemptive philosophy are you really so sure about their stability?

Israel isn't innocent - but it sure as heck isn't a threat to its neighbors in any military way. Its CULTURE is - because freedom is anathema to those who want a theocratic system based on Islam.

Right, no military threat at all unless you happen to be an Arab Palestinian, or an Iranian nuclear technician. Your last sentence is nearly spot on though. Freedom is indeed an anathema to those who want a theocratic system. That I commend you for, when is a nation going to bite the bullet and relegate religion from government, education and law? Anyway, CaptainHaplo, the points I made were / that the real intentions of all this posturing are quite likely not what they seem / that the UN should be the military force for intervention in matters like these if at all until an actual overt attack is being launched by one or the other at which time the defending nation and her allies are righteously expected to take any necessary action to defend herself / that the outcome of the Israeli threats were they to be carried out would not achieve the premise of their conception, rather the opposite. / that there is one certain way to stop Iran achieving nuclear capability, that is invasion and occupation. These points stand, and you are welcome to address them if you like. Sticks and stones, smoke and mirrors. Night night all.

Regards, Sam.

Skybird

03-26-12, 06:53 PM

No, I am afraid it is far worse than that. The stability provided by nuclear deterrents is dependent on human individuals with their fingers on the launching buttons, who are worryingly fallible regardless of national or personal ideology. This was made painfully clear by US military exercises close to the U.S.S.R. during the cold war. Do you really think Iran would willingly sentence their whole country to death by atomic fire by authorising a nuclear strike? The religious claptrap is a tool of manipulation - the manipulators do not truly 'believe' in it.
Iran is a theocracy, the decisive power is in the hands of Muslim clerics. Clerics are religious office holders and thus "irrational by definition", they put belief over rational argument and reason. Islam also is a very aggressive, totalitarian ideology, it is an ideology making a global supremacist claim for dominance, formed by the mind of a warrior willing to conquer. It is a conqueror's ideology, meant to create power by unity of own forces and supression of individual "deviation" - it means totalitarian control on all communal levels. Own losses get glorified and "holified".

Islam has demonstrated in past wars that it has a strong sympathy for the ideal of martyrdom. Also, sacrifice and martyrdom are strong motives especially in Shia mythology and history - and the Persians/Iranians are Shia. Different to this glorifying of death, Western/Christian armies traditionally were focussed on survival of the invidual (and are more so today than ever before), and less motivated to commit suicide in an attempt to turn into martyrs. The death-despising courage of Muslim armies in several battles and phases of history were proverbial in their times. Then, there is the willingness to accept even own side's innocent lives being provoked to get killed, it has been demonstrated since decades of terrorism and conflict in Palestinian-Israeli clashes and Lebanon wars. Muslim militias forced their own people to serve as human shields and getting killed, and used it as propaganda material, and are setting up legitimate military targets within civilian compounds, schools, hospitals, to provoke the killing of their own side'S civilians to gain scores in the propaganda war. Iran is close with events in Lebanon, you know. Finally, it is in the Quran as well, Muhammad encouraged his fighters to accept death in attacks on infidels and that they only fear it becaseu they do not know the happiness of afterlife.

I can only warn you to trust in the good heart and reasonability of a supremacist, missionary, fanatical religious thinking. A nuclear arms race in that region does nto comopare to the cold war between the US and the USSR. In no way. It would pose much greater risks and dangers to the world. And I would not bet money on that we would survive this time.

Also, the other great risk of a nuclear armed Iran comes from proliferation and Iran supporting terror groups to lead proxy strikes at Western targets. As a matter of fact I see the dangers of proliferation as even much greater than the chance of Iran nuking Israel and getting nuked in return.

You may not crave for death or self-sacrifice. But that does not mean that all others share your antipathy to martyrdom. Do not con lcude by your own good-willing motivces on the motives of the other, do not assume that because you see yourself as rational, the other necessarily must be rational as well. Do not conclude from the past cold war on how the next cold war in Arabia will unfold.

Tribesman

03-27-12, 02:05 AM

Also, as I explained, the legitimacy of most Palestinians' claim for property in former Palestine is questionable, to put it mildy - most of the people being there now, moved there AFTER Israel was founded.
Wow just wow:doh:
I am used to people trying to very badly play the statistics game over arab immigration before Israel was founded but after???????........unbelievable:88)

03-27-12, 10:57 AM

Wow... this thread is enormously enlightening.....
Simply lovely rationalization that put democratic free Israel on par with Iran or maybe higher as a threat to world peace.

Bravo...some you people should get out more.

I don't like current Israeli government so much but i'm glad that it doesn't try to satisfy world public opinion anymore...
In particular EU and UN who would like to put this country on suicidal route because this is much easier than to deal with zillion of Arabs
There is a logic to this but the problem is that they lie to themselves and to everybody.

Tribesman

03-27-12, 02:08 PM

Simply lovely rationalization that put democratic free Israel on par with Iran or maybe higher as a threat to world peace.

Remind me again how many countries has Iran invaded?
Remind me also how many countries it is still at war with?

Bravo...some you people should get out more.

Errrrrrr....bunkered:smug:

In particular EU and UN who would like to put this country on suicidal route because this is much easier than to deal with zillion of Arabs

The UN already put your country on that route when they foolishly dodged the terms of the declaration...didn't you realise:doh:

03-27-12, 02:47 PM

You should try this kind of cheap logic with Sammi.
His writing are fascinating unlike yours l0llox....by the way.:D

Tribesman

03-27-12, 02:56 PM

Were the measures too hard for you or did you just not like the truth you would express with the answers?
You could also try some other measures to see which is on par.
State supported international terrorism for example, crazy fundy nuts wielding undue influence on national policy, "alledged" WMD programs.

