PDA

View Full Version : Israel may consider military strike on Iran



PeedeeShaolin
22nd October 04, 06:27 PM
This is ALL we need: The most psychotic and homicidal nation in the middle east(Israel) wants to start shit with the 2nd most dangerous, Iran.


JERUSALEM — Increasingly concerned about Iran's nuclear program, Israel is weighing its options and has not ruled out a military strike to prevent the Islamic Republic from gaining the capability to build atomic weapons, according to policymakers, military officials, analysts and diplomats.


Israel would much prefer a diplomatic agreement to shut down Iran's uranium enrichment program, but if it concluded that Tehran was approaching a "point of no return," it would not be deterred by the difficulty of a military operation, the prospect of retaliation or the international reaction, officials and analysts said.

Meanwhile the Israeli army chief of staff Moshe Yaalon has said that Israel will not rely on "others". Another pre-emptive strike ona country thats not threatened or attacked anyone. That'll make the world a safer and better place. Who the fuck is Israel to attack a sovereign nation? Wouldn't that make them worse than terrorists? Outright aggression against a nation is punishable as a crime isn't it?


Experts are divided, however, on whether that precedent should be viewed as a window into Israel's thinking on Iran.


"The comparison to 1981 is of the utmost relevance because the decision-making is based on the same factors," said army reserve Col. Danny Shoham, a former military intelligence officer who is now a researcher at Bar-Ilan University. "Those are: What is the reliability of the intelligence picture? What would be the response of the opponent? What is the point of no return in terms of nuclear development, and what would be the international response?"


But he and others also noted key differences that could weigh against a military strike. Iran's nuclear development sites are widely scattered, in many cases hidden underground and heavily fortified, so Israel would have far less opportunity to deal the Iranian program a single devastating blow.

You want to talk about a shit storm? Just wait and see what happens if these crazy people are allowed to start murdering anyone they see as a threat. A good portion of the world sees Israel as a much greater threat than even Iran.


"There may be a few months when the international community can still act and place upon Iran the kind of pressure that would compel it to stop its program," said Avi Pazner, a veteran diplomat who serves as an advisor to Sharon. "But there's not much time — there's not much time."

Opinion polls suggest that although there is little appetite in Israel for a confrontation with Iran, a substantial minority of citizens thinks one could be on the horizon. In a recent poll commissioned by the Maariv newspaper, 54% said diplomatic efforts to contain Iran's nuclear program should continue, with 38% saying their country should consider a preemptive attack.

Hey, what happened in the last country they told us had WMD's?

And is anyone aware that Israel possesses nuclear weapons and they have no more right that Iran to do so?

Deadpan Scientist
22nd October 04, 06:33 PM
I'd be pretty ironic if israel went on a genocidal rampage against muslims.

PeedeeShaolin
22nd October 04, 06:36 PM
They're doing it right now, where have you been?

Its the U.S. vs. Native Americans all over again.

PeedeeShaolin
22nd October 04, 06:37 PM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=1&u=/latimests/20041022/ts_latimes/israelmayhaveiraninitssights

Judah Maccabee
23rd October 04, 05:18 PM
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Threats_to_Israel/Iran.html


Defying a key demand set by 35 nations, Iran announced September 21, 2004, that it has started converting raw uranium into the gas needed for enrichment, a process that can be used to make nuclear weapons. A couple of weeks later, Iran announced it had processed several tons of raw ''yellowcake'' uranium to prepare it for enrichment - a key step in developing atomic weapons - in defiance of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency (AP, October 6, 2004).

Are you saying that Israel shouldn't have attacked Iraq's "Osiraq" reactor back in the day? Most countries condemned Israel in public and thanked them in private.

Freddy
23rd October 04, 05:30 PM
If I recall Pakistan earlier this month tested a medium range missile. Will Pakistan be the next threat?

Emiare_Pac
24th October 04, 04:30 AM
All israel has been is one fucking major problem since it was established as a nation. This is one of the reasons why america is hated by muslims. Besides israel has a weapons program of it's own. fucking hypocrites.

Can anyone see the U.N going the same way as the league of nations?

Vedislav
24th October 04, 06:56 AM
Yes. Bush already ignored then UN completely when he went into Iraq, so go figure...

Judah Maccabee
24th October 04, 10:18 AM
All israel has been is one fucking major problem since it was established as a nation. This is one of the reasons why america is hated by muslims. Besides israel has a weapons program of it's own. fucking hypocrites.

Can anyone see the U.N going the same way as the league of nations?

