Who is the bigger threat to the world, the US or Iran? - Page 2

Sammi79 · 03-26-12, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sammi79

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:

Quote:

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!

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

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.

Exactly how stable do you feel the mullah's are - or will be when their people rise up more and more and they have to act to calm dissention? After all - an external war is the quickest way to unite a national populace....

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...

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.

Answer me this one... If Israel was a threat - how come it was able to live in peace and goodwill with Jordan and Egypt? Granted - once the islamic nutcases finish their takeover in Egypt that will end, but once those countries recognized the right of Israel to exist, they didn't have any more issues.... The nations that have not, have done all they could to harrass and kill innocent israeli's (and any arab who happens to be in the way) - claiming Israel is a threat while providing the rockets and other arms used to kill the innocent.

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.

03-26-12, 04:49 PM

Quote:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Skybird · 03-26-12, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sammi79

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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!

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

Quote: