U.S. not assisting Israel with Iran attack plans
Thu, 2008-09-11 08:01
#1
Sven
U.S. not assisting Israel with Iran attack plans
Thu, 2008-09-11 08:01
#2
Sven
In [url=http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1019989.html]the Israeli newspaper Haaretz[/url], it is being reported that the Americans are not being cooperative in furthering Israel’s preparation efforts to attack Iran:
[b][i]“The security aid package the United States has refused to give Israel for the past few months out of concern that Israel would use it to attack nuclear facilities in Iran included a large number of "bunker-buster" bombs, permission to use an air corridor to Iran, an advanced technological system and refueling planes.
Officials from both countries have been discussing the Israeli requests over the past few months. Their rejection would make it very difficult for Israel to attack Iran, if such a decision is made.
About a month ago, Haaretz reported that the Bush administration had turned down an Israeli request for certain security items that could upgrade Israel's capability to attack Iran. The U.S. administration reportedly saw the request as a sign preparations were moving ahead for an Israeli attack on Iran.
[SNIP]
At the beginning of the year, the Israeli leadership still considered it a reasonable possibility that Bush would decide to attack Iran before the end of his term.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in private discussions, even raised the possibility that the U.S. was considering an attack in the transition period between the election in November and the inauguration of the new president in January 2009.
However, Jerusalem now assumes that likelihood of this possibility is close to nil, and that Bush will use the rest of his time in office to strengthen what he defines as the Iraqi achievement, following the relative success of American efforts there over the past year and a half.[/b][/i]
Looks like Bush is going to leave the Iran nuclear puzzle for Barack to solve.
Thu, 2008-09-11 09:14
#3
Why is Iran a "nuclear puzzle", and why do Iranians need Obama or that guy beside Palin to "solve" it?
Thu, 2008-09-11 11:11
#4
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Jingles:
[b]Why is Iran a "nuclear puzzle", and why do Iranians need Obama or that guy beside Palin to "solve" it?[/b]
You are correct that there is no puzzle to solve if nuclear proliferation is not a concern.
Thu, 2008-09-11 12:01
#5
How about starting with those rogue states that already have nuclear weapons, refuse to abide by international treaties, attack their neighbours, and threaten to use their nuclear weapons tactically, instead of focusing on a "maybe".
Thu, 2008-09-11 13:43
#6
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Jingles:
[b]How about starting with those rogue states that already have nuclear weapons, refuse to abide by international treaties, attack their neighbours, and threaten to use their nuclear weapons tactically, instead of focusing on a "maybe".[/b]
The U.S. has basically stayed out of Europe’s way while Europe has (unsuccessfully) tried to negotiate a stoppage to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
I guess those zany Europeans are worrying about a non-issue, eh?
Thu, 2008-09-11 13:47
#7
Way to dodge the point Sven.
Thu, 2008-09-11 15:07
#8
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by melovesproles:
[b]Way to dodge the point Sven.[/b]
Actually, here's the [i]original[/i] dodge:
quote:
Originally posted by Svenmeister:
[b]You are correct that there is no puzzle to solve if nuclear proliferation is not a concern.[/b]
quote:
Originally posted by Jingles:
[b]How about starting with those rogue states that already have nuclear weapons, refuse to abide by international treaties, attack their neighbours, and threaten to use their nuclear weapons tactically, instead of focusing on a "maybe".[/b]
So, in essence, Jingles isn't answering (he’s “dodging”) the implied question in my post: "Is proliferation of nuclear weapons with respect to Iran a problem or is it not a problem?"
Instead, he (almost predictably) points to the U.S.: "But...but...but...what about the evil U.S.?!?!"
My “dodge” is, in essence, this: Hey, this isn’t something that’s only about the U.S. or a U.S. concern about Iranian nuclear weapons. Europe is very concerned about a nuclear-armed Iran.
Now, that all being said, the interesting thing from the Israeli paper is that Bush is very likely not going to attack Iran (or support an Israeli attack on Iran).
Thu, 2008-09-11 15:08
#9
How about lobbying your government Sven, and ask it to stop selling weapons to rogue states, ask it to stop bombing the shit out of countries? Where is your outrage? How about the US, which has the most missiles and weaponry, to start a nuclear disarment program? What? Oh....yes...that isn't going to happen.
You know, you try to act progressive, but you are the epitome of an arrogant American. Even your tag line is sad sad sad....
Go USA!!!
Thu, 2008-09-11 15:30
#10
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]How about lobbying your government Sven, and ask it to stop selling weapons to rogue states, ask it to stop bombing the shit out of countries? Where is your outrage? How about the US, which has the most missiles and weaponry, to start a nuclear disarment program? What? Oh....yes...that isn't going to happen.[/b]
Put aside Americans for a moment. The funny thing is many (Canadian) babblers cannot seem to express any concern about a nuclear-armed Iran (even though Europe is very concerned about it). It all comes back to: "But...but...but...what about the Americans?!?!"
