Netanyahu warns on Iran timetable

Jimbuna · 03-09-12, 03:27 PM

Looks like the clock never stopped ticking but is actually beginning to speed up.

Quote:

Israel's PM Benjamin Netanyahu has warned he will not countenance a long delay in launching an attack on Iran's nuclear sites.
He told Israel's Channel 2 station he did not have a stopwatch, but added: "This is not a matter of days or weeks. It is also not a matter of years."
He said the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons had to be removed.
Mr Netanyahu has just returned from the US, where President Barack Obama said there was still time for diplomacy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17316638

Skybird · 03-09-12, 03:40 PM

If Obama is seriously meanignn what he says, that there is still a chance for diplomacy, than he is a totally braindead, retarded idiot. The diplomatic exchange is has been going through many many dozens of we talk-they talk reitarations in ther last years - and with totally zero, absolutely zero, completely zero effect. Nothing, absolutely, totally nothing has been acchieved from Wetsern perspective. The dsanctions which Oabama calism to work, also do not work at all. They are selling to China, the Chinese try to trade a little additional rqabate, and that's all. So far the game is runnign very very well for Iran. IUt is given the time to sneak into a last, ultiumate starting position for the final sprint towards the bomb. And Obama seems to be determined to give them that time - and losing the end race.

As I said in the past, I will not support a war against Iran that is aiming at anything less than destroying the program. Therefore, since Israel is likely unable to acchieve that, I will chose to take a neutral strand on their attack on Iran and will declare abstention from a decision on whether to suppoort that war or not. Their attempt to at least buy some time for themselves I can at least understand, that is why. But I cannot agree to accept needing to repeat the situation we are in now again in a couple of years. And then again. And again. One little war after another. That violates just everything I have learned about the principles of fighting. That is why I demand destruction, not delay, and thus will not support a war for anything less than destroying their program.

Jimbuna · 03-09-12, 03:47 PM

Israel may not have the capability for total destruction of the programme but surely delaying it and going back again if and when necessary is better than failed diplomacy, do you not think?

Catfish · 03-09-12, 03:51 PM

Seems war hyperbole is alive and kicking ?

Three days ago the US [sic!] said that Iran had no nuclear weapons program. It wa sin the newspares AND Internet.

But from all the posts i see here and elswhere there seems to be a lobby that would like to have a war - again.

Now let's see, who would profit most from this ?
It 's all not THAT difficult to see

Oberon · 03-09-12, 03:59 PM

The problem is though Jim that the bigger the mouse-trap the more clever the mouse gets. The next time Israel has to go back and do the job the Iranians will have four times the amount of SAMs waiting for them, and eventually it'll get to the point where Israel cannot do the job alone and then the US will have to step in if it wants a non-nuclear Iran.

Not to mention that by then the Iranian diplomatic ministry will have spun a good 75% of the planet against Israel.

If you're going to do the job, make sure you only have to do it once...although to be fair, with something like nuclear energy and weapons it's hard to completely kill off a program because so long as they have the knowledge they have the ability to start again from scratch.

So really it'd have to be a once a decade thing, until a way is found to neutralize the threat from Iranian nuclear weapons more permanently.

MH · 03-09-12, 04:14 PM

ow

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish

Now let's see, who would profit most from this ?
It 's all not THAT difficult to see

Yes yes...
I don't know how they let you live with all your insight.

We Going To Be Be Rich yeah....

Skybird · 03-09-12, 04:18 PM

War is always a costyl affair, and suchz costs should only be payed in an effort that makes sure the process must not be repeated. I totally oppose the idea of accepting war as an ordinary tool of opportunistic every-day-politics. Wage war in the way necessary for not needing to repeat it, but to end it. Set your objectives accvordingly. Many small wars possibly do more ahrm and cost more losses than one big one, btw. Many small wars not only give arguments for new future violence, but even found a tradition to do so.

