NationStates Jolt Archive

War or not war, that is the question (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/802A3FE4-2196-4913-93BD-433E4F1EFE95.htm).

Benjamin Netanyahu (former PM, right-winger, former friend of Sharon but vocal critic of the peace process, probably running for Likud) says he'll bomb Iranian Nuclear Facilities if he is elected.

Is that how you win election campaigns in Israel?

I agree that maybe a threat of doing just that is necessary at some stage, but Iran just agreed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4486954.stm) to get back on the table for negotiations (much to the dismay of some Israelis (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4497286.stm)), and both the EU and the US are working together on this.
Surely the Iranians having to worry about Israeli Fighter Jets attacking them at any moment doesn't exactly help the situation.

I'd bet thats what a lot of Jews want.

To bomb the living snot out of Iran (and all the other Arabs/Muslims).

I'd bet thats what a lot of Jews want.

To bomb the living snot out of Iran (and all the other Arabs/Muslims).
I think it would be better to let some Jews answer that (preferrably some living in Israel...seeing as to how it is them who are actually threatened by Iranian aggression).

I just think it's not particularly skilled diplomacy.

First time I've seen a election hopeful try to be elected by promising acts of war.

First time I've seen a election hopeful try to be elected by promising acts of war.

Hitler, Bush Jr.?

First time I've seen a election hopeful try to be elected by promising acts of war.
To be fair, Likud is not expected to achieve much, now with this new Centre Party being endorsed by both Sharon and Peres, and on the Left Peretz promising some fresh blood.

Hitler wasn't actually elected, and you could argue neither was Bush jr. the second time around.

Hitler, Bush Jr.?

Naah. Hitler did a Palpatine if memory serves, declaring himself de facto leader after he got to Chancellor. As for Bush Jr, the first time round, he didn't make much noise for war. 2nd time round it was more or less stay the course with a war already in the background.

This guy promised to start a war if he was elected. Kinda dumb really.

Awesome. I'll get the popcorn. Do you think CNN will be able to get good footage of the nuclear holocaust?

War or not war, that is the question (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/802A3FE4-2196-4913-93BD-433E4F1EFE95.htm).

Benjamin Netanyahu (former PM, right-winger, former friend of Sharon but vocal critic of the peace process, probably running for Likud) says he'll bomb Iranian Nuclear Facilities if he is elected.

Is that how you win election campaigns in Israel?
Actually, this is how you win elections in any country when someone threatens to "wipe you off the map". When you have an enemy who screams the world over that he is out to get you, and in the meanwhile develops the Big Bad Bomb, you don't become popular in the target country by promising to feed that enemy with candy- well, not unless the candy is poisoned.:D


I agree that maybe a threat of doing just that is necessary at some stage, but Iran just agreed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4486954.stm) to get back on the table for negotiations (much to the dismay of some Israelis (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4497286.stm)), and both the EU and the US are working together on this.

Surely the Iranians having to worry about Israeli Fighter Jets attacking them at any moment doesn't exactly help the situation.
Oh please. "Negotiations" is way too big a word for this farce. The "international community" is trying to sweet talk Iran into giving up the nuclear project and is getting all happy and hyper if the Iranians at least pretend to listen. The fact that while they're listening, they keep working on the bomb, kind of passes unnoticed.

Show me that negotiations work. Show me the tiniest sign of progress. And no, Iranian willingness to listen some more while still working on the bomb doesn't count.

So the threat may be necessery "at some stage"? WHICH stage? Before or after the bomb is made?

It's sickening, you know. Just like in the 80-s. Everybody knows what is going on, everybody knows that the "negotiations" aren't doing squat to help the situation, everybody secretly hopes that Israel will do the dirty part of the job for them simply because Israel is number one on the target list- so that they could keep their own hands clean while busily condemning "Israeli agression and militarism". Bloody hypocrites.

Man, some politicians need their heads screwed on. Does this man not realise that what he's proposing would most certainly start World War III?!?

America has itchy trigger fingers, as does the UK. The moment Iran retaliates (funny that they have such a double standard, isn't it?) it'd be a free-for-all.

America's and the UK's primary motive would be to try and grab OIL. Have no doubt about that.

I also have no doubt that the Allies would be willing to sacrifice Israel. No doubt whatsoever.

Oh and speaking of "at which stage the threat is appropriate":

Iran only months away from a bomb (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475683499&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

IAEA chairman Muhammad ElBaradei on Monday confirmed Israel's assessment that Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic bomb.

"If Teheran indeed resumes its uranium enrichment in other plants, as threatened, it will take it only several months to produce a bomb," ElBaradei told The Independent, according to Army Radio.
He also mumbles something about "opening Pandora's box", but that is nothing but obligatory UN doublespeak.