So you see absolutely no difference between Israel's weapons program and Iran's? After having fought at least 3 wars of an existential nature?

Xango
24th October 04, 11:42 AM
The nice thing about being the ones with the nukes is getting to ignore all the little ankle-biters.

Deadpan Scientist
24th October 04, 12:51 PM
Yeah israel sure is a pain, maybe we should just leave it to the muslim neighbors. I'm sure things will end well that way.

Te(V)plar
24th October 04, 02:17 PM
This is ALL we need: The most psychotic and homicidal nation in the middle east(Israel) wants to start shit with the 2nd most dangerous, Iran.

Get the arab penis out of your mouth, post haste.


Israel is surrounded by enemies. Yet the only reason they haven't dominated the entire goddamn region is because we asked them not to and they're kind enough to comply. To call Israel a bully is laughable, they're fighting for existance yet showing enough restraint to not completely massacre their enemies. Imagine how the US would react if we had suicide bombers on a regular basis. Their country of origin would be a smoking crater.

SLJ
25th October 04, 03:59 AM
"And is anyone aware that Israel possesses nuclear weapons and they have no more right that Iran to do so?"


Israel don't support people who's friendly life mission is, "If you don't agree with my religion I'm going to kill you."

I hope they do something soon.

LOVED2BLOVED
25th October 04, 04:45 AM
i think both sides are bad, go on nausea.com and you will see countless innocent people slaughtered by the israeli military.(children as well)

however, the terrorist attacks from palestine and terrorism sponsoring iran are also bad.

as a nation leader, i wouldnt know how to solve the problem..

SLJ
25th October 04, 05:10 AM
Israel don't think I'm an "infidel" and want to kill me, that gets them my vote.

Hannibal
25th October 04, 06:32 AM
One thing I know for sure.

The arabs (Muslims especially) are a race incapable of living in harmony with themselves and other nations. The sad truth is the only law the arabs respect is the law of the sword.

Israel is perfectly justified for taking the measures they have. Its very eaasy to judge from a safe distance. But if you lived in a country where you where terrified of going down to the local cafe' or catching a bus, because a suicide bomber with explosives strapped to him maay blow it up well....you'd think differently. I actually feel sorry for the Jews over there. They have gone through such fear and hardship that most of us will never know.

Osiris
25th October 04, 08:23 AM
Europeans are just so peaceful aren't they?

Doritosaurus Chex
25th October 04, 08:29 AM
Unbelievable.

Hannibal, not even a halfway house could match your level retardedness.

WingChun Lawyer
25th October 04, 10:19 AM
I may be wrong, but I believe there is no definite proof that Iran is actually working on nuke development - indeed it has been more open to inspections than Brazil. Of course, it is possible to launch a preemptive strike based on faulty information, now that we have a conclusive precedent...and it is not as if Israel ever cared about the UN or international law in general.

Judah Maccabee
25th October 04, 10:29 AM
In regards to definitive proof, Iran has gladly admitted to performing enrichment techniques that would yield weapons-grade nuclear weapons.

From the link I posted:


Further evidence of Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons was revealed in late 2003 and early 2004 when Pakistan's top nuclear scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, admitted he provided nuclear weapons expertise and equipment to Iran, as well as North Korea and Libya. The Iranian government, confronted in February 2004 with new evidence obtained from the secret network of nuclear suppliers surrounding Khan, acknowledged it had a design for a far more advanced high-speed centrifuge to enrich uranium than it previously revealed to the IAEA. This type of centrifuge would allow Iran to produce nuclear fuel far more quickly than the equipment that it reluctantly revealed to the agency in 2003. This revelation proved that Iran lied when it claimed to have turned over all the documents relating to their enrichment program.

I have spoken with several Israeli analysts. Some of them are at the point where they've said they've begun formulating policy options and implications for a fully nuclear Iran. Iran learned from Iraq and decentralized their nuclear facilities across the entire country. It would take a massive, coordinated airstrike across hundreds of miles, and there would be a definite counterattack with ballistic missiles possibly armed with biological or chemical weapons. The Shihab-3 can hit Israel, as well as part of Europe.

WingChun Lawyer
25th October 04, 11:22 AM
In regards to definitive proof, Iran has gladly admitted to performing enrichment techniques that would yield weapons-grade nuclear weapons.

I think so has Brazil, and we have not signed additional protocols regarding inspections in our nuclear facilities that Iran has. And no one mentioned invading us.