It simply is against everything in fighting spirit and combat principles I have been trained in by my mentor. I admit I follow the Samurais view on things there, quite uncompromised. Draw your sword only when determined to kill. Mean no compromise. Accept nothing to come between you and the achieving of your obekctive and the killing of your enemy. Not even your own death. War is a play of death, weapkns are tools of death. If you are not adamently determined in your heart, better don't play. The wavering and soft talking of Western politicians when it comes to fighting, makes me sick. For these worthgless Dummschwätzer, everything is negotiable - everything, even their own self-damaging. I refuse to weaken myself like that.

I also cannot justify, if I were a miliutary comander, to tell my subordinate troops that they should risk their lives for anything less than something that is of utmost importance. I would not will to expose men that I would command to the risk of being killed or getting crippled if they are not allowed to sell their lifes as expensive as possible, and to go for the enemy's throat without compromise, and secure victory by the means necessary to achieve it. What should I tell men, if I were to command them? "Risk your lifes and accept getting injured whuile trying to gain some advanatge, but ifd you would need to kill too much or to drop too many bobms, please better sit down and die yourself instead of being so harsh to kill the others instea"...? Is that the speech I should held? "We are so civilised, we wage war, but only if it does not get dirty, we are proud to sacrifice ourselves instead of getting dirty on the others"...?

That is not what war is about. That is a politician's excuse for hiding defeat.

The sword's blade falls down on the other's head, or it doesn't. You pull the trigger, or you don't. The bullets flies towards its target, or it doesn't. You will to fight, or you don't. The bad guy hides behind a hostage - shoot at the hostage and hurt it to make it fall, and then shoot the bad guy exposed. Either you go to war, or you don't.

But when you start going, go all the way.

Iraq 92: after four days, the enemy all of a sudden was saved from further destruction. The result was a decade more of tensions, bloodshed, and another war, and the chaos resulting from it. One should have finished Saddam in 92, the door was wide open, chances were better than they were in 2003. Sympathies were with the Americans, too. There would have been no massacre against the Shia rebellion. One did not go all the way. Look what has come from it. Nothing but negative things.

Also consider that Israel cannot afford to raise hostile xsentiments by its neighbours again and again every two years or so, by starznmg a new war against Iran. The govenrments of those countries may be a bit more pragmatic, but the mptions of people in the streets are not. That is dangerous.

Do it, or don't. When it comes to war, I accept no in-between.

Jimbuna · 03-09-12, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

The problem is though Jim that the bigger the mouse-trap the more clever the mouse gets. The next time Israel has to go back and do the job the Iranians will have four times the amount of SAMs waiting for them, and eventually it'll get to the point where Israel cannot do the job alone and then the US will have to step in if it wants a non-nuclear Iran.

Not to mention that by then the Iranian diplomatic ministry will have spun a good 75% of the planet against Israel.

If you're going to do the job, make sure you only have to do it once...although to be fair, with something like nuclear energy and weapons it's hard to completely kill off a program because so long as they have the knowledge they have the ability to start again from scratch.

So really it'd have to be a once a decade thing, until a way is found to neutralize the threat from Iranian nuclear weapons more permanently.

Quite true but the Israeli capability will have improved...especially if aided by US weapons advancement.

I just can't see the region ever being stable and I'm worried ten fold if it becomes the subject of a nuclear arms race.

Skybird · 03-09-12, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish

Seems war hyperbole is alive and kicking ?

Three days ago the US [sic!] said that Iran had no nuclear weapons program. It wa sin the newspares AND Internet.

The CIA said that. The CIA that was told by Bush to produce eveidence against Saddam.The CIA that got burned in those exaggerated claims, and now tries to avoid getting burned again. The CIA that listens to what polticvally gets demanded by the president. Which is Obama. The same Obama who is campaigning and cannot need a new war right now. And who has glossed over islam several times in his speeches, and claims that diplomacy is a realistic option although so far it has acchieved NOTHING. His latest words over Iran and his own position on it, where a decvlaration of self-contradictions. If I were Netanjahu, that speech would have left me more nervous than secured.