Still too early for threats, Leonstein?

Edit- What a funny coincidence:

Iran's patience running out over nuclear issue (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051204/wl_nm/nuclear_iran_larijani_dc)

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's patience regarding Western opposition to its nuclear program is wearing thin and Tehran will give the EU only a few months to settle the issue through talks, the country's chief nuclear negotiator said on Sunday.

A few months to make the bomb, a few months to negotiate... Obviously, one is a cover for the other.

Man, some politicians need their heads screwed on. Does this man not realise that what he's proposing would most certainly start World War III?!?

America has itchy trigger fingers, as does the UK. The moment Iran retaliates (funny that they have such a double standard, isn't it?) it'd be a free-for-all.

America's and the UK's primary motive would be to try and grab OIL. Have no doubt about that.

I also have no doubt that the Allies would be willing to sacrifice Israel. No doubt whatsoever.

How, pray tell, would Iran retaliate? Although they may have WMD (possibly), they lack the means to deliver them with any degree of accuracy.

I'd bet thats what a lot of Jews want.

To bomb the living snot out of Iran (and all the other Arabs/Muslims).

Accully, I know quite a few people who have lived in Israel, and most Jews and Arabs just want peace, and to be able to go about their lives without the police state, and the threat of being blewed up by a suicide bomber or helicopters.

Hitler wasn't actually elected, and you could argue neither was Bush jr. the second time around.

Hitler was elected. After he was in power, he declared that power was his forever, though. He wasn't elected for life.

Actually, this is how you win elections in any country when someone threatens to "wipe you off the map". When you have an enemy who screams the world over that he is out to get you, and in the meanwhile develops the Big Bad Bomb, you don't become popular in the target country by promising to feed that enemy with candy- well, not unless the candy is poisoned.:D


Oh please. "Negotiations" is way too big a word for this farce. The "international community" is trying to sweet talk Iran into giving up the nuclear project and is getting all happy and hyper if the Iranians at least pretend to listen. The fact that while they're listening, they keep working on the bomb, kind of passes unnoticed.

Show me that negotiations work. Show me the tiniest sign of progress. And no, Iranian willingness to listen some more while still working on the bomb doesn't count.

So the threat may be necessery "at some stage"? WHICH stage? Before or after the bomb is made?

It's sickening, you know. Just like in the 80-s. Everybody knows what is going on, everybody knows that the "negotiations" aren't doing squat to help the situation, everybody secretly hopes that Israel will do the dirty part of the job for them simply because Israel is number one on the target list- so that they could keep their own hands clean while busily condemning "Israeli agression and militarism". Bloody hypocrites.

Prove to me that Iran is acculy building a nuclear bomb, not just that they are developing a nuclear weapons program. Give me eveidence, not just your opinion. Give me links. Give me real proof, and I will believe you.

How, pray tell, would Iran retaliate? Although they may have WMD (possibly), they lack the means to deliver them with any degree of accuracy.
Actually, they do have the missiles. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3716490.stm)

Iran has missiles with a range of 2,000 km, a former president and one of the country's most influential politicians has said.

2000 miles means that they can hit targets as far as Bulgaria and Libya.

Prove to me that Iran is acculy building a nuclear bomb, not just that they are developing a nuclear weapons program. Give me eveidence, not just your opinion. Give me links. Give me real proof, and I will believe you.
I've just quoted to you the IAEA chairman confirming that Iran is a few months away from building nukes. What more do you want, a working A-bomb prototype on your table?

All that said was that they have the ability to build it, not that there is any eveidence of a nuclear weapons program, from my undersatanding anyway. Did I miss something?

All that said was that they have the ability to build it, not that there is any eveidence of a nuclear weapons program, from my undersatanding anyway. Did I miss something?
Oh sorry, it seems I gave your question more credit than it was worth.

You see, you can't have a nuclear weapons programm without actually building at least one working nuke. It's not a theoretical project, you know, it requires an awful lot of real life testing. Not to mention that no one makes such a monumental investment of money, resources and reputation to just fool around.

What reasons do YOU have to make the oxymoronic suggestion that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons programm but is NOT planning to build nukes?

I'd bet thats what a lot of Jews want.

To bomb the living snot out of Iran (and all the other Arabs/Muslims).


Theres an intelligent statement, made by someone obviously not too informed on the middle east!

Since when did Iran ever become a good negotiating partner? I have the feeling that most Jews heard the leader of Iran say that he is willing to destroy Israel in a nuclear attack even if it means Arabs and Muslims die in the process. So, it is my conclusion that ultimately, they just wish to live in their rightful ancestrial homeland in peace. Maybe, just maybe, we should consider supporting the middle east's only true democracy. I think its in the whole planets best interests that Israel keep them jets on standby.