As for the link you mentioned, well, that may be a decent piece of evidence. But I also remember that there were several experts saying Iraq certainly did have WMD to begin with, and many of them were scientists as well...frankly, I never trusted the USA on the Iraq situation, and Israel has even less credibility.

Peter H.
25th October 04, 11:28 AM
I think so has Brazil, and we have not signed additional protocols regarding inspections in our nuclear facilities that Iran has. And no one mentioned invading us.


True, but last time I checked, Brazil hadn't supported a terrorist regime or threatened the violent destruction of another country.

Freddy
25th October 04, 11:30 AM
One thing I know for sure.

The arabs (Muslims especially) are a race incapable of living in harmony with themselves and other nations. The sad truth is the only law the arabs respect is the law of the sword.



You know time and time again in your posts I hear this bigoted remarks you keep making about Arabs. Enough of the ethnic bashing and demonization.

:wrestlerb

Raven
25th October 04, 11:37 AM
You know time and time again in your posts I hear this bigoted remarks you keep making about Arabs. Enough of the ethnic bashing and demonization.

:wrestlerb

I don't think anyone takes Hannibal seriouesly.

Os,

You are correct, but I would say, a more accurate description would be humans in General.

WingChun Lawyer
25th October 04, 12:01 PM
True, but last time I checked, Brazil hadn't supported a terrorist regime or threatened the violent destrcution of another country.


The point of my argument is, it seems Iran was placed in a lose lose situation, not unlike Iraq. Iran has been complying with many of the demands made by the USA regarding inspections, but it doesnīt seem like it will make any difference whatsoever what it does - plans have already been laid for its invasion, and the decision to attack will not be influenced at all by what the iranian government does.

Freddy
25th October 04, 12:40 PM
True, but last time I checked, Brazil hadn't supported a terrorist regime or threatened the violent destruction of another country.

Although the internal situation (both past and present) in Brazil is questionable. One being the crack down of leftist in the 1960's and the other being the treatment of indigenious people (many would say genocidal).

Judah Maccabee
25th October 04, 12:57 PM
Iran is in non-compliance with UN/IAEA demands, not US.

Israel too hasn't signed the NPT, which is why its Dimona reactor is not legally open to sanctions. The NPT basically says "We'll give you nuclear fuel and technology if you promise not to make weapons with it." The issue is, as is the case with the UN, of enforcement in the event of a breach in the agreement.

If Kerry is elected President, Iran could agree to receive fuel from the US unable to be processed into nuclear weapons, but obviously, this would not be palatable to the virulently anti-Western regime in power at the moment.

Tef-the-Persian
25th October 04, 12:57 PM
I wouldn't appreciate an attack on Iran, or Israel. I hate violence.

1) Most Irani are not Arab.

2) Pigmentation does not a race make.

3) Whoashit is Hannibal a weirdo.

Edit: I'd prefer if no one had weapons. Most people do have weapons. I think that if every country had nuclear weapons we'd run the risk of either unification or destruction.

ojgsxr6
25th October 04, 01:14 PM
Tef, I mean no offense by asking this, I would just like to know what is the difference between Persian and Arab is. As far as I know Persia refers to the country that was once made up of Iraq, Iran and Turkey.
And to me it seems like someone saying I'm not white I'm Irish, or I'm not hispanic I'm puertorican? Like I said I mean not offense I'm just curious.

WingChun Lawyer
25th October 04, 01:15 PM
1) Iran is in non-compliance with UN/IAEA demands, not US.

2) Israel too hasn't signed the NPT, which is why its Dimona reactor is not legally open to sanctions.

3) The issue is, as is the case with the UN, of enforcement in the event of a breach in the agreement.


1) I thought it had signed additional protocols which allowed further inspection. Are you sure it is in breach? As I remember, Iraq was not in breach of its WMD inspection obligations, and that didnīt help any.

2) Iīll sleep much more confortable tonight knowing that. I am glad to know Israel did not even sign the document which it supposedly wants to enforce at Iranīs expense.

3) So, at the moment Israel is considering attacking Iran because Iran is supposedly in breach of an agreement which Israel itself did not deign to sign in the first place. Niiice. That excuse doesnīt hold any water, I hope you realize.

Ronin
25th October 04, 01:27 PM
*turns on his apocolypse mode*

We all know the end of the world is gonna start in the middle east, the only question is when...

WingChun Lawyer
25th October 04, 01:32 PM
*turns on his apocolypse mode*

We all know the end of the world is gonna start in the middle east, the only question is when...