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]Even your tag line is sad sad sad....[/b]
My tag line? What does that have to do with (1) Iran, (2) Americans, or (3) sadness? It's a philosophy of life: I don't worry about people doing better than me...never have. And, I think I'm a lot happier as a result of that. Most bitter people I know are deeply envious...and very unhappy.
Thu, 2008-09-11 15:36
#11
Sven you need to watch the skit "Don't Mention the War"
Why would anyone discussing disarmament issues leave aside the the largest military in the world. Because they only kill out of hate not envy? Don't mention the USA why?
Thu, 2008-09-11 15:41
#12
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k7U-_tJVmw]Fawlty Towers[/url]
Thu, 2008-09-11 15:42
#13
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]Sven you need to watch the skit "Don't Mention the War"Why would anyone discussing disarmament issues leave aside the the largest military in the world. Because they only kill out of hate not envy? Don't mention the USA why?[/b]
Well, I guess the Europeans [i]must be[/i] off base expending their efforts trying to prevent nuclear proliferation to Iran rather than working to disarm America. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2008-09-11 15:47
#14
No they are not off base they are all on NATO bases. They are all in the club together so of course they want to keep all those other undesirables out of their exclusive club. Imperialist need only apply. I think that we should disarm all nuclear powers but since those countries also have the largest stockpiles of conventional weapons too I doubt if they will listen to me.
Thu, 2008-09-11 15:49
#15
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]No they are not off base they are all on NATO bases. They are all in the club together so of course they want to keep all those other undesirables out of their exclusive club. Imperialist need only apply. I think that we should disarm all nuclear powers but since those countries also have the largest stockpiles of conventional weapons too I doubt if they will listen to me.[/b]
So, in light of the fact that the existing "club members" will retain nukes, I take it you are okay with Iran having nukes. Does that sum up your views correctly?
Thu, 2008-09-11 16:01
#16
I take it you are all right with America ruling the world? Have I stated your views correctly?
Thu, 2008-09-11 16:19
#17
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]I take it you are all right with America ruling the world? Have I stated your views correctly?[/b]
To borrow melovesproles's response above: "Way to dodge the point kropotkin1951.
Thu, 2008-09-11 16:22
#18
To use your language, way to dodge the debate. So do you think that America has the right to rule the world?
quote:
Looks like Bush is going to leave the Iran nuclear puzzle for Barack to solve.
Sure seems like your first post implies that very thing.
Thu, 2008-09-11 16:29
#19
RevolutionPlease
I'm all for Iran achieving nuclear capability, might lead to some actual movement towards ALL countries getting rid of them.
Thu, 2008-09-11 16:30
#20
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]So do you think that America has the right to rule the world[SNIP]
Sure seems like your first post implies that very thing.[/b]
Barack isn't going to solve the puzzle alone (no one is).
So, no, you incorrectly inferred from my statement that I think "American has the right to rule the world".
But, it seems like a lot of Canadians don't give a shit if Iran has nukes or not. They just have a hard time saying that.
Thu, 2008-09-11 16:32
#21
quote:
"But...but...but...what about the evil U.S.?!?!"
Acutally, I was thinking Israel.
But we're supposed to believe that all Europe trembles at the notion of the idea of the thought that maybe someday Iran will contemplate the beginning of the plan for the feasibility of the possibility of getting the ball rolling towards a NUKULAR BOMB!!!!!1!1!
I guess Europe isn't concerned about those very real existing nukes in the hands of the actual fanatical fascist regime of Israel.
quote:
But, it seems like a lot of Canadians don't give a shit if Iran has nukes or not. They just have a hard time saying that.
I don't have a problem saying it. I don't give a shit if Iran has nukes or not. When was the last time Iran invaded anybody? When was the last time the world's nuclear powers invaded anybody? Well, that would be Russia (justifiably) during the week of August 8. Before that, the US and Britain destroyed a defenseless Iraq, Israel tried to do the same to the people of Lebanon, France occupies Afghanistan, where India and Pakistan are both engaged in proxy fight. China has Tibet. Did I forget anyone?
[ 11 September 2008: Message edited by: Jingles ]
Thu, 2008-09-11 16:39
#22
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]Barack isn't going to solve the puzzle alone (no one is).
So, no, you incorrectly inferred from my statement that I think "American has the right to rule the world".
