Iran Nuclear 'Nightmare' Very Close, Israel

[Warren Stupidity]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=721&e=2&u=/nm/20050312/wl_nm/nuclear_iran_israel_dc

By Alistair Bell

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Israel said on Friday that Iran (news - web sites) was very close to being able to make a nuclear bomb and urged the United States and Europe to pressure Tehran to abandon a suspected nuclear arms program.

Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom told Reuters an Iranian nuclear bomb would be a "nightmare" for Israel and other countries.

"In our view, they are very close, they are too close, to having the knowledge to develop this kind of bomb and that's why we should be in a hurry," Shalom said in an interview on a visit to Mexico.

Ultimatum time?

[lala_rawraw]

1. BS

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=170

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Oh I agree its BS

On so many levels. Such as: has Israel signed the NPT?

But the point is that they are clearly on a push here with both Syria and Iran. I think they intend to knock over both of them. What I don't understand is where they are going to get the troops to do it. Yes a draft but that would take time and the political hit here at home would be enormous.

[7th_Sephiroth]

7. gonna use America's troops

i do not like israel

[Jim Sagle]

82. Tough.

[simcha_6]

156. Enlighten us, then

Give a reason why

[TrogL]

8. Israel has at least six bombs and counting

[Warren Stupidity]

9. more like 100-200

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
http://www.janes.com/regional_news/africa_middle_east/news/jir/jir990901_1_n.shtml
http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=so02norris

[daleo]

16. And some are probably H-bombs (not just fission devices).

Of course, the middle east is kind of close together, so I can't see using nukes there as being a good idea for anyone.

[0007]

23. Then why did the U.S. arm Israel? One of the main reasons

for all this terrorist stuff is because of favoritism of one country in the Middle East and pox to the others.

[Coastie for Truth]

31. Query

Why didn't the Israelis use their nukes in the 1973 Yom Kippur War? If they were as bellicose as some say ......


Unlike many Progressives -- and like Harkins, Cleland, Kerry, and Kerrey - I served in the military during VietNam -- as a Commissioned Officer.

[jpak]

41. They came very close to doing that.

Their nuclear strike aircraft were armed and on alert - it was pretty damned scary.

http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/isnukes.html

[Coastie for Truth]

47. I am a VietNam veteran

and I was in college during the Cuban Missile Crisis (when my claasmates who were Reservists were recalled to active duty), and I pulled Cuban Interdiction Patrols during the 1960's.

Do you really thoink our nuclear assets are buried at Yorktown VA -- and are hidden there to be trucked out to subs and aircraft. Throughout the Cold War "our nuclear strike aircraft were armed and on alert" and our B52's were in the air, and our submarines were at sea.

Take it from an Honorably Discharged Commissioned Officer - You do not want your retalitory assets on the ground when an attack comes.

Your point?

[jpak]

52. My point was this...

from the link in the previous post...

<snip>

Though aging, the Phantoms remain capable aircraft. There is reason to believe they were once allocated to the nuclear role, and so may still be. During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when Israeli force were being driven back across the Sinai by the Egyptians, and were in jeopardy of losing the Golan to the Syrians, Israel's nuclear forces were reportedly put on heightened alert. This allegedly included placing a squadron of F-4Es on continuous alert, manned by Israel's most elite pilots, ready to strike with Israel's nascent nuclear arsenal.13 Another report in Time magazine credits Prime Minister Golda Meir with ordering the nuclear weapons armed in preparation for a strike, though "Before any triggers were set, however, the battle on both fronts turned in Israel's favor. The 13 bombs were sent to their desert arsenals."14 These actions were partially taken to convince the U.S. of the seriousness of the situation, and to intervene, but it does seem that the Middle East came quite close to nuclear conflict in 1973.

<snip>

I remember this crisis very well - the world was very close to witnessing its second nuclear war.

[newyorican]

112. You really get around, eh?

You are a Veitnam Vet.

You pulled Cuban Interdiction duty during the 60's.

You were in the Command Center on Treasure Island when the USS Pueblo was captured by the Koreans. Link

You were the Comm Watch Officer, monitoring message traffic, while the USS Liberty was being attacked.Link

You also like to toss statements like:

I know that I am a MINORITY - a Progressive Liberal Democrat veteran of VietNam with real military service. (Kind of like John Kerry)Link

You, sir, are no John Kerry.

The only other response to the last is to point you to the "Who served" thread that went over 300 posts awhile back. I can not locate it now, but perhaps someone will post a link to it. I don't remember if it was in GD or the Lounge.

While you are tossing around rule 17 of the 25 rules of disinformation, take a gander at rule 8.

[pelsar]

146. wow....newyorican...

this guy really gets around...combat infantry, navel officer, air force officer?.....cuba interdiction (whats that?....marines?)

whew.....i believe the proper definition is a "poser" I've come to know quite a few in the military who dispise the "posers" more than anything else

________________________________________
costie if you are what you claim...list your ranks and posts, I"ll be happy to pass it on to those that "know" all the acronyms, and details etc for verification and if true, I shall apologies and I'm sure newyorican will as well (right?)

[pelsar]

148. add this to the list...

BTW - as a working engineer - I have worked in nuclear power for a short time, followed by alternative, renewable, and Green energy systems. And as a grad student I taught thermo and engineering economics.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1319848

[Zhade]

65. What, exactly, does your last sentence mean?

Is that a slam against those who didn't serve? Many progressives have served (I was just a military brat myself, would never serve, but that's me).

I don't understand the purpose of your last sentence. Can you please clarify it?

[Djinn]

126. Presume much?

Unlike many Progressives -- and like Harkins, Cleland, Kerry, and Kerrey - I served in the military during VietNam -- as a Commissioned Officer.

Apart from the stereotypes perpetuated by (non serving) folks like Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Rielly I wasn't aware there were any stats on the proportion of progressives with service records.

As for the topic at hand when Israel comes clean about their own nuclear program (and allow Vanunu to leave the country if he so wishes) I'm not going to listen too much to their protestations about their neighbours weaponry.