And, Benjamine Netanyahu has some great books out, I highly suggest checking those out. 6 DAYS B&$CH!

(and yes, my spelling sucks)

sorry, I ment prove that they were building bombs, not just a nuclear energy program. I realise you can't have a nuclear weapons program without haveing bombs. Is there proof they have a nuclear weapons program?

sorry, I ment prove that they were building bombs, not just a nuclear energy program. I realise you can't have a nuclear weapons program without haveing bombs. Is there proof they have a nuclear weapons program?


Well, let's just take a chance that the good natured, peaceful, tolerant, and most importantly, uncontained government of Iran has nothing but the best of intentions with its programs.

*I say unchecked incase any idiot wants to compare this to Iraq, which we had well contained pre-2003*

sorry, I ment prove that they were building bombs, not just a nuclear energy program. I realise you can't have a nuclear weapons program without haveing bombs. Is there proof they have a nuclear weapons program?
Well, the IAEA chief says there is, and he is kind of supposed to be the top authority on the matter.

I thought Bush and Rumsfeld were the top authorities on this sort of thing, you mean, inspectors and watchdogs might know more???

The inspectors and watchdogs thought Iraq had 'em too, so let's not stray from the subject, k?

Oh, and Bush was elected the second time. With both the popular and electoral votes, even if the electoral votes are the only ones that matter.

ON THE SUBJECT (since few people can apparently talk about a topic without bashing the US)...

I understand why the Israelis would favor an extremist canidate. Even without ICBMs, a nuke can always be hidden in a van and parked in Tel Aviv. Nothing like bombing a major administrative center. Or any Jewish settlement. Or a school for that matter.

Iran is known to support extremists. That's never once been in doubt. They're RUN by extremists after all, ever since the Shah was overthrown.

However, they also shouldn't allow him (the canidate) to try to mess with negotigations in such a way.

Last thing anyone needs is a nuke fight in the Middle East.

I thought Bush and Rumsfeld were the top authorities on this sort of thing, you mean, inspectors and watchdogs might know more???
I said he is supposed to be the top authority. Then again, you never know. I mean, just look at the history of Scott Ritter's claims on Iraq:

From his book "Endgame", written 1999:
In 1995 Unit 2001 conducted tests on live human subjects taken from the Abu Ghraib prison, using BW and binary CW agent. Around fifty prisoners were chosen for these experiments, which took place at a remote testing ground in western Iraq. The purpose of these experiments was to test the toxicity of available agent to ensure that the biological agent remained viable. As a result, all the prisoners died.

Ritter in 2005 (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051114/ritter):

[By 1995 there were no more weapons in Iraq, there were no more documents in Iraq, there was no more production capability in Iraq because we were monitoring the totality of Iraq’s industrial infrastructure with the most technologically advanced, the most intrusive arms control regime in the history of arms control.

Kinda confusing, ain't it?

Yeah Come on Arab Lands!

Well, the IAEA chief says there is, and he is kind of supposed to be the top authority on the matter.

Actually the IAEA guy said that if they started using their plants they could do it.

They aren't using those plants right now...

Hmmm, maybe negottiation is getting something hmm?

7 gets you 4 that if Israel launches nukes at Iran, Pakistan - which has nukes and missiles that can reach Israel deployed right up by the Iran-Pakistan border - is ready to follow up if necessary.

Now, let's be honest here... how likely is Iran to use nuclear weapons without someone else whacking them first? Let's look at Iranian history.

Well... there was the Persian Empire, a long time ago. They attacked people. Um... let's see...

Hm, conquered by job lots over and over again. Turned into a "client" state of Western powers in the 20th century, overthrew their puppets in favor of right wing religious extremists, who consolidated their grip on power defending their country against Iraq's invasion. Did not join the Arab states in their oil embargo against Israel and the US in 1973.

Iran has not started any wars this century, and has yet to attack Israel, unlike ... well, most of Israel's neighbors. Iran has been looking inward for quite some time now, in fact. There's no reason to assume that Iran wants to start a war with Israel. I would suggest that they are developing a nuclear program because they feel threatened by either Israel or Bush's rhetoric about "Iran, Iraq, and North Korea." North Korea has nukes; the US doesn't even talk about invading them.

"If Teheran indeed resumes its uranium enrichment in other plants, as threatened, it will take it only several months to produce a bomb," ElBaradei told The Independent, according to Army Radio.

Still too early for threats, Leonstein?
Yep.