Hey, no oneīs arguing with THAT. We are just trying to establish whoīs to blame for it. For post-apocalypse persecution and enslaving purposes, you know.

Stold3
25th October 04, 01:37 PM
Wait until the US drops it's support for Israel. Talk about shit hitting the fan.

Ronin
25th October 04, 01:42 PM
This world needs a good ol fashioned apocolypse.
So we can bring in a new world order !!!
A good, clean, old fashioned world domination, without kitchen utensils !

WingChun Lawyer
25th October 04, 01:51 PM
This world needs a good ol fashioned apocolypse.
So we can bring in a new world order !!!
A good, clean, old fashioned world domination, without kitchen utensils !

After an apocalypse there is supposed to be no world for domination, silly. That is supposed to teach us fallible humans a lesson in humillity, morality, respect, and survival on a coackroach diet.

LOVED2BLOVED
25th October 04, 01:55 PM
then we all wake up feeling that bit more wiser.

Tef-the-Persian
25th October 04, 02:02 PM
Tef, I mean no offense by asking this, I would just like to know what is the difference between Persian and Arab is. As far as I know Persia refers to the country that was once made up of Iraq, Iran and Turkey.
And to me it seems like someone saying I'm not white I'm Irish, or I'm not hispanic I'm puertorican? Like I said I mean not offense I'm just curious.

Not much! Hah. There isn't much difference between any people.

The Arab folk forced their religion on the Persian folk. We (Irani) had/have a different language, culture, and formerly had a different religion. (Zoroastrianism)

In your last two sentences you're speaking of pigmentation vs. cultural identity. The Arabic cultures and the Persian culture differ. Genetically, we're nearly the same. Persians tend to be a bit lighter skinned, and some have red hair due to mating with Irish people, that's about it.

I, personally, don't believe in the concept of race based on pigmentation, hair color, or facial features, but I do believe that the Persian culture is different from the Arabic ones. (If only for the language/religion thing. Oh, and they burned our libraries in the thousands of years of fighting between our groups. Heh. Mean guys I guess). Iran itself, today, I can't say it's much different from Iraq. People fearful of invasion, sometimes powerless or so focused on survival and provisions for their families that they can't escape their work enough to have their voices heard in the global forums.

In the past, well, what I said. We were different cultures, it's hard to condense that into, "Well, Americans like their fries with like, freedom! And those Frenchie froggie frenchie bastard commie frogs like their fries repressed!" They tried to destroy our culture, our religion, our knowledge base, and we tried to do the same to them. ...Well, I personally did not, but other Persians did. :P

Of course the cultural pillaging did weird things to Persians. Persians have this phrase that says, "Farsi is sugar." It's a bit more deep than that in our language, it kind of amounts to, "Farsi is honey." Oh, wait, no, it really is that stupid. Hahhaa. Anyway, Persians have a bit of repressed pride regarding their former traditions/customs/etc. so what's held on to today is held on to voraciously.

WingChun Lawyer
25th October 04, 02:06 PM
Persians were cool. Is it true that you guys (meaning, someone down the line) fought the romans, and lived to tell the tale?

Ronin
25th October 04, 02:14 PM
Here we are, born to be kings, we're the princess of the Universe....
We are immortal, we have inside us the blood of kings.
We have no rivals, no man can be our equal !

ojgsxr6
25th October 04, 02:14 PM
Tef, I think I can wrap my head around that. But, wow Irish people really get around.

Tef-the-Persian
25th October 04, 02:16 PM
Persians were cool. Is it true that you guys (meaning, someone down the line) fought the romans, and lived to tell the tale?


We owned that shit man. Elephants are the ultimate MMA. It was back and forth, both "nations" were very powerful and had far-reaching influence. I deeply value a lot of the Roman culture, no offense intended. Romans paid subsidies to the Persians more than once. It was a bit more than "lived to tell about it." I think one war, an assault on Rome itself, lasted twenty-seven years. That was near the beginning of the end for the Persian empire. You have to take into account these cultures/nations were around for a long ass time.

Given my research in Civ3, I think the Persians are/were best for completing the objectives to win a scenario, whereas the Romans were better for a bigger build-up later on. So, you see, that's what the Persian culture's influence in the world today is far less, they already won Earth and moved on to Civ4. Romans, on the other hand, have led to even bigger SUVs than I thought possible. The miracle of science!

Judah Maccabee
25th October 04, 02:19 PM
3) So, at the moment Israel is considering attacking Iran because Iran is supposedly in breach of an agreement which Israel itself did not deign to sign in the first place. Niiice. That excuse doesnīt hold any water, I hope you realize.