At the same time when the CIA made these highly suspicious, opportunistically timed statements, the IAEA that just short time ago was extremely forgiving on Iran, has released statments of serious concerns over iran, saying that the indicatons that Iran is pushing not only a nuclear energy but a nuclear weapons program, are overwhelming. The IAEA. Nobody can say the IAEA is islamophobe or iranophobe, or anything like that. Under Al Baradei it actively assisted the Iranians in hiding their intentions, and denied any Iranian weapon ambitions, and supressed intel information indicating the opposite.

Catfish · 03-09-12, 04:29 PM

What does the CIA say about all that ?
Weapons of mass destruction, this time in Iran ?
Now let us bet they won't find any, "afterwards" ?

WTF is up with you guys ? Become crazy and trigger happy by viewing media like CNN and Fox News, all owned by the biggest weapon companies like General Electrics ?
Netanjahu seems to want to blackmail the US because support is dwindling. The real threat for the US is Iran not selling their oil in Dollar currency.

a) Iraq has no nuclear weapons program, CIA just stated that a few days ago. And if it had, not really anymore because :
b) Israel (or the US?) have alrady bombed all kinds of military sites in Iraq in the last months in an undeclared war, pictures of the strikes with destroyed structures are everywhere.

Oberon · 03-09-12, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Quite true but the Israeli capability will have improved...especially if aided by US weapons advancement.

I just can't see the region ever being stable and I'm worried ten fold if it becomes the subject of a nuclear arms race.

That is the kicker though Jim, Israels neighbours are doing their damnedest to isolate Israel on the world stage, with things like running the Gaza blockade. The more they do that, the harder it becomes for a US president to justify propping up Israel. Particularly a Democratic president.

Skybird · 03-09-12, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbuna

I just can't see the region ever being stable and I'm worried ten fold if it becomes the subject of a nuclear arms race.

That'S the point, beside proliferation. An arms race in nukes in a highly instabile region, driven by centuries-old hostilities, religious hysteria, plenty of hot-boiling hate and general irrationality. Allow Iran nuclear wepaons, and you will have your nuclear arms race, for SA will rect. Egypt will. Turkey will. In the longer run Syria will join. Maybe Libya will start new, too.

Welcome to Cuba holidays every damn day of the year.

Nuclear arms race, and proliferation - that are exactly the reasons why I am so totally unforgiving over iranian nuclear weapons. I have said that time and again - the direct military strike at Israel or the West are not my primary concerns, although I have an eye on them. None of these countries can be allowed to own them, for it will always start that arms race, because the others will react. That is over conflicts that have little to do with Israel, or the "Palestinian problem". Take Israel and Palestine away, and you would have the same conflicts and the same situation. Compared to that, the cold war 1.0 will have been a very rational, stable affair. And even there we have had accidents, and events were we simply were lucky that no nuclear war broke out. The risk in the ME would be multiplied by many factors. Allowing nukes down there simply is no option. I already start to sweat when thinking of Pakistan.

Skybird · 03-09-12, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish

What does the CIA say about all that ?
Weapons of mass destruction, this time in Iran ?
Now let us bet they won't find any, "afterwards" ?

WTF is up with you guys ? Become crazy and trigger happy by viewing media like CNN and Fox News, all owned by the biggest weapon companies like General Electrics ?
Netanjahu seems to want to blackmail the US because support is dwindling. The real threat for the US is Iran not selling their oil in Dollar currency.

a) Iraq has no nuclear weapons program, CIA just stated that a few days ago. And if it had, not really anymore because :
b) Israel (or the US?) have alrady bombed all kinds of military sites in Iraq in the last months in an undeclared war, pictures of the strikes with destroyed structures are everywhere.

Again, just for you:

The CIA said that. The CIA that was told by Bush to produce eveidence against Saddam.The CIA that got burned in those exaggerated claims, and now tries to avoid getting burned again. The CIA that listens to what polticvally gets demanded by the president. Which is Obama. The same Obama who is campaigning and cannot need a new war right now. And who has glossed over islam several times in his speeches, and claims that diplomacy is a realistic option although so far it has acchieved NOTHING. His latest words over Iran and his own position on it, where a decvlaration of self-contradictions. If I were Netanjahu, that speech would have left me more nervous than secured.