Well, the IAEA chief says there is, and he is kind of supposed to be the top authority on the matter.
I would've expected better from you. First you cut off all sorts of things and dismiss it as "UN doublespeak", and then you misrepresent even the thing you did quote.
On the other hand, he warned, any attempt to resolve the crisis by non-diplomatic means would "open a Pandora's box. There would be efforts to isolate Iran; Iran would retaliate; and at the end of the day you have to go back to the negotiating table to find the solution."
What reasons do YOU have to make the oxymoronic suggestion that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons programm but is NOT planning to build nukes?
The big part of a nuclear weapon program is getting the highly enriched fuel. Up to the point where you enrich the stuff further than you need for energy production, the programs are the same.
The point is to look at that point, and act if they overstep the mark. I am not into preemptive strikes - especially if they will result in war.
Iran has in the past said that they won't tolerate transgressions of its borders, and it has again said that an attack on it would mean war. There are almost 200,000 US Forces in Iraq which will immediately be attacked. Hezbollah will get out the guns again, and as you already pointed out, Iran has missiles that can easily hit Israel.

You need a pretty good reason to start something like this, and suspicions are (as we've seen in Iraq) not good enough, no matter in who's interest they are today.

a) Israel has how many nukes? With what right can they claim to be the only ones in the region with the "authority" to have nukes? Personally, It doesn't shock me to see Iran with nukes. Hell, if I were Iranian, I would want nukes and satellites, you never know when the americans are going after my oil..

b) It takes more than a nuclear weapon to actually have a "nuclear weapon". You see, in order to be able to threaten others, you need to have a nuclear weapon that is small enough to fit in the launch vehicle. The trick isn't making a rocket, the trick isnt making a nuke. The trick is how you make a nuke that is small enough to fit into a rocket, and that is the tech that Iran doesnt have, or won't have anytime soon. Unless you are trying to say that Iran will be able to fly a bomber onto Israel soil.

c) Iran never attacked any other nation since I can remember. Threatening others isn't illegal. I can threaten too: NEO LEONSTEIN GIVE ME MONEY OR ILL KILL YOU. See? What is he going to do, arrest me? You need more than words, you need a clear motive, weapons, and a possibility to win, and Iran as neither.

c) Iran never attacked any other nation since I can remember. Threatening others isn't illegal. I can threaten too: NEO LEONSTEIN GIVE ME MONEY OR ILL KILL YOU. See? What is he going to do, arrest me? You need more than words, you need a clear motive, weapons, and a possibility to win, and Iran as neither.

Well, I think if Neo Leonstein was the American president, the CIA would investigate you if memory serves. But I kind of doubt that. Either way, it seems like Womble here is an extremist himself. At least in the "everybody is a threat to Israel. Bomb them all" kind of way. Maybe he's actually in the Likud party?

I would've expected better from you. First you cut off all sorts of things and dismiss it as "UN doublespeak",
Of course its doublespeak. What he is saying there is that if "non-diplomatic means" are attempted there's no telling what may result. Given that the "diplomatic means" have so far yielded squat, and Iran, by El-Baradie's own admission, is a few months away from the bomb, opening a Pandora's box doesn't sound like too bad an option. The worst case scenario will be the same as with the "diplomatic means" anyway, the best case scenario would be better.


and then you misrepresent even the thing you did quote.
I did? How?


The big part of a nuclear weapon program is getting the highly enriched fuel. Up to the point where you enrich the stuff further than you need for energy production, the programs are the same.
The point is to look at that point, and act if they overstep the mark. I am not into preemptive strikes - especially if they will result in war.
Iran has in the past said that they won't tolerate transgressions of its borders, and it has again said that an attack on it would mean war. There are almost 200,000 US Forces in Iraq which will immediately be attacked. Hezbollah will get out the guns again, and as you already pointed out, Iran has missiles that can easily hit Israel.

You need a pretty good reason to start something like this, and suspicions are (as we've seen in Iraq) not good enough, no matter in who's interest they are today.
Repeated open threats to my country's existence sound like a pretty damn good reason to me.

Back in the 80-s, the UN and the rest of the worldwide alliance of hypocrites condemned Israel's raid on Saddam's reactor as an "aggression"- but show me anyone today who would prefer Saddam to have the bomb by the time he invaded Kuwait.

Mind you, I am not happy about the possibility of Israel bombing Iran's reactor. Doing everybody else's dirty job is way too ungrateful a task. The thing is, by the time the IAEA grows some real teeth, many a nuclear winter shall pass.

Oh and Non-Aligned State is being his usual spiteful moronic self. Go align yourself already.

I said he is supposed to be the top authority. Then again, you never know. I mean, just look at the history of Scott Ritter's claims on Iraq:

From his book "Endgame", written 1999:
In 1995 Unit 2001 conducted tests on live human subjects taken from the Abu Ghraib prison, using BW and binary CW agent. Around fifty prisoners were chosen for these experiments, which took place at a remote testing ground in western Iraq. The purpose of these experiments was to test the toxicity of available agent to ensure that the biological agent remained viable. As a result, all the prisoners died.