If Israel signed agreements and made promises to adhere to certain principles, and they were in breach of them, I'd be scornful of them as well.

Israel is planning on attacking Iran because Iran has clearly articulated in the past that once they get an atomic bomb, they will drop it on Israel. As I've said before and I'll say again, Israel lives not under threat of attack (as the US and other major nations do), but under existential threat. A state barely larger than the smallest of the United States surrounded by well-armed enemies.

As for the US dropping support for Israel, the US has remained a steadfast ally with Israel, and vice-versa. There are only 2 conceivable ways the US would drop support for Israel: 1. Israel makes a deliberate, vicious attack on US interests. 2. The US administration tries to curry favor with Arab nations by dropping support.

However, there are many ties which bind the countries, and I hope that they will grow closer than the current level they already have.

Tef-the-Persian
25th October 04, 02:21 PM
Samurai_Steve, I'd prefer if you said, "the government of" when speaking of a nation. I don't believe that the people of a nation are ever harmoniously unified in thought.

That'd be double-plus unlikely.

WingChun Lawyer
25th October 04, 02:36 PM
If Israel signed agreements and made promises to adhere to certain principles, and they were in breach of them, I'd be scornful of them as well.

I saw no definite proof that Iran is in breach of anything. And quite frankly, after the iraqi WMD fiasco, I would ask for pretty decent proof indeed.

As for Israel not signing those agreements - that much more serious than being in breach, and I suppose we both know it. By the same token, North Koreaīs murderous regime should not be considered bad, because it never signed any treaties saying it would not develop WMD. Israel has not signed the agreements, it has illegally developed WMD under the blessings of the USA, and now it is using those same agreements as an excuse to.

Sorry, that seems absurd to me.

As for Israel having to attack Iran for reasons of national security - as I said, if I see definite proof of this, Iīll agree with it, certainly. I just believe those agreements are good only for those who are not friends of the USA, and Israel knows it and is acting accordingly, so they should not even be discussed on the present situation.

Freddy
25th October 04, 02:58 PM
Has it occur to anyone that Pakistan can possibly be a threat in the future? Not to mention India as well if the BJP religious fascists come into power and go nuts with their beleifs.

Just incase people arnt aware. Pakistan's nuclear program at one time was heavily aided by our buddy Saddam.

Judah Maccabee
25th October 04, 03:11 PM
WingChun: N. Korea USED to be under the NPT. However, about 18 months ago, it withdrew from the treaty:

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/030409.htm


Therefore, they initially promised not to develop weapons in exchange for technology, took the technology, started to develop weapons, then withdrew from the treaty.

WingChun Lawyer
25th October 04, 03:16 PM
Thanks for the info. Just to make it clear: I believe those treaties are all pretty much irrelevant, since they are only enforced on those who oppose the USA and who cannot defend themselves against its influence (or arms). I do believe Israel has the right to defend itself: I just donīt think those agreements should even be brought into the question when we discuss this.

Peter H.
25th October 04, 03:35 PM
1) I thought it had signed additional protocols which allowed further inspection. Are you sure it is in breach? As I remember, Iraq was not in breach of its WMD inspection obligations, and that didnīt help any.


Iraq was in breach of about a dozen WMD inspection resolutions


I believe those treaties are all pretty much irrelevant, since they are only enforced on those who oppose the USA and who cannot defend themselves against its influence (or arms).


True, but that's what happens when no one enforces them but the US.

Xango
25th October 04, 03:42 PM
Thanks for the info. Just to make it clear: I believe those treaties are all pretty much irrelevant, since they are only enforced on those who oppose the USA and who cannot defend themselves against its influence (or arms). I do believe Israel has the right to defend itself: I just donīt think those agreements should even be brought into the question when we discuss this.

Well, then. Fairly simple really. Iran wants to fuck Israel's shit up bad, and Israel is saying "Bitches better straighten Iran out before we do it for you."

How hard is that to comprehend?

Freddy
25th October 04, 04:03 PM
WingChun: N. Korea USED to be under the NPT. However, about 18 months ago, it withdrew from the treaty:

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/030409.htm


Therefore, they initially promised not to develop weapons in exchange for technology, took the technology, started to develop weapons, then withdrew from the treaty.

From my understanding the NK was promised nuclear reactors (with specific dates set) and the U.S. negated on that promised.
(Not that I agree with NK politics)

WingChun Lawyer
25th October 04, 04:04 PM
Well, then. Fairly simple really. Iran wants to fuck Israel's shit up bad, and Israel is saying "Bitches better straighten Iran out before we do it for you."