And before anyone comes back with the well worn but meaningless acussation of a bias against Israel I would also discount any such whinning from the US, UK, China, Russia, Pakistan etc etc

[daleo]

79. Being the only nuclear power is still advantageous as a threat, I think.

Even though it would seem irrational to subject your own population of possible fallout, I think it is still a viable threat. War often takes irrational turns, after all, and everyone knows that. Mutual Assured Destruction certainly had large elements of that type of thinking.

Also, by being the only nuclear power, Israel has the implicit guarantee that it can never lose a conventional war (it could always go nuclear in an emergency that seemed to portend a total conventional loss). Once Arab nations have a countervailing ability, the Israelis lose that advantage, and the possibility of defeat in a conventional war becomes real again. Were Israel to escalate to nuclear weaponry, they could expect the same in return. So, it would certainly change the strategic balance.

Israel must also fear that some insane Arab leader might be willing to lose tens of millions of his own people in a retaliatory strike in order to wipe out Israel totally in a nuclear first strike - a second holocaust. I don't think any leader would really do that - as support for my position I note that even Hitler didn't escalate to chemical or biological warfare, although I am sure he had the ability to do serious damage to the U.K. that way. Also, Stalin never went nuclear against the U.S., even though he was supposed to be a madman committed to revolutionary war. I would probably throw in Nixon as well, as an example of an unhinged leader that didn't actually go over the brink.

But, given Israel's particular combination of historical experience and religious dogma (on some parts of the population) a high level of fear is perhaps not unexpected or even unreasonable. For the same reasons, a high level of fear on the part of its neighbors isn't unexpected. Nonetheless, the nuclear genie won't be kept bottled up among a small set of nations much longer, and I think the world (including Israel and the U.S.) will have to learn how to live with it rather than attempt to prevent the inevitable. The latter course will probably lead to catastrophe, although the former might too. Such is the predicament of the existence of nuclear weaponry.

[kitty1]

84. Could someone tell me why it's okay for Israel to store nuclear

weapons on the premise that it is a defense mechanism against Muslim enemies, yet if Muslim nations want to defend themselves against perceived real threats from Israel or elsewhere, it's considered a violation of UN and atomic energy regulations.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Israel who attacked Syrian missile silos a couple of years ago, and Iraqi nuclear facilities back in the 80's. With that having occurred, and verified threats by Israel itself to bomb them soon, you don't think they have a justifiable reason to want to defend themselves?I mean who is really the real threat here?

[daleo]

90. I think both sides have a reasonable fear of the other.

As you say, Israel has attacked its neighbors on several occasions. It has also been attacked. So, the mutual history is such that each side has a justified fear of the other. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable for each side to want to possess the required weapons and deny those weapons to the other. But I don't see either side having a more "legitimate" fear than the other (fear is an emotion rather than a reasoned response anyway).

I am not sure if there really are any violations of any UN or International Atomic Energy conventions at stake here. In principle any country that signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty that is building nuclear weapons would be in violation. But the spirit of that convention has been broken by the nuclear powers already (for just one example, the U.S. invasion of the non-nuclear power Iraq), so to hold some countries to these conventions and not others is obviously a bit of legalism.

I guess they are all threats to each other potentially, and the entire situation is a threat to the world. As I said in another post, I don't think it is fair (or even possible in the long run) to maintain a situation where Israel has a nuclear monopoly.

[eyl]

94. How is the invasion of Iraq

a violation of the NPT?

[simcha_6]

157. Israel doesn't have a stated policy to wipe an Arab country off the map

All strikes on Arab countries/territory by Israel have been because

A) That nation was going to invade (1967)
B) That nation was going to invade/ was invading again (1973)
C) That territory was being used by Arab armies as a jump-off point to invade Israel (1948, Lebanon, Syria)
D) A nation with a history of invading Israel was building weapons capable of destroying Israel (Iraq)

Iran has, and Iraq had, the stated policy of destroying Israel, many advocating a second genocide (some Palestinian groups, to the contrary, are fine with allowing a few Jews to remain, and just want the others to leave, not necessarily die.)

If Israel attacked peaceable nations unprovoked, it wouldn't be right for them to have weapons. But when they have historically been the ones attacked, it is alright, I believe, for them to develop a deterrence method.

[KansDem]

30. You've got a good point...

I don't think we have an atomic bomb that will confine itself to borders. Look what happened at Chernobyl! (OK, I know it wasn't bombed, but...) The fallout of that nuclear accident spread fall and wide. So drop a bomb on any ME country and everyone suffers, unless, of course, it's the dreaded Neutron Bomb

I imagine someone, somewhere, is just itching to use one of these...

[AndyTiedye]

14. It Will Be a REALLY BIG Draft

What I don't understand is where they are going to get the troops to do it. Yes a draft but that would take time and the political hit here at home would be enormous.

They no longer believe that anything can touch them politically. That is why they are going after Social Security, the most sacred cow in Washington. For any other administration that would be political suicide. For any other administration a recession, a war that was waged on false pretences and is going badly, and nonstop corruption on an unprecented scale would have led to disaster at the polls.
With such a lack of consequences to them for their screwups, there is really nothing stopping them from cranking up the draft right now.
When they do, they will make it twice as big as they need for the Crusade, so they have plenty of troops to control US.

They'll probably stage another Reichstag Fire to provide a possibly convincing pretext.
The people won't really buy it, but nobody is really asking us anymore.

[Jawja]

26. It makes sense that they

can do these things because they have perfected the art of stealing elections with a compliant "news" media.

Those who voted for this outlaw regime think it's fine and dandy to steal elections if their guy "wins." But, the joke is on them when their boy screws them and they find out the regime cannot be removed from office.

[Left Brain]

39. Love that bumper sticker, Andy.

(n/t)

[Zhade]

66. I love that pic in your sig line. Awesome.

NT!

[AndyTiedye]

70. I Had makestickers.com Make Me a Bunch of Bumper Stickers

and




If I make it to a West Coast meetup I'll try to bring some.

[Zhade]

72. West Coast - you in LA?

NT!

[AndyTiedye]

81. Closer to San Francisco

Though with the number of desert psytrance parties happing in SoCal
this spring I may be making a trip south at some point.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

25. If you no longer cared what the American people thought, you could...

...begin to think that you could do anything you wanted to do.