Very little to seperate them really is there, safest to say they they are pretty much on par when it comes to crappy regimes and threats to world piece.

03-27-12, 03:08 PM

Some people have got it hard wired it seems.
Not worth dealing with it.

Sammi79

03-29-12, 09:39 AM

After a few days away I looked back through the discussion here, and I thought I would comment once more. This time however I will bullet point my arguments that I feel have not been satisfactorily argued against, and expound a little on a few issues.

1) The real intentions of Israels threats toward Iran are quite likely not what they seem.

This argument is applicable to all governments actions, external or internal. Here in UK we have an old joke that goes; Q) how can you tell when a politician is lying? - A) His lips are moving. So Skybird, the red highlighted statement in your signature I can agree with to an extent, I would only add that all governments lie consistently, I'm unsure as to why you single out Europe. Israel is lying by omission with its ambiguity stance regarding its own nuclear weapons program. My opinion is that the reason Israel is directing such attention towards Iran and their nuclear program is most likely to take global attention off their continued expansion and settlement in Palestinian land - this may be a sticky point for those who deny the concept of Palestinian land, but I think we can agree it is not Israeli land? Anyway it is irrelevant, it is simply my opinion and it's OK if you do not share it.

2) The UN should be the military force for intervention in matters like these.

Let me make it clear, when I said I support the concept of the UN, that is exactly what I meant. I do not dispute that the UN are impotent nor suffering from corrupt leadership (back to point 1) and I have stated the reasons why I think this is so, mainly because nations seem unwilling to support the idea in practice and instead approach it from a purely selfish angle. Verbally, the US supports the UN view on Israeli occupation in Palestine, but they veto every resolution that attempts to bring pressure against Israel to resolve this matter. The lips are moving, but the hands show the real intention. Likewise, with mad mullahs raging, it is simply words. When the actions come, then we can see. The wars in which Israel defended herself are over now. There may well be more to come, granted, but Israel is not helping herself avoid these possibilities by outwardly threatening Iran with military attacks.

3) The outcome of the Israeli threats were they to be carried out would not achieve the premise of their conception, rather the opposite.

All evidence suggests that the setbacks would be temporary, maybe gaining a few years breathing time at best, and at worst no real change to the time frame at all, if as Skybird suggests that the pertinent Iranian facilities are hidden underground and fortified against conventional attacks. Above all it would definitely exacerbate anti-US/Israel sentiment across the ME, giving more power to those governments who vocalise it, as well as pushing Iran to increase its nuclear efforts and follow Israels opacity principle to keep the IAEA or indeed any prying foreign eyes out of the loop. The latest IAEA report concludes that while there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, they have been denied access to the facility at Parchin, and are therefore unable to assert that it does not exist. Again a double standard exists here in that Israel is in no way transparent in nuclear development/production terms, nor is the US. It is fine to say 'But they're mad!' and 'We're stable!' and maybe even correct, but you can not have different rules for each. If our nations governments are so stable, what is the problem with complying to these rules that are insisted upon countries like Iran? In regard to a nuclear arms race in the ME, I'm afraid Israel must accept their responsibility for the instigation of it.

4) There is one certain way to stop Iran achieving nuclear capability, that is invasion and occupation.

This is almost certainly impossible for a single nation mainly down to geographical reasons. Could it be done by many nations united? possibly I guess, but certainly attrition would be a worrying factor for all involved. On the other hand, conventional strikes however limited would suffer similarly as Iran is reasonably well equipped, regardless of the fun that is regularly made of their military capability. I would add, that even an overwhelming force can be heavily vulnerable to guerrilla tactics, particularly if the native sentiment is set against the invader, and overconfidence has led to some of biggest slaughters in history.

In regard to Palestine, the demographics as of 2006 show that the numbers of Jewish and non Jewish people in Israel and Palestine and the Golan heights combined are roughly equal, and slightly in favour of Jews. So if Israel annexed the entire territory, they would still have a Jewish majority albeit a small one. If they did this, they would do so under their own terms, so rights to return could simply be denied. Time was, when nations didn't like what other nations were doing, they just stopped business, rather than poking and threatening. The trouble here is the global dependence on oil, which Iran is a major exporter of. Ultimately the only way to combat Iran effectively is to reduce our own dependence on oil. My honest opinion is that these things must start at home. Drop all the double standards, and lead from the front. If you (as I) find the integration of religion and government to be wrong, then persuade your government to become truly secular, maybe the Iranian people would take note and follow.

Regards, Sam.

03-29-12, 10:23 AM

Sammi this is really lovely post.
Point number one is wrong... because it is wrong just as 9/11 wasn't Israeli job.
As for the UN well...we need world to be run by good aliens if you want UN to have any credibility.

Annexing all west bang(:D) ?
Sorry...i don't want million Arabs inside Israel with voting rights and more millions flooding the country..
It is enough for me to see whats going on around ME and behold... EU.
Actually i want Palestinians to have their own state at some time...currently 90% of them live under autonomy and choose their own PA leaders.

I have real problem with my daughter growing in a country under nuclear thread from religious nuts.
You can rationalises this to your self because you are there .... but I'm here and i will not.
We have enough crap going here as it is....no other country would normally allow to happen.

................

Those sucker plans EU politicians or some other"intellectuals" can keep to themselves.