Ritter in 2005 (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051114/ritter):

[By 1995 there were no more weapons in Iraq, there were no more documents in Iraq, there was no more production capability in Iraq because we were monitoring the totality of Iraq’s industrial infrastructure with the most technologically advanced, the most intrusive arms control regime in the history of arms control.

Kinda confusing, ain't it?


Not really, one can have small amounts of chemical agents without having large stockpiles of wmds. The inspectors stated that Iraq did NOT have wmds in 2003 and in fact, the inspectors were pulled out by the US so that we could begin shock and awe.
Exeter, whats your point Bush was elected the second time? Please do try and defend this administration, this is very clearly the worst administration in the history of this country. (Don't forget Ohio in the last elections by the way)

Oh and Non-Aligned State is being his usual spiteful moronic self. Go align yourself already.

Sticks and stones Womble. Sticks and stones. Are you going to call me anti-semite next? I've seen you claiming all manner of injustices against Israel before, real and imagined.

Repeated open threats to my country's existence sound like a pretty damn good reason to me.Would you care to provide evidence of these? Frankly, I'm not seeing where the government of Iran is promising to nuke Israel to smithereens pre-emptively...

Threatening others isn't illegal. I can threaten too: NEO LEONSTEIN GIVE ME MONEY OR ILL KILL YOU. See? What is he going to do, arrest me? You need more than words, you need a clear motive, weapons, and a possibility to win, and Iran as neither.

You just committed a serious offence. Threatening to commit a crime is itself a crime.

Sticks and stones Womble. Sticks and stones. Are you going to call me anti-semite next?
Nope. I'll leave ad hominems and attempts at character assassination to you, you seem to be an expert in that field.

I've seen you claiming all manner of injustices against Israel before, real and imagined.
And pointing them out (especially the real ones) should, of course, make me an extremist and a Likud voter. Oh it should also make the Likud voters extremists first of course. Otherwise it would come out that Non-Aligned States knows squat about the Likud as well.

Would you care to provide evidence of these? Frankly, I'm not seeing where the government of Iran is promising to nuke Israel to smithereens pre-emptively...
Wasn't it all over the news recently, right out of their president's mouth?

War or not war, that is the question (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/802A3FE4-2196-4913-93BD-433E4F1EFE95.htm).

Benjamin Netanyahu (former PM, right-winger, former friend of Sharon but vocal critic of the peace process, probably running for Likud) says he'll bomb Iranian Nuclear Facilities if he is elected.

Is that how you win election campaigns in Israel?

I agree that maybe a threat of doing just that is necessary at some stage, but Iran just agreed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4486954.stm) to get back on the table for negotiations (much to the dismay of some Israelis (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4497286.stm)), and both the EU and the US are working together on this.
Surely the Iranians having to worry about Israeli Fighter Jets attacking them at any moment doesn't exactly help the situation.
Seeing how the new PResident has said he will use his nukes to "wipe Israel off the map" I can't blame the Israelis for wanting to do to Iran what they did to Osiraq. (BTW, the world owes Israel for that one.)

Wasn't it all over the news recently, right out of their president's mouth?Humor me. Construct an argument showing that Iran truly intends to nuke Israel, providing all relevant quotes. Bear in mind that I'm not convinced by you just saying "But they want to kill us!" when the nation of Iran has a history of not starting wars and a recent history of being particularly preoccupied with their own direction as a nation. Not to mention their neighbor
Iraq.

Well, there was that whole Darius thing and the Persian Empire, but that was very long ago.

Nope. I'll leave ad hominems and attempts at character assassination to you, you seem to be an expert in that field.

Calling me moronic and spiteful in the same sentence does seem to be a bit more inflammatory than what I have called you. Extremism after all, does not neccessarily mean that you would strap yourself full of explosives to wage a holy war. Hardly. In this case, the term of extremism seems to apply to your views which strike me as extreme.

However, in the interests of keeping this debate civil, I shall retract my statements, only if you will extend a similar courtesy.

Further attacks on my character, such as you accuse me of and do in the same breath, will merely be noted.


And pointing them out (especially the real ones) should, of course, make me an extremist and a Likud voter.

No. Pointing out imagined slights and making an issue of them however, does make one petty. Case in point your accusation of Red Cross hypocrisy.

However, I did not mention you were a Likud voter. I merely postulated that you may be in the party, MAY have been mind you. It is only in your accusation that you believe I claimed you were a Likud voter.


Oh it should also make the Likud voters extremists first of course.


That is only in your imagination.