No oneīs disagreeing here...IF there is conclusive proof that Iran is developing nukes.

Freddy
25th October 04, 04:08 PM
Iraq was in breach of about a dozen WMD inspection resolutions



True, but that's what happens when no one enforces them but the US.

Its true that Iraq breach UN resolutions but at the same time the U.S. defy the U.N and invaded Iraq regardless. Not to mention Iraq isnt and wasnt the only nation that defy the U.N.
Even when the South African Apartheid regime existed. There wasnt one single military move by the U.S. against that regime. etc etc
I really not convince of the atruistic line that the U.S. government has been perpetuating.

Xango
25th October 04, 04:28 PM
WCL, I would argue that the standard here isn't proof beyond reasonable doubt, but preponderance of evidence. A top-tier oil country does not need to spend hundreds of millions on research into nuclear energy for power generation. I'm sure Steve could find you a dossier on statements made by the mullahs that straightforwardly disclose Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Iran wants a nuke. Question is, what is to be done. I'm glad I don't have to answer it.

Peter H.
25th October 04, 04:29 PM
Its true that Iraq breach UN resolutions but at the same time the U.S. defy the U.N and invaded Iraq regardless. Not to mention Iraq isnt and wasnt the only nation that defy the U.N.
Even when the South African Apartheid regime existed. There wasnt one single military move by the U.S. against that regime. etc etc
I really not convince of the atruistic line that the U.S. government has been perpetuating.

I make none of those claims, I state simply the facts of the matter 1) Iraq was in a violation, 2) When only one person works to enforce the rules, of course they will be enforced whimsically.

Freddy
25th October 04, 04:50 PM
I understand you make non of these claims.

I am still not convince of any whimsical enforcement of rules either. Pinochet was in the custody of Britain but they let him go. The Shah of Iran was supported by the U.S. governemnt and for a period of time so was Saddam. Atruistic reasons I find highly improbable (not saying thats what your beliefs are regarding the matter. Just my own comments.)

pachanga
27th October 04, 10:25 AM
Tef, I mean no offense by asking this, I would just like to know what is the difference between Persian and Arab is. As far as I know Persia refers to the country that was once made up of Iraq, Iran and Turkey.
And to me it seems like someone saying I'm not white I'm Irish, or I'm not hispanic I'm puertorican? Like I said I mean not offense I'm just curious.

The simple, simplified answer is that Arabs speak Arabic and Persians speak Farsi.

A lot of people have an idea that "Arab" denotes a single unified culture. "Arab" is in fact a pretty broad term; Morrocan culture is pretty different from Iraqi culture, and Egyptian spoken Arabic is about as differnet from Syrian spoken Arabic as Italian is from Spanish, for example (they all use the same formal written language though - a bit like locals speaking pig Latin, wich eventually evolved into Spanish, French etc, but writing Roman Latin in official proceedings, although there is no Arab empire).

I don't want to get into the usual arguments about Israel but a quick point: the idea that Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel unprovokedly (one poster suggested they would do it as soon as they managed to acquire them), thus killing millions of Israeli Arabs and Palestinians whom they're supposed to be supporting ad poisoning the land they supposedly want, destroying the third holiest site in Islam if they attacked Jerusalem, and inviting their own destruction, is totally silly.

Judah Maccabee
27th October 04, 12:45 PM
If Iran possesses a nuclear counter-response to Israel, it makes the circumstances far more favorable to launch large-scale conventional weapon strikes on Jewish-majority areas in Israel. Israel would normally retaliate with missiles and rockets of their own, but in the case of existential threat by these weapons, they would likely utilize a nuclear weapon, as I see it.

However, if Israel knew a nuclear response would result in a nuclear counter-response from Iran, their options would be far more limited.

Iranians don't want Israeli land. They want the death of Jews. Which is why Hezbollah launches attacks on Israeli interests, and Iran provides direct funding to Palestinian terrorist groups.

pachanga
27th October 04, 02:18 PM
If Iran possesses a nuclear counter-response to Israel, it makes the circumstances far more favorable to launch large-scale conventional weapon strikes on Jewish-majority areas in Israel. Israel would normally retaliate with missiles and rockets of their own, but in the case of existential threat by these weapons, they would likely utilize a nuclear weapon, as I see it.

However, if Israel knew a nuclear response would result in a nuclear counter-response from Iran, their options would be far more limited.