Skybird

03-29-12, 11:45 AM

I apologize in advance for the many typos that probably are in there: :D

1) The real intentions of Israels threats toward Iran are quite likely not what they seem.

This argument is applicable to all governments actions, external or internal. Here in UK we have an old joke that goes; Q) how can you tell when a politician is lying? - A) His lips are moving. So Skybird, the red highlighted statement in your signature I can agree with to an extent, I would only add that all governments lie consistently, I'm unsure as to why you single out Europe. Israel is lying by omission with its ambiguity stance regarding its own nuclear weapons program. My opinion is that the reason Israel is directing such attention towards Iran and their nuclear program is most likely to take global attention off their continued expansion and settlement in Palestinian land - this may be a sticky point for those who deny the concept of Palestinian land, but I think we can agree it is not Israeli land? Anyway it is irrelevant, it is simply my opinion and it's OK if you do not share it.

I do not share your view, since I see no indication for the truth of it. In fact I wonder how you can seriously assume Israel's worries about Iran'S nukes are just an attempt to distract attention from innerpoltical issues.

Already the Shah had started to seek for nuclear weapons and nuclear energy as well. When Khomenei took over in 1979, the so far civilian reasearch and construction was stopped, however, the rumour that Khomenei should have released a fatwha ruling that owning or using nuclear weapons were unislamic and that Iran should not go that way, until today is an unproven rumour only, it is not true, their are no records, no evidence, and no witnesses that such a fatwha was ever given. As a matter of fact in 1984 or 1985 Khomenei authorised the restart of the nuclear research program, probably as a reaciton to the claims that Saddam - the war was still raging - was trying to get nuclear weapons as well. The RG took it upon them to start going after nuclear and chemical weapons, by direct order of Khomenei - and this is a documented fact, the IAEA has according documents from the inner politcal cicrcle around Khomenei of that time. Khomenei argued that it was in need of defending the Islamic revolution as well as in preparation of the Shia world for the coming of the missing Mahdi.

1987 Iran bought information on nuclear enrichement, and industrial components from Pakistani nuclear criminal Quadeer Khan, including specialised technology needed to build weapon-capable enriched uran.

Khomenei's successor Khamenei later repeatedly declared that the nuclear bomb were unislamic and that Iran were not seeking weapons of that kind. The problem is, that he is most likely lying, and that is because of this: int he Shia traditiuon, though meanwhile also copied by Sunnia tradition as well, there is this thing called taqiyya. It means the explciit permssion to lie in order to deive the enemy, to lie in order to save oneself in being in danger, and to lie in order to help a higher intetrest of Islam. I would even argue that regarding a higher cause beneficial for Islam, Shia ;Muslims under the rule of taqiyya are even obliged to lie and deceive, if needed or appropriate. And this is a big problem.

Because it means the cancellation of all and any basis for diploatic and treaty-rerlating interation and communication., When you know the other hasd the self-declared right to lie and deceive at any time it is beneficial for him, then all traties, all signatures, all words, all egotations, all agreements mean nothing anymore. You can never trust the other, because he is a notorious liar if he sees fit.

And that means any piece of paper that the Iranian government agrees to sign - must not need anything at all. Becasue in princple theyx have cancelled any agreement over evben the most basic principles of international and diplomatic interaction.

Why is there dispute between Ahmadinejadh and the clerics? It'S simple to see. The clerics hoped to decieve the west over the wepaon program by keeing a low proifile and giving lies about it, saying it did not exist. Big-mpouthed Ahmadinejadh just cannot shut up and starts boasting about wiping out Israel and so on. Which directs the attention of the world to where the clerics wanted to avoid it to be: on the nuclear weapons program.

2) The UN should be the military force for intervention in matters like these.

Let me make it clear, when I said I support the concept of the UN, that is exactly what I meant. I do not dispute that the UN are impotent nor suffering from corrupt leadership (back to point 1) and I have stated the reasons why I think this is so, mainly because nations seem unwilling to support the idea in practice and instead approach it from a purely selfish angle. Verbally, the US supports the UN view on Israeli occupation in Palestine, but they veto every resolution that attempts to bring pressure against Israel to resolve this matter. The lips are moving, but the hands show the real intention. Likewise, with mad mullahs raging, it is simply words. When the actions come, then we can see. The wars in which Israel defended herself are over now. There may well be more to come, granted, but Israel is not helping herself avoid these possibilities by outwardly threatening Iran with military attacks.

The UN forces in Lebanon and Palestinian places have acted anything but neuteal in past wars between Israel and it'S neighbours, namels the Lebanon war. The Un allowed Hezbollah to overhear their - uncoded radio-traffic by which they reported about Israeli military m,ovements. The UN allowed Hezbollah to crawl over its places and bunkers, and then complained when Israel shot at these, claiming it were a direct on the UN, not Hezbollah.
Beyong that, the uN is impotent and incompetent to run bklue helmet missions in "hot" conflict zones", it cannot even defend itself, but relies on the good will of the other parties. the UN's record of military missions is anything but breathtaking, isn't it.
Israel does not help itself when containing what it necessarily mustr see as a giant threat to its mere existence, you say. Well, I have not heared any realistic alternative to that from you. When you take into account that I see Iranian proliferation and the risks of a nuclear arms race in the instabile, irrational region as two factors that both are far more dangerous than a direct Iranian threat against Israel, yopu should at least understand why to me not the apovidance of a war is priority, but the avoidance of nulcear wepaons in Iran. If that can be guaranteed - moinitored and beyodn doubt - without a war, fine. If war is needed to guarantee it, so be it. But my pripority is not to avoid war at any cost. My priority is to deny nukes to Iran. I do not see y<ou in the psoition to offering an alternative.