IMHO, Herr Busch has reached that stage in his thinking on a number of levels. Look at his domestic agenda...he clearly intends to destroy social security, medicare, and any other social welfare program that he can get his hands on.

And what if the thought had crossed his mind that all he had to do to ensure that his agenda was carried out was to declare himself President for Life? Jebbie has already stated that he's not going to "run" in 2008, and Herr Busch has stated many times that his job would be "easier if he were a dicator".

That would make it very easy for Herr Busch to get all of the troops he needed and more.

[Spinoza]

150. The U.S. would not be needed.

Israel could easily take Syria without any help. Once Syria falls, ( a few days) they would move on Iran. They couldn't "occupy" the country, but they could find and smash the nuclear reactors. And then leave. The Iranian army could not stop Israel.

[okieinpain]

87. you know I agree with them that iran getting a bomb is not a good

thing. but you when you stand up and call somebody a terrorist, and say that they should be taken down. will this is what you get, and the only way that I think they can take down iran is to use nukes.

but how in the hell do they think that saudi, and kuwait, and the other nations will be able to fight off the fundies is beyond me.

[Djinn]

127. Right now Iran has damn good reason to be paranoid

Israel likes to play the "surrounded by enemies" card - what do they think Iran is dealing with - in TWO nations that they share a border with, their longest standing "enemy" has invaded and occupied and is CONSTANTLY making veiled threats pointed in their direction.

[simcha_6]

158. Fortunately for Iran

Sistani most likely won't allow the U.S. to use Iraq to invade Iran, and the Iranians helped the Northern Alliance, so most likely we couldn't use Afghanistan either.

[ECH1969]

2. What happens after Israel strikes Iran?

There is no way I can see Sharon not doing it if an agreement is not reached.

[teryang]

20. The oil infrastructure of the Persian Gulf will be attacked

At least this is what the Iranians have threatened as their retalitory response. This makes more sense than ineffective attempts to directly strike Israel which would be "tactically insignificant" as US planners like to say.

In other words they will try to go for the jugular. The objective would be to wreak economic havoc throughout the world.

This of course would play right into our dictatorships designs to obtain complete control of all mideast energy resources. The impact could exceed that of Pearl Harbor on Americans at home.

[Coastie for Truth]

32. Valid point

Do you remember the Gas Lines when OPEC - at Iran's urging - simply "reduced" the flow of oil. And the Shiia Iranians don't like the Sunni Saudis very much either.

[jpak]

44. Iran developed an asymmetric warfare doctrine after the

US arms embargo.

In addition to shutting down oil shipments in the Gulf, they could send thousands of Revolutionary Guards and mujahadeen into Iraq in a guerrilla campaign against US forces.

Can we say clusterfuck????

[bpilgrim]

3. the TERRORIST sharon must be getting ready to launch his NUKES

peace

[Behind the Aegis]

5. Or another TERRORIST....

is preparing to march troops across the border.

[Say_What]

6. and how about Israel?? MORE PROPAGANDA from the US LapDog of the ME

eom

[lala_rawraw]

10. Israel is played against the Muslims...

As always. Just like the Christians are used against one another, Jews, etc. Do you think this Texas mob likes Jews or Muslims? This is a set up.

I did the interview for a reason, to help try to stop spin. Someone posted it here in DU and then the thread was locked for a reason I have yet to understand, given that I was not the poster of the thread. So, feel free to read it and cite it as needed to stop BS spin machine.:)

[simcha_6]

159. Please Detail n/t

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Amfortas]

12. as if Israel doesn't have nukes?

Hmmm , mixed messages here:silly:

[cliss]

13. I wonder what Mr. Shalom meant....

"....and that's why we should be in a hurry".

Hurry to do what?

And just like other people wrote, doesn't Israel possess several nuclear bombs, as we speak?

[MisterP]

15. We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know how...

but we'll meet again one sunny day...

[Coastie for Truth]

33. Just Maybe "In A Hurry Do Resolve POLITICALLY - DIPLOMATICALLY"

Just naybe. Or is that too hard to believe. Smashes stereotypes.

[Zhade]

68. It's too hard to believe with a war criminal like Ariel Sharon, yes.

Of course, Sharon does NOT represent all Jews everywhere. Hell, he hardly represents all ISRAELIS.

(Not that you said he does.)

[Djinn]

128. you mean the way

he politically and diplomatically dealt with refugees in Sabra and Chatilla?

People have DAMN good reasons for not trusting Sharon - just like distrusting Bush doesn't mean a person actually has an unerlying hatred of Americans

[lovuian]

17. What did Ritter say June!!! Tick Tock Tick Tock!!!

:nuke:

[Barkley]

29. Why wait til June?

Bush/ Israel should April 15th, that way they can hit everyone all at once.

[jpak]

46. That's when Russia is expected to begin fueling Iran's

nuclear power reactor.

Bombing the plant after the fuel has been delivered - and especially after its been irradiated - would spread radionuclides far and wide (radiological collateral damage)..

This would make the bombers look "bad"...

[JNelson6563]

18. Not enough blood spillin' for their tastes, eh?

Horrible.

[NNN0LHI]

19. Do the Israeli's believe in the rapture too or something? n/t

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ElectroPrincess]

22. Oh, this is gonna be interesting ...

The Financial Times has revealed some strong indications of the USA supporting the EU on negotiations with Iran to stop any nuclear weapons program.

Methinks that Cheney's buds in Halliburton scored a sweet deal with the leadership in Iran. We will soon be told, "Oh Iran has seen the light" as subsidiaries of Halliburton make money hand over fist.

However, the wild card in this waltz is Israel. Hum ... this is going to get intense real quick. ;)

[Melynn]

88. Didn't Halliburton close their offices in Iran not too long ago?

I think read that Halliburton closed their offices in Iran not too long ago but I forget the date that happen. Could be indication that military action by the U.S. and Israel is on its way.

I agree you that this situation is going to get intense real quick and that Israel is going to be the wild card.

[ElectroPrincess]

92. Nope, No Invasion - Halliburton recently entered into Gas deal wi. Iran

Halliburton’s CEO says his company is pulling out of Iran. But a corporate subsidiary is still going ahead with a deal to develop Tehran’s natural gas fields.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6982444/site/newsweek/


Isn't it amazing that our crack Corporate Media isn't "all over" this story. And now, we make nice nice with Iran. These people are corrupt beyond belief. Their God is all that represents Money and Power.