Iranians don't want Israeli land. They want the death of Jews and Iran provides direct funding to Palestinian terrorist groups.

If Iran wanted the death of all Jews, they might start with killing their own small Jewish community.

It would take a long long time before Iran could rival Israel's military arsenal, and even if it could the best it could hope for would be mutual annihilation. Neither side is likely to go for that. Even inf they don't wnat the land, they presumably don;t want to kill the Palestinians or the Dome of the Rock/Jerusalem.

" Which is why Hezbollah launches attacks on Israeli interests"

How does this prove Iran's goal is the death of all Jews? Whatever yhou think of its methods, Hezbollah has only ever fought to push Israel out of Lebanon and the disputed Sheb'aa farms.

I swear I'm not going to respond to your response to this as I've wasted far too much of my life in these arguments. I'll just repeat: Iran may hate Israel but it is not going to assure its own destruction aloing with that of the Palestinians and holy Muslim sites by launching a nuclear attack on it. THinking otherwise is lliving in puerile fantasy good guys and Hollywood villain land.

Judah Maccabee
27th October 04, 02:27 PM
So since the UN declared Israel as officially out of Lebanon on June 18th, 2000, Hezbollah would have no reason to attack Israel, yes?

I don't think so. BS:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf11.html#h


“If they go from Sheba'a, we will not stop fighting them. Our goal is to liberate the 1948 borders of Palestine...[Jews] can go back to Germany or wherever they came from.”
— Hezbollah spokesperson Hassan Ezzedin23a



Liberating the 1948 borders of Palestine = destroying Israel.

And in regards to Iran's Jewish population:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/iranjews.html


Despite the official distinction between "Jews," "Zionists," and "Israel," the most common accusation the Jews encounter is that of maintaining contacts with Zionists. The Jewish community does enjoy a measure of religious free dom but is faced with constant suspicion of cooperating with the Zionist state and with "imperialistic America" — both such activities are punishable by death. Jews who apply for a passport to travel abroad must do so in a special bureau and are immediately put under surveillance. The government does not generally allow all members of a family to travel abroad at the same time to prevent Jewish emigration. Again, the Jews live under the status of dhimmi, with the restrictions im posed on religious minorities. Jewish leaders fear government reprisals if they draw attention to official mistreatment of their community.

Iran's official government-controlled media often issues anti-Semitic propaganda. A prime example is the government's publishing of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious Czarist forgery, in 1994 and 1999.2 Jews also suffer varying degrees of officially sanctioned discrimination, particularly in the areas of employment, education, and public accommodations.3



If they don't want to kill them, then they sure don't mind putting Jews as dhimmis, or as second-class citizens.

You don't have to respond. I'll accept my facts and my substantiation as superior to your rhetorical arguments, as will others reading this.

punchingdummy
27th October 04, 11:11 PM
As I remember, Iraq was not in breach of its WMD inspection obligations, and that didnīt help any.

Surely you jest?

punchingdummy
27th October 04, 11:29 PM
I may be wrong, but I believe there is no definite proof that Iran is actually working on nuke development - indeed it has been more open to inspections than Brazil. Of course, it is possible to launch a preemptive strike based on faulty information, now that we have a conclusive precedent...and it is not as if Israel ever cared about the UN or international law in general.

There was no definite proof that Pakistan or India were working on nukes either, right? If there is one thing that the intel has been consistent with it is in underestamating nuclear programs.

punchingdummy
27th October 04, 11:43 PM
If Iran wanted the death of all Jews, they might start with killing their own small Jewish community.

It would take a long long time before Iran could rival Israel's military arsenal, and even if it could the best it could hope for would be mutual annihilation. Neither side is likely to go for that. Even inf they don't wnat the land, they presumably don;t want to kill the Palestinians or the Dome of the Rock/Jerusalem.

" Which is why Hezbollah launches attacks on Israeli interests"

How does this prove Iran's goal is the death of all Jews? Whatever yhou think of its methods, Hezbollah has only ever fought to push Israel out of Lebanon and the disputed Sheb'aa farms.

I swear I'm not going to respond to your response to this as I've wasted far too much of my life in these arguments. I'll just repeat: Iran may hate Israel but it is not going to assure its own destruction aloing with that of the Palestinians and holy Muslim sites by launching a nuclear attack on it. THinking otherwise is lliving in puerile fantasy good guys and Hollywood villain land.

(a) Iran has a committed position to the destruction of the state of israel, and not necassarily to kill all jews.