At the same time when the CIA made these highly suspicious, opportunistically timed statements, the IAEA that just short time ago was extremely forgiving on Iran, has released statments of serious concerns over iran, saying that the indicatons that Iran is pushing not only a nuclear energy but a nuclear weapons program, are overwhelming. The IAEA. Nobody can say the IAEA is islamophobe or iranophobe, or anything like that. Under Al Baradei it actively assisted the Iranians in hiding their intentions, and denied any Iranian weapon ambitions, and supressed intel information indicating the opposite.

03-09-12, 06:21 PM

Quote:

But when you start going, go all the way.

Iraq 92: after four days, the enemy all of a sudden was saved from further destruction. The result was a decade more of tensions, bloodshed, and another war, and the chaos resulting from it. One should have finished Saddam in 92, the door was wide open, chances were better than they were in 2003. Sympathies were with the Americans, too. There would have been no massacre against the Shia rebellion. One did not go all the way. Look what has come from it. Nothing but negative things.

what a maroon.
in '92 they didn't so the shia got slaughtered because Iran would have been strengthened if they hadn't....just like Iran got the bonus when young Bush did the very silly thing his father had avoided.
Now I could have sworn that Sky when he was still slightly rational realised all that and even made all those points himself very vocally and very repeatedly.

Catfish · 03-10-12, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MH

ow
I don't know how they let you live with all your insight.
We Going To Be Be Rich yeah....

Lol why, are you the arms industry, or big oil ?

Regarding killing me, to make all shut up "they" would have to wipe out everyone with the exception of the US ?
It's hardly a secret -

Short history of US history and terrorism 1 of 5

(english subtitles)

03-09-12, 03:40 PM	#2
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,610 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	If Obama is seriously meanignn what he says, that there is still a chance for diplomacy, than he is a totally braindead, retarded idiot. The diplomatic exchange is has been going through many many dozens of we talk-they talk reitarations in ther last years - and with totally zero, absolutely zero, completely zero effect. Nothing, absolutely, totally nothing has been acchieved from Wetsern perspective. The dsanctions which Oabama calism to work, also do not work at all. They are selling to China, the Chinese try to trade a little additional rqabate, and that's all. So far the game is runnign very very well for Iran. IUt is given the time to sneak into a last, ultiumate starting position for the final sprint towards the bomb. And Obama seems to be determined to give them that time - and losing the end race. As I said in the past, I will not support a war against Iran that is aiming at anything less than destroying the program. Therefore, since Israel is likely unable to acchieve that, I will chose to take a neutral strand on their attack on Iran and will declare abstention from a decision on whether to suppoort that war or not. Their attempt to at least buy some time for themselves I can at least understand, that is why. But I cannot agree to accept needing to repeat the situation we are in now again in a couple of years. And then again. And again. One little war after another. That violates just everything I have learned about the principles of fighting. That is why I demand destruction, not delay, and thus will not support a war for anything less than destroying their program. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

03-09-12, 03:47 PM	#3
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,500 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	Israel may not have the capability for total destruction of the programme but surely delaying it and going back again if and when necessary is better than failed diplomacy, do you not think? __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