[Melynn]

93. How sneaky

Halliburton says its pulling out of Iran but lets a subsidiary do business with Iran. How deceptive. On the other hand, I rather see Halliburton do business with Iran then see another war break out.

Israel though, has another agenda, Israel is never going to let Iran develop nukes. Like you said, Israel is the wild card in all of this.

[truth2power]

24. Why are Iran nukes a nightmare

for Israel, but Israeli nukes are not a threat to anyone?

And why is Sharon trying to push the US into a proxy war? Let him do his own dirty work and take the consequences.

[Charles19]

27. Iran w nukes brings a balance of power to the middle east IMHO (nt)

[Coastie for Truth]

34. Israel did NOT use nukes

in the 1973 Yom Kippur War when they perceived their survival to be at stake. (Most military analysts agreed with the assessment that their survival was at stake)

It is a little bit stereotypical to say "And why is Sharon trying to push the US into a proxy war?" -- that is the way negotiators negotiate? Put pressure on the parties negotiating.

[Warren Stupidity]

50. I must have missed the part of the '73 war where

Israel's survival was at stake. Perhaps it depends on what you mean by 'at stake'. They certainly were in no danger of losing the conventional war at any point. Perhaps if everything had gone wrong, in some other alternate universe, the situation was as dire as you seem to be implying.

[Yosie]

53. Your opinion

a lot of historians and military historians would disagree. Based on my reading -- and my discussions with my Israeli family members and my wife's Israeli family members, and some veterans who were in the Sinai, I would certainly have to disagree with you that "They certainly were in no danger of losing the conventional war at any point."{/u].

Perhaps you are confusing 1973 with 1967?

Note to Warren and Coastie - I am also a VietNam era veteran - US Navy. And I did read Burdick Britton's "International law for Seagoing Officers"

[Warren Stupidity]

56. nope not confused at all.

There were two major battles, the suez canal and the golan heights. The syrians in the north and the egyptians in the south had initial limited successes due to surprise, and in the north due to a lopsided numerical advantage, but in both cases Israel made short work of the opposition. The air war was of course critical to this: Israel destroyed both opposing air forces within the first few days.

It took Israel all of 5 days to defeat the more serious Syrian threat in the north, and by day nine (Oct 15) the egyptian army in the sinai was routed and the next day the Israelis were advancing on Cairo.

The military defeat was so overwhelming that this was the last attempt by Israel's neighbors to confront Israel militarily, and resulted in Sadat's about-face peace initiative with Israel.

[Yosie]

61. "Limited successes"

You posted
"The syrians in the north and the egyptians in the south had initial limited successes due to surprise, and in the north due to a lopsided numerical advantage,"

Does "limited successes" recognize the very high casualties on both sides at both fronts.

While I was most definitely not a combat veteran of VietNam - I was a JAG bureaucrat -- and the JAG guy who worked with the Casualty Support Officers -- and I did VA pro bono, so I can opine, not "limited successes" but "very high casualties on both sides at both fronts."

My reading indicates the highest casualties any of the parties ever suffered.

[Zhade]

71. Very high casualties does not necessarily mean "survival at stake".

NT!

[Yosie]

78. Noted and Ignored.

[Coastie for Truth]

54. I posted

"Israel did NOT use nukes when they perceived(Most military analysts agreed with the assessment that their survival was at stake).

"Perhaps it depends on what you mean by 'at stake'." is a judgment call that has to be made their national command authority based on the information available to them.

That " They certainly were in no danger of losing the conventional war at any point" is not an opinion shared by all.

Your comment - with emphasis added--"Perhaps if everything had gone wrong, in some other alternate universe, the situation was as dire as you seem to be implying." is noted.

How does a perception and subsequent forbearance become a venue for suppositions of ulterior motives?

[Warren Stupidity]

58. Maybe I misunderstood your post

You seemed to be saying that Israel did not use its nukes when its survival was in question. I objected to the statement that its survival was in question as, in my opinion and we disagree on this, Israel's survival was never in question in the '73 war. It seemed that your point was that Israel was put to the test here and somehow passed some high moral standard. I think not. As I stated, in my opinion, there was no immediate peril, Israel was not in danger of being conquered by Syria nd Egypt.

The other complicating factor of course is that Israel's use of nukes risked retaliation in kind. It is this reality that, in the post-Hiroshima world, has kept the use of nukes off the table, not the high moral standards of the members of the nuclear club.

[Zhade]

69. Of course, that's a strawman, since truth2power never said they did.

You're arguing against something the other poster never even claimed.

[Coastie for Truth]

77. Misquotes Out of Context

Misquotes out of context and violation of Rule 17 of the Rules of Disinformation don't gain traction.

truth2power said:

"Why are Iran nukes a nightmare ... for Israel, but Israeli nukes are not a threat to anyone?

And why is Sharon trying to push the US into a proxy war? Let him do his own dirty work and take the consequences. "

I responded to the "Why are Iran nukes a nightmare ... for Israel, but Israeli nukes are not a threat to anyone" by saying

"Israel did NOT use nukes in the 1973 Yom Kippur War when they perceived their survival to be at stake. (Most military analysts agreed with the assessment that their survival was at stake)

And I responded to the stereotypical comment "And why is Sharon trying to push the US into a proxy war? Let him do his own dirty work and take the consequences."

by saying

"It is a little bit stereotypical to say "And why is Sharon trying to push the US into a proxy war?" -- that is the way negotiators negotiate? Put pressure on the parties negotiating. "

So, notwithstanding a snippet out of context to change the subject - I responded to each point.

[ausiedownunderground]

28. If i was a Mullah! - I'd sure like to find out whose leaking this stuff!

I think the Israeli's have been saying exactley the same thing for the past 2 years. So what? The longer the Israeli's wait the harder its going to be. The longer they wait, the more dependent they are going to become on the US! The Israeli's in Oz, claim they have weapons that "nobody" knows about? So use these weapons! so we can know about them!

[Coastie for Truth]

35. And the US/UK/NATO said the same thing to the USSR

for almost 50 years -- and there was no nuclear war.