I have made ic clear sinc years nbow that I will not support a small war to just buy time. However, I can understand Israel if it acts by that prnciple, due to lacking support from the US. I thus would stay neutral and also would not actively oppose it. But to me, when you launch a war and start the klilin and destruction, then you better put your heart into it so that the chaos and the horror is not in vein and you can achcieve the objective which shoiuld be such thatr it justifies to your conscience the hell you have let loose. There are no just wars, too many innocent inevtiably get effected, always. But juzstice is not what war is about, but objectives. There are only wars of need and wars of desire. The latter are to be avoided. My mission objective needed in order to actively support a war against Iran instead of sitting neutral on the sidefence, is the destruction of all cmponents necessary to run a nuclear industry and weapon program (its too hard to keep the two separate). For anything less I am not wlliung to acitvely supoort and will the killing and destrtuction being done. War means: go all the way, or do not even get started. And that is why I even do not rule oput the use of small nukes on nuclear-program related tragets that cannot be cracked open by conventional bombs. I do not like it either, but if I may claim that adjective for my position: it is about DETERMINATION.

So far Iran knows that almost nobody in the West is determioned to do what is needed to prevent nukes in Iran. Iran on its own behald is determined to get nukes at all cost, no matter what. And this is why Iran is winning.

3) The outcome of the Israeli threats were they to be carried out would not achieve the premise of their conception, rather the opposite.

All evidence
Evidence...?
suggests that the setbacks would be temporary, maybe gaining a few years breathing time at best, and at worst no real change to the time frame at all, if as Skybird suggests that the pertinent Iranian facilities are hidden underground and fortified against conventional attacks. Above all it would definitely exacerbate anti-US/Israel sentiment across the ME, giving more power to those governments who vocalise it, as well as pushing Iran to increase its nuclear efforts and follow Israels opacity principle to keep the IAEA or indeed any prying foreign eyes out of the loop.
So nothing new in the ME then.

The latest IAEA report concludes that while there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, they have been denied access to the facility at Parchin, and are therefore unable to assert that it does not exist. Again a double standard exists here in that Israel is in no way transparent in nuclear development/production terms, nor is the US. It is fine to say 'But they're mad!' and 'We're stable!' and maybe even correct, but you can not have different rules for each. If our nations governments are so stable, what is the problem with complying to these rules that are insisted upon countries like Iran? In regard to a nuclear arms race in the ME, I'm afraid Israel must accept their responsibility for the instigation of it.

First, the reports on the IAEA I have read in our poress over here, even in extremely left-leaniong papersd, where a bit stricter in their conclusions on what the IAEA know for sure. Second, Israel is not an agressor nor a threat to its neigjhbours, and never was. Several governments meanwhile understood this, and understood that Israel does not engage and poses no risk of ever getting engaged in regime destabilising in Saudi Arabia or Egypt. It stays passive on the inner power struggles of regimes. After three lost wars of attack and the maintained passivity of Israel afterwards, the Saudis and Egyptions fianlly understopod that. They went to idle mode until history will have chnaged the tides of time again, in favour of themselves, or the other. Islam maintains peace as long as it cannot win the ongoing conquest.

Iran on the other hand is acting since a very long time as an unhidden aggressor and intimidator, and is engaged in international terrorism, in terror and fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria, and in general: in proxy wars with Sunni Islamic states, especially Saudi Arabia which it wants to rival in leading role of the Muslim world. And, as always, its this one-millenia old civil war of theirs.

4) There is one certain way to stop Iran achieving nuclear capability, that is invasion and occupation.

Non-practicable.

In regard to Palestine, the demographics as of 2006 show that the numbers of Jewish and non Jewish people in Israel and Palestine and the Golan heights combined are roughly equal, and slightly in favour of Jews.
According to the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs, there live 3.7 million Palestinians in Gaza and West Jordan, and 1.2 million in Israel. There are 2.6 million Palestinians - most with a refugee status - in Jordan. There are 1.8 Palestinians living in other Arab states and in the US. That makes 9.4 million Palestinians all in all. Mind you, we do not talk about an ethnic group, a race, a separate culture - we are talking about Arabs.
Israsel currently is listed with a population of 7.8 million, three quarters of them being Jewish.
There is the shared group of Palestinians that are Israeli citizenbs of Arab origin.
This gives Palestinians a majority, sicne they claim the right for free return of all Palestinians to "Palestine". And that means problems for Israel.

It means additional problems if you realise what damage even smaller minrotiies can do to a state community whejhn revolting.

It means even ore problems when remembering the baisc anti-semtie attidue and anti-Jewish racism in Islam.

And finally, and this cloases the assessement with a clear verdict, there is the issue of different bith rates. The birth rate of Palestinian Arabs living in the Palestinian region, is usually rated between 7.5 and 9. The Israeli birth rate is close to 3. Doing some math on basis of the current population composition in Israeli territory, and the current age structure, the Studiengemeinschaft Friedensforschung in Germany expect that around the year 2045 there will live as many Palestinians inside Israel than Jews. Not counted the Palestinians in Gaza and West-Jordan. Not counted the Palestiians living in other states in the region, wanting to return. Not counted the Palestinians living all over the world which the Palestinians want be given a general right for returning.

Now take a scale, and weigh this.