Calling me moronic and spiteful in the same sentence does seem to be a bit more inflammatory than what I have called you.
Oh you have earned that. It's not the first time you poke your nose into a threat for the sole purpose of picking on me and no intent to actually contribute to the debate.


However, in the interests of keeping this debate civil, I shall retract my statements, only if you will extend a similar courtesy.
Don't bother, then. I'm not in the mood for courtesy for someone trying to slander me.


Pointing out imagined slights and making an issue of them however, does make one petty. Case in point your accusation of Red Cross hypocrisy.
And "petty", of course, equals extremist and a Likud voter.


However, I did not mention you were a Likud voter. I merely postulated that you may be in the party, MAY have been mind you. It is only in your accusation that you believe I claimed you were a Likud voter.
You implied that. Not like it's an insult or anything, I am just amused by why you made the connection.


That is only in your imagination.
And once again you display your profound ignorance about the issue in question in one short snappy ad hominem.

Damn, you're boring.

Oh you have earned that. It's not the first time you poke your nose into a threat for the sole purpose of picking on me and no intent to actually contribute to the debate.

Might I remind you that prior to your arrival on this thread, I assume that is what you meant instead of threat, I was already discussing it with others. Your statement that it is my "sole purpose" holds no more truth than say, alien abductions.

But for the reasons of debate, I would say that Isreal would be foolhardy to attempt doing to Iran what it did to Syria. Iran has made it quite clear that it would be an act of war and respond accordingly.

Israel may win such a war, but it would only further make it a pariah among nations.


Don't bother, then. I'm not in the mood for courtesy for someone trying to slander me.

Slander you say? Slander is when one makes an unfounded statement of fact. Show me where I have made that in clear and concise terms. Both of your points of contention were couched in terms of possibility, not certainty.


And "petty", of course, equals extremist and a Likud voter.


I fail to see how you can make the jump from petty to extremist or Likud voter. I didn't.


And once again you display your profound ignorance about the issue in question in one short snappy ad hominem.

You claimed that, sarcastically it would seem, that I pointed out that your pettiness would somehow translate to the entire Likud voter base being extremist. Nowhere did I say that in any circumstance, thus, it stands to reason that the link only exists in your imagination.

Logically achieved conclusions that are not erroneous do not classify as ad hominems. Although one cannot say the same about your choice of wording to describe me.


Damn, you're boring.

Perhaps I will bore you to the point where you will leave for more interesting places then if our continued contact is to generate sparks.

the Israelis are terrorists with western blessing


1948 will forever be a dark year for humanity

Hey if one Nation says "They should be wiper off the face of the eart" and know the background of the whole middle eastern conflict, would you not promise to take care of dicks like that? i know i would..and I support Israel 110% all the way.

Humor me. Construct an argument showing that Iran truly intends to nuke Israel, providing all relevant quotes. Bear in mind that I'm not convinced by you just saying "But they want to kill us!" when the nation of Iran has a history of not starting wars and a recent history of being particularly preoccupied with their own direction as a nation. Not to mention their neighbor Iraq.
What, all that work just to humor you? Just how much are you paying?

TJ, their president just said in front of the media, straight out, in a conference titled 'the World Without Zionism" that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth. That might not be equal to an outright commitment to nuking Israel as soon as he can het his hands on an appropriate weapon, but it definately shows a lot of agression, and intention, and should be taken as a serious threat by Israel.

If you demand that Womble "construct an argument that Iran truly intends to nuke Israel" while Ahmanidejad can make blatant threats like this, then why are you taking Netanyahu's election promises for preemptive action seriously? Maybe I should ask you to "construct an argument" showing that Netanyahu means what he sais. Basically, if you refuse to believe it when something is presented before you, or at least refuse to make appropriate inferences, then you never have basis for action.

Seeing how the new PResident has said he will use his nukes to "wipe Israel off the map" I can't blame the Israelis for wanting to do to Iran what they did to Osiraq. (BTW, the world owes Israel for that one.)
Hey, I'm not a fan of Iran at the moment, and especially not of Ahmadinejad. I still think though that despite all the flag waving Patriotism, diplomacy is an art form.

Assuming that Netanyahu knows what he's doing (and he's not stupid), I would call a threat like that a clear attempt to sabotage the talks.

Iran has the right to build all the nuclear power plants it wants. I'd want it to sign the various treaties that Israel has refused to sign for decades (namely the NPT and the like). The talks are a way of achieving that - bombing a country that has said that it will respond in kind is not.

And finally, I haven't yet gotten to see a transcript of Ahmadinejad's speech, but I'm pretty certain that nuclear weapons didn't feature...I don't even know in what context he called for Israel to be wiped off the map (regardless of which it was still a disgusting thing for a leader to say).