(b) "Hezbollah has only ever fought to push Israel out of Lebanon and the disputed Sheb'aa farms. "
You need to educate yourself before making such ignorant statements. Hezbollah is a global movement active in exporting terrorism on several continents. Google it and see what you find from a wide variety of sources.

(c) Iran has made a strategic decision to build non-conventional capabilities in the form of a terror infrastructure and WMD. Iran has invested little in convential capability, save for the last four to five years. Even so, they have no strategic interest in building a conventional offensive capability.

(c) A nuclear Iran would remove any hope of peace in the middle-east.

Judah Maccabee
28th October 04, 12:27 AM
Punchingdummy, Iran has invested a great deal in conventional weapons with the Shihab missile project. It's latest incarnation is the Shihab 3, with an effective range (I think) of 1200 miles. Able to reach portions of Europe, not to mention all of Israel.

They are attempting to build a Shihab-4, which is projected to reach all of Europe. This missile is significant because it is entirely constructed within Iran, rumored to be based off of the Nodong missile from North Korea. Iran has no tech dependency for this endeavor.

pachanga
28th October 04, 05:47 AM
"You need to educate yourself before making such ignorant statements. Hezbollah is a global movement active in exporting terrorism on several continents. Google it and see what you find from a wide variety of sources. "

Hizballah is absolutely not a global movement. It is a localised Lebanese Shia resistance movement that sprang up in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and has since concentrated on dislodging the Israelis from Southern Lebanon and the Shebaa farms (which it says are Lebanese, and the Israelis say are Syrian) and occasionaly shelling northern Israel. It has been accused of complicity in the attacks on the Israeli embassy and a Jewish cultural centre in Argentina ten years ago but other that it is an entirely localised movement.

punchingdummy
28th October 04, 10:22 AM
Punchingdummy, Iran has invested a great deal in conventional weapons with the Shihab missile project. It's latest incarnation is the Shihab 3, with an effective range (I think) of 1200 miles. Able to reach portions of Europe, not to mention all of Israel.

They are attempting to build a Shihab-4, which is projected to reach all of Europe. This missile is significant because it is entirely constructed within Iran, rumored to be based off of the Nodong missile from North Korea. Iran has no tech dependency for this endeavor.

If you think of in terms of conventional infantry, arty, armor and air power they have not. Their naval forces, while not huge, have received slightly more attenttion. You are correct in that they have a significant missile capability. Missiles are one of those areas which can be considered both conventional and unconventional. Either way, that capability clearly fits well with its overall strategy of pursuing terror and WMD capabilities.

punchingdummy
28th October 04, 10:31 AM
"You need to educate yourself before making such ignorant statements. Hezbollah is a global movement active in exporting terrorism on several continents. Google it and see what you find from a wide variety of sources. "

Hizballah is absolutely not a global movement. It is a localised Lebanese Shia resistance movement that sprang up in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and has since concentrated on dislodging the Israelis from Southern Lebanon and the Shebaa farms (which it says are Lebanese, and the Israelis say are Syrian) and occasionaly shelling northern Israel. It has been accused of complicity in the attacks on the Israeli embassy and a Jewish cultural centre in Argentina ten years ago but other that it is an entirely localised movement.

You have identified their origins, but are clearly uninformed of developments in the past 10 to 12 years. IRG Qod's has created Hezbollah groups in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and others. They are known to train in Iran and with Hezbollah in Lebanon. These are not passive groups.

WingChun Lawyer
28th October 04, 10:55 AM
Surely you jest?

I surely donīt. They were still negotiating with the UN, and they were still housing the UN inspectors when the US decided to attack, right? So it was not in breach, since it was still negotiating the extent of the inspections.

As for providing definite proof of the iranian nuclear weapons program, I am well aware of the difficulties. But I see no reason to trust any evidence presented by the US government regarding this issue - incredibly, I am more inclined to believe israeli sources, since I do trust the Israeli government to attack any direct threat to the countryīs existence, and Iran is too far away to represent a conventional military threat.

So if Israel attacks Iran, I just might believe they are doing so because they are positively, absolutely sure Iran is indeed developing nukes. If the USA attacks Iran, I just might picture the Halliburton lawyers starting to draft new oil contracts (which will be gained without licitations of any kind, of course).

punchingdummy
28th October 04, 02:40 PM
I surely donīt. They were still negotiating with the UN, and they were still housing the UN inspectors when the US decided to attack, right? So it was not in breach, since it was still negotiating the extent of the inspections.

You need to back the timeline up and look why the inspectors out of Iraq in the first place? It's not because they had complied.