And another implication fromt he age structure and high birth rate, is the so-called ypouth-bvulge, and why this makes scoeities extremely extrovert, aggressive, and militant. I leave it to you to inform yourslf on that, the names you wanmt to google are "Gunnar Heinsohn" and "youth bulge". Diufferent than claimed by his critics, his statistical basis and maths he is basing on is very very solid. I know some of his books very well.

So if Israel annexed the entire territory, they would still have a Jewish majority albeit a small one. If they did this, they would do so under their own terms, so rights to return could simply be denied.
Just see what I just wrote above on population and birth rates.
Time was, when nations didn't like what other nations were doing, they just stopped business, rather than poking and threatening. The trouble here is the global dependence on oil, which Iran is a major exporter of.
Ultimately the only way to combat Iran effectively is to reduce our own dependence on oil. My honest opinion is that these things must start at home.
The US imports I think zeroi oil from Iran, most Ezuroppean natiosn also don'T do that anymore, only some soputhern European countries did until recently, which was the EU's argument to delay sanctions on Iran (so much for the West'S determination). The losses from the froozen trade with Europoe has been made up for by increasing delivery of oil to China. china has pressed through some rabates due to the increased volume they buy, still the losses to Iran due to these rabates are not hurting, it seems. India stands ready to buy more oil as well.

Drop all the double standards, and lead from the front. If you (as I) find the integration of religion and government to be wrong, then persuade your government to become truly secular, maybe the Iranian people would take note and follow.
You must be kidding. We are talking about an Islamic theocracy enagged in several aggressive wars and terrorirsm, torture, supression of its own people, and basing on ideology of supremacist claism for dominance, while the West acts weak, undetermined, and meaningless, have you forgotten all that? What shining example has the West to offer that you would see as being able to cinvince them to be no longer what they are? We are weak and old, fat and tired, they are hungry and determined, vital and aggressive - and you think they will follow us? We run from them, that's the namke of the current game!

This confrontation is enforced upon us, the enemy is unwavering, and determined. It is high time that we act accordingly, instead of only hoping, whining, and ignoring realities that we do not like.

Sammi79

04-01-12, 08:45 AM

Alright, an essay deserves a reply, though this discussion has run its course, I think. For times sake as I do not have much currently I will limit quoting and replying Skybird to a few select pieces where an opinion is presented as a opposed to an history lesson and that I feel are relevant to the previous discussion.

I do not share your view, since I see no indication for the truth of it. In fact I wonder how you can seriously assume Israel's worries about Iran'S nukes are just an attempt to distract attention from innerpoltical issues.

So we disagree. That's OK. I only wonder how you can ignore both the possibility and plausibility.

Khomenei's successor Khamenei later repeatedly declared that the nuclear bomb were unislamic and that Iran were not seeking weapons of that kind. The problem is, that he is most likely lying, and that is because of this: int he Shia traditiuon, though meanwhile also copied by Sunnia tradition as well, there is this thing called taqiyya. It means the explciit permssion to lie in order to deive the enemy, to lie in order to save oneself in being in danger, and to lie in order to help a higher intetrest of Islam. I would even argue that regarding a higher cause beneficial for Islam, Shia ;Muslims under the rule of taqiyya are even obliged to lie and deceive, if needed or appropriate. And this is a big problem.

This is not an exclusively Iranian, Islamic or Arabic problem. This is simply lying for ones own benefit or when it suits one, which is intrinsic to all governments. How do you know when a politician is lying?

Why is there dispute between Ahmadinejadh and the clerics? It'S simple to see. The clerics hoped to decieve the west over the wepaon program by keeing a low proifile and giving lies about it, saying it did not exist. Big-mpouthed Ahmadinejadh just cannot shut up and starts boasting about wiping out Israel and so on. Which directs the attention of the world to where the clerics wanted to avoid it to be: on the nuclear weapons program.

There is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. I'm not saying I don't think there is one, in fact I am sure there is, I'm saying that currently the absence of evidence is only evidence of absence, and until that changes, no decisions should be made regarding it. And while we're waiting, would Israel like to enlighten the world on its own nuclear weapons program? you know, the one that has not existed since the '50s, and is still not existing today, if omission and documented ambiguity is to be believed as evidence of absence.

Israel does not help itself when containing what it necessarily mustr see as a giant threat to its mere existence, you say. Well, I have not heared any realistic alternative to that from you. When you take into account that I see Iranian proliferation and the risks of a nuclear arms race in the instabile, irrational region as two factors that both are far more dangerous than a direct Iranian threat against Israel, yopu should at least understand why to me not the apovidance of a war is priority, but the avoidance of nulcear wepaons in Iran. If that can be guaranteed - moinitored and beyodn doubt - without a war, fine. If war is needed to guarantee it, so be it. But my pripority is not to avoid war at any cost. My priority is to deny nukes to Iran. I do not see y<ou in the psoition to offering an alternative.