And finally, I haven't yet gotten to see a transcript of Ahmadinejad's speech, but I'm pretty certain that nuclear weapons didn't feature...I don't even know in what context he called for Israel to be wiped off the map (regardless of which it was still a disgusting thing for a leader to say).In the context of a conference called "the wold without zionism", amid shouts of "Death to Israel". how's that for context?

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/10/28/iran-president051028.html

and from today:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/12/05/20051205-irannukes.html

In the context of a conference called "the wold without zionism", amid shouts of "Death to Israel". how's that for context?
You really think I'm not keeping up with the news, don't you?

I'm aware of the conference and the location. I was talking about the transcript of the speech.

"We will use our new nuclear weapons to finish Hitler's job and wipe Israel of the map!"
is different from
"If Israel attacks us, and persists despite all our efforts to avert a war, we will find ourselves forced to wipe Israel off the map."

the Israelis are terrorists with western blessing


1948 will forever be a dark year for humanity


Gee, you are smar......wait, actually your a full blown moron.


*Before 1967, only one religion was allowed to visit Jerusalem, today, all three enjoy religious freedom, this came AFTER Israel LIBERATED Jerusalem.......THEIR CAPITAL!

*Israel is made up of Jews AND Arabs, and both vote, serve in the knesset, and the military. Arabs enjoy greater rights in Israel than in Arab nations.

*Palestinian terrorists have continually targeted for murder women and children, and have made an art form out of hiding behind women and children.

*The original British white papers refferred to Jews as Palestinians. You see, Palestine was never a nation, it was the name of the region, derived from the word Philistia, or, the Phillistines. It was named as such after the Bar Kosheba revolt, afterward, the Romans named it that to erase the Jewish identity from the land.

*In the ealry 1900's, there was an Arab Jewish agreement at Versaills. This called for one Arab state from Iraq to Yemen, and one Jewish state encompassing all of modern Israel and Jordan. The carving up of the Arab lands by the French and British smashed Arab dreams of a great nation, and eventually caused Pan Arab nationalism, which is one of the primary roots of the Arab hatred toward Israel. They do not hate the West because of Israel, they hate Israel because of the west.

*Israel is the only stable democracy in the middle east. They were the best thing to happen in the first half of the 1900's. Thanks to them, militant Arab nations were kept in check from Soviet backed aggresion, Iraq was not armed with nukes in the first gulf war, and we have a steadfast ally in the middle east.

*There is already an Arab state in Palestine, that country is called Jordan, aka, TransJordan, which was ripped from Jewish settlement in 1921. Jordan WAS an Arab state in Palestine.

*If you want to keep making ignorant statements please feel free, cause you just got taken to school.

NEXT!

I think it would be better to let some Jews answer that (preferrably some living in Israel...seeing as to how it is them who are actually threatened by Iranian aggression).

I just think it's not particularly skilled diplomacy.

Well, I'm Jewish but not even close to Israeli, lol. I'm not going to try to pussyfoot around it....Arabs hate Jews, Jews hate Arabs....Jews want to blow up the arabs before the arabs suicide bomb them, arabs want to blow up the Jews because they beleive they are infidels....thats basically how the situation stands....as for the Iran bombing.....Many Jews feel it as neccessary because they feel threatend by a potentially nuclear arab country.

A lot of Israelis would LIKE to bomb the snot out of Iran, but the international community would be in uproar. Though if Israel has good intelligence that Iran is about to build a bomb, AND they have the capabilities to take out Iranian facilities a la Osirak, they will. No amount of international uproar will get in the way of Israel's sense of self preservation.

I have a saying regarding why Israel is so twitchy:

"In normal people, paranoia is a mental disorder. In dictators, Russians, and Israelis/Jews, it is a sign of a healthy mind (not that the three are in any way equivalent)."

Let us hope that the Ayatollahs have two things:
Enough control on the bomb to prevent Iran's new president from using it
Enough sense of self-preservation to do so

Because if Iran nukes Israel, Israel will retaliate in kind. No matter how much of a pariah that makes Israel. Better a pariah state than a dead one.

Awesome. I'll get the popcorn. Do you think CNN will be able to get good footage of the nuclear holocaust?

We can hope. I think that's the only way to have a genuine, lasting peace in the middle east. Make it glow in the dark.

Iran, by El-Baradie's own admission, is a few months away from the bomb,

He never said they are a few months away from the bomb. What he said was they have a ability to be a few months away from the bomb. There's a difference.

The way you read it, the IAEA says they have a nuclear weapons program and are actively building a bomb. The quoted report says neither.

*Palestinian terrorists have continually targeted for murder women and children, and have made an art form out of hiding behind women and children.