If Israel didn't use nukes during the 1973 Yom Kippur War when their survival was presumed to actually be at stake -- why would they use them now?

No - not "Disinformation Rule 17 -- this is an analogy:)

[wuushew]

38. weren't nukes only considered for use if defeat was imminent?

Although bloodied, Israeli conventional military force did prevail.


-snip-

According to a former senior U.S. diplomat, by Oct. 8, Israel's northern front commander, Maj. Gen. Yitzak Hoffi, had informed Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan that he couldn't hold out much longer against the 14,000 Syrian tanks rolling through Israeli defenses on the Golan Heights.

The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that Dayan was "attacked by acute panic" and declared to advisers: "This is the end of the Third Temple."

But if Israel was to perish, it would take Damascus and Cairo with it.



-snip-


But the same State Department official pointed out something that has always been a major deterrent in the Middle East. "If Tel Aviv had used those weapons, most of the fall-out would have blown back on Israel because of the pattern of prevailing winds at the time," he said.




http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20020916-073128-6494r

[Coastie for Truth]

45. Who was to decide if defeat was imminent

If Israel had been defeated - the well meaning psuedo-liberals would have said "tsk tsk, too bad" -- but woould have condemned them for using nukes.

[Zhade]

73. Despite your unbacked assertions, Israel's survival was not in question.

NT!

[ausiedownunderground]

36. My Egyptian friends tell me when Egypt shot down Israeli plane

During the 1973 war that an American pilot was pulled from the cockpit! It was then that Egypt realised that it was not going to win the war. However in modern warfare killing Americans means nothing.

[Coastie for Truth]

37. There are many Americans - and Australians -

who have moved to Israel - and taken up Israeli citizenship while retaining their American - or Australian - citizenship.

Not unusual. Not illegal.

Israel has conscription.

So what is your point.

[lala_rawraw]

40. People

What is it with Israel trashing? The majority of the world hates Americans even as at least half of us are trying to fight for justice. Let's not go all crazy on "Israel is this or that theory"... the fact is, there are plenty of people in Israel who are not happy with the current state of affairs, just as there are plenty of people in the US who are not happy with the current state of affairs. I would think that having Bush for President could make one appreciate what it feels like living under a psychotic ruling class. Now I know this administration would have you believe it is America’s strong support of Israel that is behind most of our involvement in the Middle East. Need I remind you that the Bush family has a long standing Nazi history; that our own country adopted Nazi- regime pets post WWII; that the US has been responsible for installing the most brutal dictatorships around the globe, including the ones it surrounded Israel with. I could go on and on, but let’s not get all worked up about hating a whole country and the people in it. If hate is needed, we need not look farther than ourselves.

[Coastie for Truth]

42. Very good points.

Applause!

[Yosie]

48. Complete agreement

[Zhade]

74. Please show me the widespread hatred of Israel you're seeing.

It isn't there. Hating the Israeli GOVERNMENT and its POLICIES does not equate to hating ISAREL, no matter how much some would wish it (not you, in general).

[The Stranger]

67. Wait -- you forgot to mention (yet again) that you are a veteran.

Maybe just put it in your signature line.

[Yosie]

49. Your inference

that the pilots were USAF? Or that all Americans are CIA agents?

A bit heavy on the Vegemite?

[IndianaGreen]

43. US soldiers should not die in Iran as they have in Iraq to please Israel's

rightwing government. As a matter of fact, if Iranian nukes are a threat, then Israeli nukes are a greater threat.

The choice comes down to this: either no one has nukes, including the US, or everyone has nukes.

[Blue to the bone]

55. Damn, this is scary. I actually agree with you. n/t

[VegasWolf]

57. LOL! I always agree with Indiana! Valid points said welll! n/t

[Colorado Blue]

117. Truly, I do not believe the war in Iraq had anything to do

with Sharon or Israel. Suggesting that Americans are dying for Israel is a red herring, I think.

Oil is the big motivator for the whole War on Terror, at least as it extended beyond the pursuit of Al Qaeda. Capturing terrorists was justifiable in theory at least, following 9/11 - but Iraq is probably something else.

There are several theories, involving the oil of Turkmenistan and the pipeline which the Bush family is reportedly involved in pursuing. The pipeline would carry Turkmen oil to the Med, although I've also heard about possible pipelines to India.

If the "thinking man's war" had gone as planned, the people of Iraq would have been happily settled by now in their new state. Alas, the planners underestimated the chaos factor and exhibited a profound lack of insight into the situation and the true feelings of the Iraqi people.

Finally, Bush is a true believer in the ideal of spreading democracy, especially where oil is located. He and his administration really don't march to the tune of a little country of 5 million people. Or to the voices of America, for that matter!

[Spinoza]

151. Yeah,

We are all quaking at the prospect of Israel nuking New York. Good point!

[Spinoza]

152. Everyone except Canada

[Yosie]

51. How is this an ultimatum?

When did "pressure Tehran to abandon a suspected nuclear arms program." become an ultimatum and a threat to attack. Please connect the dots for me.

I politely refer you and all I/P appenders to Lala__Rawraw's append #40 at
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1305239&mesg_id=1306272

and to Colorado_Blue's append #3 "If I might offer an opinion, hopefully an elucidation: most of" in the "When the anti-Israel sentiment comes from within" at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x87930

I am making no accusation of any bias or bigotry -- I just think these are very well written appends. Absolutely no offense is intended, and I apologize in advance if you or any appender feels any offense.

[Warren Stupidity]

60. That was speculation.

I didn't say "this is an ultimatum.", I said "time for an ultimatum?"

My point was and is that we are in the early wardrum period, like we were with Iraq in early 2002. Calculated escalations are going on. Noises and threats are made. Groundwork for a reason for war are being established. At some point, in the not too distant future, there will be ultimatums, as in the one we delivered to the Iraqis.

[ausiedownunderground]

59. My point still stands- Killing American's is news around the world!

I believe that in Oz we know the Official Centcom death count of Americans and coalition forces. I don't believe in America you know these offical numbers. I also believe an Oz citizen would get closer to the official wounded count of Americans and the coalition than your average New Yorker or Red Stater. Tell me the name of the Bulgarian soldier who was killed last week by US forces!!!