You do not need to teach me about the inneffectual nature of the UN, I already stated my awareness of these facts in my previous post. It is the concept that is right, and that I support. Any alternatives, like the US using its military for instance, I can not support. Quite apart from the costs being projected onto the American taxpayer, a global issue as you and Israel demand this is, needs to be supported globally, by a unite of nations. Otherwise it cannot be anything other than regional hegemony, and the bullying is in this case clearly coming from Israel. How exactly is Iran a giant threat to Israels existence? the old geography argument springs to mind. They are not neighbours. Any action taken by Iran is subject to the same problems Israel wants to avoid by using US military bases. You mention a nuclear arms race, but you ignore the truth that this started in the '50s when Israel started their own program. All I have done is to point out, that in every scenario yet imagined apart from occupation which we agree is impossible, Iran will eventually complete a bomb, if that is, and we think it is, their intention. My position is not to offer alternatives to an objective that has no possibility of achievement. I understand your worries about proliferation and terrorism, yet I cannot understand why in your case these worries apply exclusively to Iran. Your argument is based on your opinion that Ahmadinejad is a fundamentalist Islamic madman. You may be right, but I think the truth is less clear cut. I believe in belief but it is not necessarily present in those who claim it, and I think nations figureheads like to trumpet their 'beliefs' for pure political reasons, rather than because of real faith. I expect many Muslims inside or outside Iran would be quite ready to explain to us exactly why he is not a true 'believer'. If your argument is correct, then the whole world is doomed as he will push the button as soon as he is able - I think it highly unlikely he is that simple, and he won't be in power there for more than another year or so anyway. But you want alternatives, OK.

Cease all business with Iran on ALL levels. (this is being done through sanctions I understand, but unfortunately almost all nations today prefer to keep some channels open, sending mixed messages and undermining the outwardly intended effects) There also has to be some incentive to nations who feel currently there is no reason to cease business with Iran. Note, incentives, not punitive measures.
All nations currently holding nuclear armaments should make their stocks of warheads+delivery systems transparent globally, including Israel and the US. If every nation did this as a matter of course, Iran would have a much harder time keeping theirs hid.
OK, here's one :D;
Israel could make a deal with Iran, to start openly disassembling its own nuclear stocks and platforms, in return for Iran doing the same. To be supervised by a unite of nations. :har:

I have made ic clear sinc years nbow that I will not support a small war to just buy time. However, I can understand Israel if it acts by that prnciple, due to lacking support from the US. I thus would stay neutral and also would not actively oppose it. But to me, when you launch a war and start the klilin and destruction, then you better put your heart into it so that the chaos and the horror is not in vein and you can achcieve the objective which shoiuld be such thatr it justifies to your conscience the hell you have let loose. There are no just wars, too many innocent inevtiably get effected, always. But juzstice is not what war is about, but objectives. There are only wars of need and wars of desire. The latter are to be avoided. My mission objective needed in order to actively support a war against Iran instead of sitting neutral on the sidefence, is the destruction of all cmponents necessary to run a nuclear industry and weapon program (its too hard to keep the two separate). For anything less I am not wlliung to acitvely supoort and will the killing and destrtuction being done. War means: go all the way, or do not even get started. And that is why I even do not rule oput the use of small nukes on nuclear-program related tragets that cannot be cracked open by conventional bombs. I do not like it either, but if I may claim that adjective for my position: it is about DETERMINATION.

I do believe you just advocated the aggressive use of nuclear weapons. Bravo, I am very glad you are not an Iranian/Israeli politician. You also say you support only an all out war as opposed to a limited conflict but then contradict yourself by limiting strikes to nuclear facilities. So on this I must firmly disagree with your logic.

Evidence...?

For someone apparently so well read, I am surprised you seem unaware of the most comparable historical incident. Wikipedia for an overview : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak

First, the reports on the IAEA I have read in our poress over here, even in extremely left-leaniong papersd, where a bit stricter in their conclusions on what the IAEA know for sure.

Well, I read the actual report that can be downloaded as a .pdf and my statement is a direct paraphrase from the conclusion summary. The fact that you read reports in media format may be a clue as to why there seems to be more speculation in your view. Here you can get it : http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeairan/iaea_reports.shtml

Regarding the Palestinian topic of which this thread was not about, I have given my opinions as to how Israel should act. Either desist or take. By taking they impose their own terms, so like I already said, rights to return could be denied. If the worry is eventual out breeding simply impose a law of the land - no more than 2 children per couple or something. It took a while but it worked in China, No? And to reproach your previous retort and paraphrase you, I don't hear you offering any alternatives. Keeping the situation as it is only increases global anti-Israeli sentiment and quite deservedly so as theirs is a government who commits state sponsored terrorism, and genocide upon a people who have literally nothing. Do you not wonder why they have not yet gone away? What is your alternative?

Anyway, I can agree to disagree Skybird. I do not search for a reply from you though I am fairly sure you will give it.

Also MH, thank you for your replies, I hope for you and your families sakes that these situations are resolved somehow sooner rather than later or never.

Regards, Sam.

gimpy117

04-01-12, 09:04 AM

It is our all business. Iran withz nuclear weapons does not pose a threat to just Israel. It poses a threat to just everybody - neighbours, Russia, Europe, America.

Like it or not, the US military by far is more potent for an operation like that, than the Eurpoean forces alltogether. Europoe does not have the logistics, and numbers to go it all alone. It also does not have the will and backbone. Its not about quality only - it is about numbers.

oh, we are right to be involved in this one, but I would really like to see the other nations more vocal however.

but in many many other cases, it's been just us thinking it's our job to get nosy in other countries' affairs. mostly because we need to buy something from them because it's cheap (because we shot ourselves in the foot and got rid of our manufacturing).

Skybird

04-01-12, 03:18 PM

So we disagree. That's OK. I only wonder how you can ignore both the possibility and plausibility.
I don't, but I weigh it agaunst the plausability of a nuclear porgram existing, and the threat it poses. This makes the scenario you put up very unlikely - too unolikely in probability as if I would bet the world's fate on it.