03-09-12, 04:18 PM	#7
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,610 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	War is always a costyl affair, and suchz costs should only be payed in an effort that makes sure the process must not be repeated. I totally oppose the idea of accepting war as an ordinary tool of opportunistic every-day-politics. Wage war in the way necessary for not needing to repeat it, but to end it. Set your objectives accvordingly. Many small wars possibly do more ahrm and cost more losses than one big one, btw. Many small wars not only give arguments for new future violence, but even found a tradition to do so. It simply is against everything in fighting spirit and combat principles I have been trained in by my mentor. I admit I follow the Samurais view on things there, quite uncompromised. Draw your sword only when determined to kill. Mean no compromise. Accept nothing to come between you and the achieving of your obekctive and the killing of your enemy. Not even your own death. War is a play of death, weapkns are tools of death. If you are not adamently determined in your heart, better don't play. The wavering and soft talking of Western politicians when it comes to fighting, makes me sick. For these worthgless Dummschwätzer, everything is negotiable - everything, even their own self-damaging. I refuse to weaken myself like that. I also cannot justify, if I were a miliutary comander, to tell my subordinate troops that they should risk their lives for anything less than something that is of utmost importance. I would not will to expose men that I would command to the risk of being killed or getting crippled if they are not allowed to sell their lifes as expensive as possible, and to go for the enemy's throat without compromise, and secure victory by the means necessary to achieve it. What should I tell men, if I were to command them? "Risk your lifes and accept getting injured whuile trying to gain some advanatge, but ifd you would need to kill too much or to drop too many bobms, please better sit down and die yourself instead of being so harsh to kill the others instea"...? Is that the speech I should held? "We are so civilised, we wage war, but only if it does not get dirty, we are proud to sacrifice ourselves instead of getting dirty on the others"...? That is not what war is about. That is a politician's excuse for hiding defeat. The sword's blade falls down on the other's head, or it doesn't. You pull the trigger, or you don't. The bullets flies towards its target, or it doesn't. You will to fight, or you don't. The bad guy hides behind a hostage - shoot at the hostage and hurt it to make it fall, and then shoot the bad guy exposed. Either you go to war, or you don't. But when you start going, go all the way. Iraq 92: after four days, the enemy all of a sudden was saved from further destruction. The result was a decade more of tensions, bloodshed, and another war, and the chaos resulting from it. One should have finished Saddam in 92, the door was wide open, chances were better than they were in 2003. Sympathies were with the Americans, too. There would have been no massacre against the Shia rebellion. One did not go all the way. Look what has come from it. Nothing but negative things. Also consider that Israel cannot afford to raise hostile xsentiments by its neighbours again and again every two years or so, by starznmg a new war against Iran. The govenrments of those countries may be a bit more pragmatic, but the mptions of people in the streets are not. That is dangerous. Do it, or don't. When it comes to war, I accept no in-between. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-09-12, 03:51 PM	#4
Catfish Dipped Squirrel Operative Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: ..where the ocean meets the sky Posts: 17,766 Downloads: 38 Uploads: 0	Seems war hyperbole is alive and kicking ? Three days ago the US [sic!] said that Iran had no nuclear weapons program. It wa sin the newspares AND Internet. But from all the posts i see here and elswhere there seems to be a lobby that would like to have a war - again. Now let's see, who would profit most from this ? It 's all not THAT difficult to see

03-09-12, 03:59 PM	#5
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	The problem is though Jim that the bigger the mouse-trap the more clever the mouse gets. The next time Israel has to go back and do the job the Iranians will have four times the amount of SAMs waiting for them, and eventually it'll get to the point where Israel cannot do the job alone and then the US will have to step in if it wants a non-nuclear Iran. Not to mention that by then the Iranian diplomatic ministry will have spun a good 75% of the planet against Israel. If you're going to do the job, make sure you only have to do it once...although to be fair, with something like nuclear energy and weapons it's hard to completely kill off a program because so long as they have the knowledge they have the ability to start again from scratch. So really it'd have to be a once a decade thing, until a way is found to neutralize the threat from Iranian nuclear weapons more permanently.

03-09-12, 04:29 PM	#10
Catfish Dipped Squirrel Operative Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: ..where the ocean meets the sky Posts: 17,766 Downloads: 38 Uploads: 0	What does the CIA say about all that ? Weapons of mass destruction, this time in Iran ? Now let us bet they won't find any, "afterwards" ? WTF is up with you guys ? Become crazy and trigger happy by viewing media like CNN and Fox News, all owned by the biggest weapon companies like General Electrics ? Netanjahu seems to want to blackmail the US because support is dwindling. The real threat for the US is Iran not selling their oil in Dollar currency. a) Iraq has no nuclear weapons program, CIA just stated that a few days ago. And if it had, not really anymore because : b) Israel (or the US?) have alrady bombed all kinds of military sites in Iraq in the last months in an undeclared war, pictures of the strikes with destroyed structures are everywhere.