[MisterP]

89. Wolfowitz said that only 500-600 had been killed

(and it was nearly 1200 at the time)

[cambie]

62. I am not getting how this is a nightmare.

Because they would then have to live under the aiming point of atomic weapons? That would be like all the rest of us for the past fifty years. We survived it by installing some red telephones and resorting to talking rather than ultimatums.

[lovuian]

63. I think somebody said the month June!!!

Hang onto your hat!!!

[Zhade]

64. Isn't this like the 1,846th ultimatum?

Seriously - what does the Israeli government think Iran is going to do with a nuke? Do they (the IG) believe Iran would be stupid enough to nuke Tel Aviv or smuggle nuclear material to terrorist orgs, with the world watching and the United States ready to pounce?

[Coastie for Truth]

76. No--

But some of fellow Progressives and Liberals -- who agree with us on the Bankruptcy Act, and SS, and Gay Rights, and the Elections of 2000 and 2004, and Judicial Appointments, and Stock Fraud, and Reproductive Choice, and Stem Cell Research, and Access to Quality Education, etc. just like to demonize Sharon (Svengalli powers over Bush, worse then Arafat, etc.), and don't really care who else they paint with their broad brush --- even some of their friends.

But two appends --
1. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1305239&mesg_id=1306272
2. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x87930

made me feel good and positive and optimistic about DU and our chances in 2006 and 2008. But don't get round shouldered from pattin' yerselves on the back because - I still haven't mailed my March 2005 "tithe" to Nancy Pelosi's DCCC.

[Coastie for Truth]

75. Europe and U.S. Agree on Carrot-and-Stick Approach to Iran, NYT March 12

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/12/politics/12iran.html?

Europe and U.S. Agree on Carrot-and-Stick Approach to Iran
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

WASHINGTON, March 11 - Europe's leading nations, yielding to American demands for a tougher stance on Iran, warned Friday that any failure by the Iranian government to give up its suspected nuclear arms program would leave them "no choice" but to seek punishments at the United Nations Security Council.

The European warning came as a diplomatic counterpart to a statement by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice confirming that the United States, too, had shifted its position on Iran - in its case toward a more conciliatory approach of offering limited economic incentives if Iran cooperated on nuclear matters.

Ms. Rice said Mr. Bush would drop his objections to Iran's application to the World Trade Organization and would "consider, on a case-by-case basis, the licensing of spare parts of Iranian civilian aircraft."

"We share the desire of European governments to secure Iran's adherence to its obligations through peaceful and diplomatic means," she said in the statement. "Today's announcement demonstrates that we are prepared to take practical steps to support European efforts to this end."

Taken together, the statements, issued in an orchestrated fashion in Washington and Brussels, opened a new phase in efforts to defuse the crisis over Iran's nuclear program.

Could the ultimatum have been the nudge or goad or catalyst? Why that would smash the stereotype.

[Chicago Democrat]

80. Why is an Iranian A-bomb a "nightmare" for Israel???

Wouldnt the Iranians be stupid to attack Israel with all of its A Bombs?

[eyl]

95. You know that, and I know that.

Do they know that?

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.
Source #1
Source #2

Not to mention various Iranian promises to destroy Israel, means unspecified.

While I don't think they're actually crazy enough to carry out their threats, I'm not all that convinced they aren't.

[he lied us into war]

83. Israel has 200 nukes -- eom

eon

[XemaSab]

85. Sharon needs to STFU

I like the IDEA of Israel. I think the Jewish people should have a state. But somehow half of the stuff that comes from Sharon's mouth seems designed to turn up the heat under a pot that's already boiling over, and I fear that someday American sympathy for the Israelis is going to run out if this continues.

[katinmn]

86. Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah

Terra alert everybody.

Better attack Eye-Ran.

[Amfortas]

91. kick

[drdon326]

96. CASE CLOSED : RAFSANJANI : MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUKE WEAPON AGST ISRAEL

RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL

One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.

Analysts said not only Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s speech was the strongest against Israel, but also this is the first time that a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic openly suggests the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State.

"It seems that Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani is forgetting that due to the present intertwinement of Israel and Palestine, the destruction of the Jewish State would also means the mass killing of Palestinian population as well", observed one Iranian commentator.

While Israel is believed to possess between 100 to 200 nuclear war heads, the Islamic Republic and Iraq are known to be working hard to produce their own atomic weapons with help from Russia and North Korea, Pakistan, also a Muslim state, has already a certain number of nuclear bomb.

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm

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

"DEATH TO ISRAEL" is the usual chant.

[Coastie for Truth]

97. WHERE ARE THE LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES

Who demonize Sharon?

Why no criticism of RAFSANJANI? How about being a little bit, itsy-bitsy-teeny-weeny "fair and unbalanced" - or has the Berkeley Syndrome spread.

Would one of the "Regulars" please provide a link to a reputable, credible source (as per the I/P Forum Guidelines) to a source where Sharon has matched Rafsanjani's call. I am waiting.

[drdon326]

98. Don't hold *yr* breath....

Psycho dictators that rule by medieval theocracy and dont allow for freedom of speech or religion and where women are are treated worse than dogs, are given a pass ..... or usually the excuse is 'this is i/p ...not iran forum'. Or more likely the line is 'but israel is a democracy and we cant control iran' OR 'Sure Iran is bad.....but Israel is WORSE'.

Freightening.

[Djinn]

131. Crap

can you please show ONE post where ANYONE has said Israel is "worse" than Iran?

This IS the I/P forum don - but if it'll make you feel better

Israel is WAY closer to a democracy than Iran (there is no real democracy anywhere in the world)

I would rather live in Israel than Iran

Iran has a worse record on human rights than Israel (in relation to their own citizens that is the whole occupation blurs this point a little)

Can we get back to the topic now?

[Yosie]

140. So

You have seen the light.

[Djinn]

141. Get stuffed Yosie

I never stated anything contrary to the above in ANY posts EVER here, some people suffer from the delusion that anyone "pro-Palestinian" is automatically a lover of Iran, Saudi, Syria etc - that is a theory that was never based in reality.