This is not an exclusively Iranian, Islamic or Arabic problem. This is simply lying for ones own benefit or when it suits one, which is intrinsic to all governments. How do you know when a politician is lying?
Khomenei and Khamenei iussued according fatwas, or in caser of Khomenei are rumoured at leats to have. Fatwas are religiously founded statements, rulings or judgements havign the character of a mandatory law. Unknowing Westerners love to believe in fatwas, if they are of a ciontent that they want to hear, for example a fatwa that Iran shall not have nukes. But a fatwa in Shia tradition can be used for taqiyya, for deceiving the infidel and/or the enemy. It's trustworthy thus is non-existent.

There is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. I'm not saying I don't think there is one, in fact I am sure there is, I'm saying that currently the absence of evidence is only evidence of absence, and until that changes, no decisions should be made regarding it. And while we're waiting, would Israel like to enlighten the world on its own nuclear weapons program? you know, the one that has not existed since the '50s, and is still not existing today, if omission and documented ambiguity is to be believed as evidence of absence.
There is also nio evidence that I will soot a bullet at your head when holding a weapon to your sleeve and putting the finger on the trigger. But the preparatory act is suspicious enought hat it justiofies immediate axction of self-defence even before the bullet has left the gun. Because when the trigger has been pulled, it is too late.

Yes, I reserve the right to strike at somebody not because he already has shot at me but even already because he trims a weapon on my position. It needs trust in the other not do defend oneself in such a situation. I see no trust justfiied in case of Iran. None at all. Not even the smallest ammount of.

You do not need to teach me about the inneffectual nature of the UN, I already stated my awareness of these facts in my previous post. It is the concept that is right, and that I support.
The UN is dysfunctional because of its design and concept. Which makes the concept a dysfunctional one. And that you support? The concepot is not worth much if it only allows to be turned into a reality in an utpoic garden Eden. But when it does nto work in the relaity we are situated in, then it is no concept adequate for our situation. This is why the UN had no chance from all beginning on to ever fulfill its idealistic promises. It aims at dreams that explicitly ignore the harsh reality.

Any alternatives, like the US using its military for instance, I can not support.

You can, but you do not want to. Ability and desire are two things.

Quite apart from the costs being projected onto the American taxpayer, a global issue as you and Israel demand this is, needs to be supported globally, by a unite of nations.
This would be desirably, but is not needed in full. For example the militzary support of Toga Island or the Maldevians would not do any effect, and symbolic acts is not what I am tzaking miuch interest in, ever. What would be needed that those being the porimary target of Irtan'S attention stand together and somehow share the costs. The nations most liekly to be efcted from Iranian nuclear proloferation, blackmailing, or war. Certainly true, a cold war in the Guld region could turn all the globe into a hell, but if others support me in trying to prevent it is niot that much important if my fate is at strake anyhowl with othgers sharing the stakes or not. I am still effected, and thus it is my interest to defend myself and prevent it all no matter whether I stand alone or together with some others, or all.

Otherwise it cannot be anything other than regional hegemony, and the bullying is in this case clearly coming from Israel. How exactly is Iran a giant threat to Israels existence?
You cannot mean that question serious.

the old geography argument springs to mind. They are not neighbours. Any action taken by Iran is subject to the same problems Israel wants to avoid by using US military bases.
Iran developes nulcear missiles. These do not need neighbouring enemies. Their latest missiles deveklopements are planned to reach as far as France and Britain. Israel's preemptiove strike to delay or dstroy it without using nukes, must depend on more complex logistics and infrastructure therefore. You compare apples with oranges here.

You mention a nuclear arms race, but you ignore the truth that this started in the '50s when Israel started their own program.

Strange that Saudi arabia and Egypt and Turkey stayed away from such a problem, and that syria went after nukes not before the stupid US war showed a dangerous aggressiveness of the American neocons. Iraq saught nukes in the 70s and 80s not becasue of Israel, but Iran.

All I have done is to point out, that in every scenario yet imagined apart from occupation which we agree is impossible, Iran will eventually complete a bomb, if that is, and we think it is, their intention. My position is not to offer alternatives to an objective that has no possibility of achievement. I understand your worries about proliferation and terrorism, yet I cannot understand why in your case these worries apply exclusively to Iran.

They also apply to POakistan and North Korea, and both have proven how well jiustified such concerns are. Israel on the other hand is not known to arm terrpor groupos with nukes or prolliferating nuclear weapons to instabile regimes of aggressive hostile intentions. Israel sits in a very hostile region where all neighbiours were or still are enemeies. That this attotude always is existent even when treaties are in place, show the revolutions in the Arab world. The Egyptian government may have acted pragnmatically and for not expolcievely relgious motives - but the Egypt general hostility towards Jews alwys was there, and showed more penly again since Mubarak's fall. All Muslims countries in the region, and all ,those where I have been, HATE Jews. I as a German was soemtimes told how proud I should be that my people managed to get so many Jews killed. Turks said in German and Turkish emporicial studies that they do not want to have Jewish neihghbours. And so on and on. The racism is always there, and the hate. Against infidels in general, and Jews in very special.

Have you ever heared comparable things about Muslims from Jews?