But, it seems like a lot of Canadians don't give a shit if Iran has nukes or not. They just have a hard time saying that.[/b]
I care that there are nukes. I will admit I am most wary of the country that has used them and whose politicians regularly threaten other countries with them. I also am very afraid of Israel, Pakistan and India since they all seem like the USA do be dominated by people driven by religious hate. Iran I will worry about when they actually join the club they say they aren't even applying for.
When did Iran last attack anyone? When did Israel or India or Pakistan or the USA last attack other countries. As a rational human I worry about the countries that have shown to be willing to use their weapons on other countries. So far the whack jobs who run Iran have not.
Thu, 2008-09-11 16:44
#23
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]Iran I will worry about when they actually join the club they say they aren't even applying for.[/b]
It's naive to think they aren't "applying" for admission to the club.
Also, good move: Don't worry about them until [i]after[/i] they have the nukes.
Thu, 2008-09-11 16:48
#24
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]It's naive to think they aren't "applying" for admission to the club.
Also, good move: Don't worry about them until [i]after[/i] they have the nukes.[/b]
Good move don't worry about the ones that already do. oh yeah you don't expect your country to nuke itself and in the meantime the world better listen up and listen up good because you have shown yourselves willing to kill hundreds of thousands in the only Ground Zeros in human history.
So why do you think Israel India and Pakistan should have nukes?
Thu, 2008-09-11 16:49
#25
You know Sven, I don't think it is unreasonable for Iran to have nukes. They are continually threatened by both the US and Israel. If its okay for the US to heavily arm itself against "the axis of evil" then you have to apply the same for countries under threat.
Hell if I was Iran I'd be busy getting nukes. The way your creepy politicians talk, they'd incinerate the entire population.
Thu, 2008-09-11 16:53
#26
But then unlike the fascists who run your country I think the doctrine of preventive first strike is evil and dehumanizing to everyone. But go on vilify the Iranians and kill their innocent civilians for the 'crimes" of their leaders because that is what America does best.
All Hail Pax Americana
Long Live the Cult of the Invisible Hand
Thu, 2008-09-11 17:07
#27
quote:
Put aside Americans for a moment. The funny thing is many (Canadian) babblers cannot seem to express any concern about a nuclear-armed Iran
Why should we? The Iranians say they are working toward developing nuclear energy, not weapons.
And even if Iran should some day have nukes, is that any worse than the 200 nukes the Israelis have, or the nukes that the Indians and Pakistanis have? Who since, oh I don't know, the time of Xerxes, have the Iranians ever attacked? Iran is about the one country on the planet that seems safe to have nukes.
You'll have to forgive us dumb Canucks for not going wild-eyed in fear of Iran. We don't have the benefit of the lifetime of propaganda that creates your attitudes toward the outside world.
The USA is not the font of good in the world, nor are those who become its enemies the source of all evil.
Thu, 2008-09-11 17:10
#28
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Why should we? The Iranians say they are working toward developing nuclear energy, not weapons.
Well the neocons always insist that it's about making weapons that are aimed at destroying Western civilization.
Not all that different from their line about Hezbollah. The line in the West is that the social programs they fund is all window-dressing and their real aim is destruction of Israel.
Thu, 2008-09-11 17:41
#29
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]Hell if I was Iran I'd be busy getting nukes. The way your creepy politicians talk, they'd incinerate the entire population.[/b]
Lemme see if I understand your logic. Iran needs nukes because if they don't have them, the USA would incinerate Iran's entire population. Iran doesn't have nukes now. So, why hasn't the USA incinerated Iran's entire population?
Thu, 2008-09-11 17:47
#30
RevolutionPlease
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]Lemme see if I understand your logic. Iran needs nukes because if they don't have them, the USA would incinerate Iran's entire population. Iran doesn't have nukes now. So, why hasn't the USA incinerated Iran's entire population?[/b]
Because Iran still sells it their oil.
Thu, 2008-09-11 17:48
#31
Tell us, Sven, why should any of us see it as any worse for Iran to have nukes than it is for the US or the now permanently right-wing and anti-peace Israeli government?
Or do you want the US and Israel to be made to give up their nukes as well?
You have to favor having all three states be nuclear-free to be consistent, you know.
Thu, 2008-09-11 17:49
#32
No according to neocons like Sven the U.S. and Israel would be "reasonable" but Iran can't be trusted.
Thu, 2008-09-11 17:53
#33
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Max Bialystock:
[b]No according to neocons like Sven the U.S. and Israel would be "reasonable" but Iran can't be trusted.[/b]
If Israel was bent on destroying Iran, it would have done so already. Ditto America.
Thu, 2008-09-11 18:02
#34
If Iran was bent on destroying Israel, it equally would have done so already.
Face it, there's no moral difference between Iran having nukes and Israel having nukes.
Why are you cheerleading for a pointless confrontation between Israel and Iran?