Frankly I'm getting fucking sick of people like yourself presuming to know my opinions and why I hold them.

Any chance you want to explain why a statement (which isn't saying what drdon etc claim it is) made by one guy is apparently the expressed position of Iran? or why people here claim that Rafsanjani is the leader of Iran? or is it only the "other side" that needs to constantly explain itself???

[Yosie]

142. Thank you for your comments.

I shall consider them in my future appends.

[Djinn]

145. you do that

and if you'd like to quote "Get stuffed Yosie" feel free :eyes:

[Darranar]

101. How about Rep. Sam Johnson?

GOP Congressman Calls for Nuking Syria
In Washington, Republican Congressman Sam Johnson of Texas has recommended to President Bush that the U.S. consider attacking Syria with nuclear weapons. Johnson recently told a church gathering, "Syria is the problem. Syria is where those weapons of mass destruction are, in my view. You know, I can fly an F-15, put two nukes on 'em and I'll make one pass. We won't have to worry about Syria anymore."

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/01/1520234

Should we disarm the US, now?

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[drdon326]

106. You noticed that too, huh?

glad i'm not alone.

[leftynyc]

139. Not alone by a long shot (eom)

[Darranar]

110. What that had to do with my post I have no idea...

Care to explain?

[bemildred]

102. While I don't want to defend this blowhard, it doesn't appear

to me he is advocating an attack, he is saying that it
Iran is attacked, it should respond.

As far as threats, they fly both ways all the time:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3057518,00.html

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coastie for Truth]

108. Come on

this is not a "Change The Subject" violation of Rule 17 of the "Rules of Disinformation" -- but the Quebecois press reported through the 1970's of the US's secret plans to invade Quebec to back the Anglophones in the event of a Canadian Civil War (this is when Parti Quebecois was making secessionst noises) -- and they even said that troops were being massed in Watertown NY and Massena NY.

[bemildred]

111. So, read it:

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world"

I interpret that as saying something along the lines of "we would
have a credible deterrent".

[Colorado Blue]

118. No - sorry - I think it reads, if nukes were used, Israel

would be completely wiped out while the Muslim world would suffer some damage but survive. In some quarters this apparently would be an acceptable trade-off - as long as Israel is regarded as a colonial power and not as a people with a justifiable claim to their nation. In certain quarters this day will never come to pass, although great progress is being made toward normal relations with the neighbors.

The numbers are impressive: 5 million plus Jewish Israelis, over one billion Muslims and growing. Why we are enemies is beyond me. According to Islam, we are all People of the Book - Jews, Christians, Muslims. Yet, I suppose over time, cultural differences have become extreme and mutually threatening. I read an article the other day (somewhere) proposing that, with the demise of the Cold War, the old cultural war between Christianity and Islam has once again reared its ugly head. Israel is sort of stuck in the middle, but culturally leans to the west especially in regard to social matters, ie, women. Some in Islam are very threatened by Western culture while others appear to embrace it, or at least are flexible. Islam is hardly a monolith and the nations bordering the Mediterranean are full of European, African, and Turkish influences. But the fundamentalist voices are very loud.

I wish to heaven people would learn to care for each other. The warlike rhetoric is frightening. Frankly, so is the increasing need for people to identify with fundamentalist religion! Tolerance would be very welcome in the domestic rhetoric as well as abroad.

This talk of nukes is, I hope, sabre rattling. Frankly I think we should all disarm if at all possible. Japan has experienced the horror at first hand. Maybe studies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be handed out, all over the world.

[Darranar]

119. A stalemate is not the same thing as a nuclear war. n/t

[Colorado Blue]

120. True! nt

[bemildred]

121. That seems like a lot to pack into one sentence.

Why is the assertion (which I would question) that the Muslim
world would survive a nuclear exchange while Israel would not
NOT an assertion that the Muslim world has (or would have) a
credible deterrent?

He nowhere asserts that it would be a good idea, although you
can tell he finds the idea exciting. But that just makes him a prick,
it doesn't make him a fool.

[Yosie]

122. The Thing That Kept The US and/or Russia from a First Strike

was the doctrine of "Mutually Assured Destruction" - each side knew that if it launched a "First Strike" it would not survive the other sides post-First Strike "Second Strike."

If either side though it could survive the retaliatory strike - what is to deter it from a "First Strike?"

I read this as a statement of surviving an Israeli first strike. That is unstable.

In this regard, you may want to read Henry Kissinger's 1957 book Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy

[bemildred]

124. I'm not interested, as I said, in defending what he said.

I'm just trying to clarify it. You say:

"I read this as a statement of surviving an Israeli first strike"

Exactly, that's what I think it is. Whether he is right about that
is another question. On the one hand I would expect that both
Jews and Muslims would survive as well as most everyone else in such an
event, but I don't expect the states of Israel or Iran would in
anything like the present form, and the consequences for the rest
of us would most likely be unpleasant, but nobody really knows what
happens if you blow a few hundred nukes all at once ...

But the obvious solution is to stop threatening each other, and
keep a survivable deterrent handy and visible.

[Colorado Blue]

133. Yes! The sad thing is, neither of these nations - or any

of the others in the M.E. for that matter, have anything whatsover to gain by hurting each other - and so much to gain by joining forces and forging a stable regional unit. The REAL enemies are the powers that are - and have been - playing The Great Game all these long years.

[bemildred]

134. Always a pleasure to find some point of agreement. nt

[Colorado Blue]

123. Unfortunately there is nothing "rational" about such an

argument in the first place. But I've heard it from ordinary people around here, friends from Pakistan, so forth, speculating in idle conversation. Here's how they put it:

The five million or so Israelis, concentrated in a small area, could be wiped out while most or at least many of the Muslims wouldn't be, due to the sheer size of the Muslim world and the largeness of the population. Thus, it might be worth considering a first strike and the deterrent effect might convey substantial benefits to, say, Iran.

However, that is not to say the possession of such weapons by both sides would stabilize the region, for the reason of imbalance he mentions. In his scenario Israel would lose substantially in terms of self-defense. The MAD deterrent worked in the Cold War because the US and Russia had each other by the throat demographically and more or less geographically, but there would seem to be a fundamental imbalance in the Israeli/Muslim scenario.