Your argument is based on your opinion that Ahmadinejad is a fundamentalist Islamic madman. You may be right, but I think the truth is less clear cut. I believe in belief but it is not necessarily present in those who claim it, and I think nations figureheads like to trumpet their 'beliefs' for pure political reasons, rather than because of real faith. I expect many Muslims inside or outside Iran would be quite ready to explain to us exactly why he is not a true 'believer'. If your argument is correct, then the whole world is doomed as he will push the button as soon as he is able -
How moften ,must I say that a direct Iranian attack on Israel is the smallest of my three major concerns? Proliferation and a cold war in THAT rtegion are far moire worrying to me. On you assumptions about Ahmadinejadh, these ares a bit too misty and indifferent for my taste as that I would bet my life on them. That he has been a leading member of the mpob attacking the US embassy tells me enough about the level of fanatism in his mind - at least enough as that I would not trust anythign he ever priomises or says. And then again: taqiyya.

I think it highly unlikely he is that simple, and he won't be in power there for more than another year or so anyway. But you want alternatives, OK.

Cease all business with Iran on ALL levels. (this is being done through sanctions I understand, but unfortunately almost all nations today prefer to keep some channels open, sending mixed messages and undermining the outwardly intended effects) There also has to be some incentive to nations who feel currently there is no reason to cease business with Iran. Note, incentives, not punitive measures.
That this will acchieve something is unrealistic. Economic sanctions are always demanded when nations are shy of threatening violence. The decision makers are not effected by them, btw, just the rodinary people. The regime is striong, the RG rule with iron fists, the oppositions was shot down just some years ago, and not for the first time. Successful uprises are unlikely. Also, I learned to know the IUranians a bit, I stayedf there for some longer time. If pressed, they will stand together, no matter whether they love the aristocracy or not.

All nations currently holding nuclear armaments should make their stocks of warheads+delivery systems transparent globally, including Israel and the US. If every nation did this as a matter of course, Iran would have a much harder time keeping theirs hid.
Why? Iran wants no fair deals. It wants nukes.

OK, here's one :D;
Israel could make a deal with Iran, to start openly disassembling its own nuclear stocks and platforms, in return for Iran doing the same. To be supervised by a unite of nations. :har:

I take it as granted that even you do not take this serious yourself.

I do believe you just advocated the aggressive use of nuclear weapons. Bravo, I am very glad you are not an Iranian/Israeli politician. You also say you support only an all out war as opposed to a limited conflict but then contradict yourself by limiting strikes to nuclear facilities. So on this I must firmly disagree with your logic.
I advicate to be all detmerined when you go to ar, and if you are not detemrioned to do what is needed to achieve your war objectives, then you should not even get started. Give me a conventiuonal weapkj nthat guarantees to reach the hardened targets that are critical, and I stop talking about nukes. The priuority is the destruction of certain key targets - how that gets achcieved (and gets acchieved FOR SURE), is of secondary importance only.

I do not taker this deciison lightly. 8 years ago or so I was strictly against using mini.nukes in any first strike and said that there is no excuse to ever use them first. I had change my mind because I had to change my opinion about Iran. My determination grew with my realising of how determined they are.

There is a TV Sunday crime movie I want to watch now, I already missed the first minutes, so I break off here. Sorry.

04-01-12, 04:16 PM

You do not need to teach me about the inneffectual nature of the UN, I already stated my awareness of these facts in my previous post. It is the concept that is right, and that I support. Any alternatives, like the US using its military for instance, I can not support. Quite apart from the costs being projected onto the American taxpayer, a global issue as you and Israel demand this is, needs to be supported globally, by a unite of nations. Otherwise it cannot be anything other than regional hegemony, and the bullying is in this case clearly coming from Israel. How exactly is Iran a giant threat to Israels existence? the old geography argument springs to mind. They are not neighbours. Any action taken by Iran is subject to the same problems Israel wants to avoid by using US military bases. You mention a nuclear arms race, but you ignore the truth that this started in the '50s when Israel started their own program. All I have done is to point out, that in every scenario yet imagined apart from occupation which we agree is impossible, Iran will eventually complete a bomb, if that is, and we think it is, their intention. My position is not to offer alternatives to an objective that has no possibility of achievement. I understand your worries about proliferation and terrorism, yet I cannot understand why in your case these worries apply exclusively to Iran. Your argument is based on your opinion that Ahmadinejad is a fundamentalist Islamic madman. You may be right, but I think the truth is less clear cut. I believe in belief but it is not necessarily present in those who claim it, and I think nations figureheads like to trumpet their 'beliefs' for pure political reasons, rather than because of real faith. I expect many Muslims inside or outside Iran would be quite ready to explain to us exactly why he is not a true 'believer'. If your argument is correct, then the whole world is doomed as he will push the button as soon as he is able - I think it highly unlikely he is that simple, and he won't be in power there for more than another year or so anyway. But you want alternatives, OK.
.

Simple scenario...
As to geographical proximity check out who is making calls in Lebanon Syria and Gaza....
I can easily imagine how things can get out of control on those borders and Iran starts waving with its nuclear dick.
The last thing needed is sort of Cuban crisis every time someone feels like jihad.
....and then of course Israel will have to show a lot of restrain possibly when missile will start falling on Tel Aviv....the south we got used to it.:doh:
What about installing some nukes in Syria?....have to see first how the uprising will end up.
Maybe sending ammunition flotilla to Gaza and all politicians just rationalising Israel to pass them through because of crazy Iranian talk.
You don't really need to push the button.....under normal circumstances Israel has a big problem to defend it self effectively due to politics.
Look for Glodston report as great example of UN objectivity or false hopes.

The last...it is also hard to deny that they(the Iranian mullahs) are religious nuts after all.

As to wider regional complication-we already been through that.

@Skybird-take it easy with nuking stuff lol.

..........................