The way to resolve this is for the US to promise never to attack Iran again. Apologizing for the coup in 1953 would help as well, as would apologizing for the endless support for the murderous Shah.
[ 11 September 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]
Thu, 2008-09-11 18:04
#35
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]If Iran was bent on destroying Israel, it equally would have done so already.[/b]
Bullshit.
How?
Thu, 2008-09-11 18:06
#36
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]Why are you cheerleading for a pointless confrontation between Israel and Iran?[/b]
Read my first post.
Thu, 2008-09-11 18:09
#37
I did. I wasn't talking about Bush. I was talking about your own senseless paranoia about Iran.
You know nothing positive could come of Israel or anybody else attacking Iran. Why act as if its a defensible idea?
Iran doesn't want to attack Israel and you know it. The Iranian government is not insane.
[ 11 September 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]
Thu, 2008-09-11 18:10
#38
If America was bent on destroying Iraq they would have. I agree with that logic. Iraq didn't have nukes so I know that is not the criteria the USA uses to decimate innocent civilian populations in an attempt to Shock and Awe them into submission.
I'm waiting for Palin to revive "54 40 or fight" as a good slogan.
Thu, 2008-09-11 18:12
#39
Palin would only call for military attacks against Canada if she had proof you were deploying Wolves of Mass Destruction at the Alaskan border.
And especially if the wolves were gay.
Thu, 2008-09-11 18:12
#40
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]Iran doesn't want to attack Israel and you know it.[/b]
[url=http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/26/news/iran.php]Uh-huh.[/url]
Thu, 2008-09-11 18:16
#41
By which he means replace the current State of Israel with a non-sectarian state in which Jews and Arabs live as equals, not nuclear obliteration.
Let the paranoia go already. There was never any reason to go Cuban Missile Crisis on the Iranians.
(Mind you, there was no good reason to go Cuban Missile Crisis on the Cubans either.)
Thu, 2008-09-11 18:20
#42
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]By which he means replace the current State of Israel with a non-sectarian state in which Jews and Arabs live as equals, not nuclear obliteration.[/b]
Riiiiiiight.
Thu, 2008-09-11 18:24
#43
You just want to see Muslims get carpet-bombed. That's all that drove the creation of this whole thread.
You know there's no good reason to obsess on Iran. Yet you won't let this go.
Never mind that Western force has never brought any positive change to the Middle East at any point in history and that if it hasn't so far, it can't do so in the future.
Thu, 2008-09-11 18:27
#44
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]You just want to see Muslims get carpet-bombed.[/b]
You just want to see all Christians wiped out.
Both of the above statements are equally true...and equally moronic.
Thu, 2008-09-11 18:31
#45
I don't want to see any confrontation. You are obsessed with having one with Iran, even though the West and Israel have no moral authority to confront Iran on anything, and even though you know only innocent Iranian civilians would be hurt if you got your war.
The answer is to chill out. There's no reason for brinksmanship here and you know as well as everyone else that Iran only wants nukes for energy and defensive purposes. If it was legitimate for the Shah to have nukes for those reasons(as the US believed)the US has no moral right to oppose any other Iranian government having them.
And Iran wouldn't have a government like it currently has if the US hadn't spent the last three decades demonizing it for no reason.
[ 11 September 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]
Thu, 2008-09-11 18:31
#46
Sven, are you still regurgitating the "wipe israel off the map" lie?
You are pathetic.
[ 11 September 2008: Message edited by: Jingles ]
Thu, 2008-09-11 18:32
#47
You were referring to Sven, I hope?
Thu, 2008-09-11 18:33
#48
![http://www.internationalterrorist.com/artwork/trystop.jpg[/img]](http://www.internationalterrorist.com/artwork/trystop.jpg[/img]){kind=link}
Thu, 2008-09-11 18:34
#49
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]...and you know as well as everyone else that Iran only wants nukes for energy and defensive purposes.[/b]
No. I don't. And neither do you.
Thu, 2008-09-11 18:36
#50
quote:
Originally posted by Papal Bull:
[b][img]http://www.internationalterrorist.com/artwork/trystop.jpg[/img][/b]
![http://www.internationalterrorist.com/artwork/trystop.jpg[/img][/b]](http://www.internationalterrorist.com/artwork/trystop.jpg[/img][/b]){kind=link}
Or, as that great American Phil Ochs described the mindset in one of his best songs:
"We own half the world, O Say Can You See?
And the name for our profits is 'democracy'
So like it or not, you will have to be FREE...
'Cause We're The Cops Of The World, boys,
We're The Cops Of The World".
[ 11 September 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]
Thu, 2008-09-11 18:38
#51
Iran is a tiny country, Sven. Why do you see them as so much more evil than any other country in the world?
Face it, you're freaking out over nothing here. And you know it.