One would think that rational people don't HAVE ideas like this but my ex-father-in-law was an Air Force officer - retired as a brigadier general - who went to War College, and they planned scenarios just like this, figuring out permutations, survival rates, so forth. He was a tough person, a warrior all his life, test pilot, but he suffered a nervous breakdown from this stuff and was told it wasn't at all uncommon.

[bemildred]

125. Please see post #124. nt

[Djinn]

130. Coastie

This is the Israel/Palestine forum - the reason most people focus on Israel here is because...well I think even YOU can work that out.

Who the hell here DEFENDS Rafsanjani? who likes the idea of theocracy?? There is PLENTY of criticism of Iran in the foreign affairs and GD forums

BTW - I can provide you with a large assortment of choice quotes about "vermin" etc from various Israeli military, religious and political figures. It would however be pointless because EVERYBODY knows that EACH nation and religion on earth has it's fair share of fundie nuts.

Back to the topic at hand

[Coastie for Truth]

135. Responsive to your append 130

I politely refer you and all I/P appenders to Lala__Rawraw's append at
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1305239&mesg_id=1306272

and to Colorado_Blue’s append at
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x87930

This is not a Rule 17 change of subject violation of the Rules of Disinformation.

[Djinn]

137. I'm not chasing your posts around the board Coastie

If you want to make a point make it here

[pelsar]

147. djnn..boy we disagee again

EVERYBODY knows that EACH nation and religion on earth has it's fair share of fundie nuts.

we got more than the "avg" fundi nuts....they all seem to gravitate to here in fact i would wager you that we got more of everykind of wako nut per sq meter than you got over in your country....(we import them)

[Djinn]

153. not really sure how that disagree's with me

yes that whole "holy land" crap means you getting a higher average but it doesn't mean you're alone there.

[pelsar]

155. djnn...

just kidding with you.....(a bit of "holy land humor' there")

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[drdon326]

100. Riiiiiiight.....when the ELECTED head of Israel says that.....

get back to me.

[Djinn]

132. Rafsanjani is not the elected leader of Iran

Mohammad Khatami is the President, the supreme religious figure is the Ayatollah Khamenei - NOT Rafsanjani.

Rafsanjani was Iran's president from 1989 to 1997. While in that position he liberalised Iran's trade (probably, like most capitalists, because HE benefits from it) and sought to better relations with the west. He is credited with credited with persuading Khomeini to accept a cease-fire in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. He is relatively liberal in regards to personal freedoms and the first reformist newspaper in Iran was started under his rule.

That said he is also implicated in the deaths of journalists and is not someone I'd want making decisions for me, even though I don't exactly agree his statement says what you claim it does - as bemildred has pointed out.

[Coastie for Truth]

105. Are you imputing Rabbi Yosef's statements to all Israelis?

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef was one of the wingnut who called for Rabin's assassination and who praised Yigal Amir (Rabin's assassin).

If the wing nuts -- and their friends in the US and Australia would just "give peace a chance"---

see: New Signs on the Arab Street by Thomas Friedman at

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/opinion/13friedman.html?

especially the narrative in the first four paragraphs.

[Scurrilous]

109. I impute nothing...

...and impugn noone. Just playing dueling whack-jobs. :thumbsup:

[eyl]

116. Yosef's said quite a lot of highly objectionable BS

but AFAIR he never supported Rabin's assassination or Amir.

[Djinn]

154. any reason it shouldn't

given Rafsanjani's apparently speaks for all of Iran - despite the errors of fact posted here Rafsanjani is neither the president or religious leader of Iran.

If Yosef is just one (well connected) nut then so to is Rafsanjani

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[drdon326]

114. Deleted message

[drdon326]

115. As much as I thought the article was silly.....

i dont think it broke any rules.

[Djinn]

129. one cleric

REGARDLESS of how influential, making a statement is not CASE CLOSED. It is beyond idiotic to suggest that it is

Do a little reading on the Iranian system of government drdon :eyes:

[Coastie for Truth]

107. Path to Peace.

Read Thomas Friedman's "New Signs on the Arab Street" in today's New York Times--->

Internal Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x88148

Original Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/opinion/13friedman.html?

This is the path to peace -- not imputing Svengalli powers to Sharon and the Israelis or patronizing the Palestinians or pouring gasoline on fires.

[osiristz]

136. very close to being able to make a nuclear bomb

I hope they're a LOT CLOSER NOW.

[Colorado Blue]

138. Holy smokes - WHY would you say a thing like that?

Seriously - whatever your personal prejudices might be - one more nation with a nuclear bomb can hardly be good news for anybody -

You're kidding, right? A bit of irony, perhaps?

[osiristz]

143. whatever your personal prejudices might be ...

It has nothing to do with personal prejudice.

1. I live in the US.
2.I have no allegiance to Israel
3.I'm tired of Israel whining about everyone else while they are the NO 1 violater of UN Resolutions.
4. I'm tired of the imperialistic US telling the rest of the world they can't have weapons when the US is continues to manufacture more nuclear...excuse me... "nuculer" bombs. And we're planning another new generation of mini-nukes. Why? So we can use them on defenseless countries that aren't allowed to have them...like Iraq or Iran?

I'm sorry the logic excapes me. Actually it makes perfect sense when you're the aggressor. But I'm not part of that mentality.

I hope Iran has built one by now, or 2 or 3, so they have a deterrant. The have every right to defend themselves against imperialistic aggression on the part of the US or Israel or any other country who attempts to invade.

I'm sick of the hypocracy. I'm sick of the "do as we say, not as we do" games. I'm glad N. Korea developed it too.

One or two or three can always be difused. But in case you weren't aware, the US has upwards of 1200. Russia has 1200. China has 200. No one knows how many Israel has because they're magically exempt from disclosure. One nuke in Iran isn't going to make any difference in the world arsenal.

It'a all a bunch of political bullshit. Go IRAN! Kick the giant in the shin!

[centristo]

149. so you must be

the world's biggest fucking hypocrite to live, work and pay taxes in a country you so despise.

and yet you are "sick of the hypocracy".

[osiristz]

144. nightmare?

Didn't we here the same BS about 3 years ago concerning Saddam? Ahh, gotcha, another diversion so we can invade.