Isreali helecopters have continually fired missles into civilian populations, killing many women and children, in attempts to take out often a single terrorist target. Isreal has killed 3 times as many innocent people as militants.

Israeli tank have multiple times fired on stone-throwing schoolchildren.

Israeli soldiers have continually lashed out against the Palestinian polulation at large for the attacks of a few.

The slaughter is hardly one-sided. Both groups have their attrocitites.


*In the ealry 1900's, there was an Arab Jewish agreement at Versaills. This called for one Arab state from Iraq to Yemen, and one Jewish state encompassing all of modern Israel and Jordan. The carving up of the Arab lands by the French and British smashed Arab dreams of a great nation, and eventually caused Pan Arab nationalism, which is one of the primary roots of the Arab hatred toward Israel. They do not hate the West because of Israel, they hate Israel because of the west.

You really know what you're talking about, bravo! More then most people on these forums....

He never said they are a few months away from the bomb. What he said was they have a ability to be a few months away from the bomb. There's a difference.

The way you read it, the IAEA says they have a nuclear weapons program and are actively building a bomb. The quoted report says neither.



Isreali helecopters have continually fired missles into civilian populations, killing many women and children, in attempts to take out often a single terrorist target. Isreal has killed 3 times as many innocent people as militants.

Israeli tank have multiple times fired on stone-throwing schoolchildren.

Israeli soldiers have continually lashed out against the Palestinian polulation at large for the attacks of a few.

The slaughter is hardly one-sided. Both groups have their attrocitites.




You really know what you're talking about, bravo! More then most people on these forums....


Israel fires missles into militant hideouts, although many times they are hiding among the population. They are also known to launch rockets and mortars at Israeli towns from Arab settlements, Israel is hardly targeting civilians. Arab terrorists however do walk onto Israeli school buses and blow up their children. Whats even worse for their case is that many Jews and Arabs are integrated in Israel.
As bad as this may sound, I have to question the wisdom of throwing stones at a tank. I'm not sure about them, but I know for a fact I'll lose that battle everytime.
I also have to point out that Israel is one of the few nations to use rubber bullets on the population. Our police barely do that here.

As bad as this may sound, I have to question the wisdom of throwing stones at a tank. I'm not sure about them, but I know for a fact I'll lose that battle everytime.

Huh, what about this: Israel has tanks, Arabs in the surrounding settlements don't? What's more horrible with exploding yourself in a school bus than it is with launching a rocket on some "military target" if it indeed kills civilians too.

Arabs are not worse than Israel, the only difference is that Israel has the most modern weapons and Arabs don't (for now).

The whole concept of Israel is wrong. This NEW state (I don't count them being there 2000 years ago, that's laughable) was supported by the West, while the Arab state wasn't. Double-standards. So does it really surprise anybody that the Arabs got annoyed? With Jews taking more and more of their land up to recently?

Actually, they do have the missiles. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3716490.stm)

Iran has missiles with a range of 2,000 km, a former president and one of the country's most influential politicians has said.

2000 miles means that they can hit targets as far as Bulgaria and Libya.

There is a difference of about 1200km between 2000km and 2000miles

IAEA chairman Muhammad ElBaradei on Monday confirmed Israel's assessment that Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic bomb.


Blatant falsehood. And has already been adressed in another thread.

I direct your attention here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10039567&postcount=2).

TJ, their president just said in front of the media, straight out, in a conference titled 'the World Without Zionism" that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth. That might not be equal to an outright commitment to nuking Israel as soon as he can het his hands on an appropriate weapon, but it definately shows a lot of agression, and intention, and should be taken as a serious threat by Israel.

If you demand that Womble "construct an argument that Iran truly intends to nuke Israel" while Ahmanidejad can make blatant threats like this, then why are you taking Netanyahu's election promises for preemptive action seriously? Maybe I should ask you to "construct an argument" showing that Netanyahu means what he sais. Basically, if you refuse to believe it when something is presented before you, or at least refuse to make appropriate inferences, then you never have basis for action.Why do I take Netanyahu's promises for pre-emptive action more seriously than the Iranian president's comments?

Well, you'd expect people to say things like that at something labeled a "World Without Zionism" conference. Now, when I read over his speech... I see quite a bit of talk about bringing Islamic nations together against Israel, about supporting Palestine, etc etc etc. No indications that he plans on nuking Palestine - for such he considers the rightful owner of that land - but it more looks like a conventional plan and conventional rhetoric. Everything I've read said that he seemed to be calling on the Palestinians to actually do the wiping.

Nuking that territory would be very drastic, to say the least; I would be amazed to see Israel get nuked without first launching nukes. It takes quite a bit of political nerve to start throwing nukes when everybody else has so many more.

Now, a little air strike over into Iran... well, that's the sort of thing Israel has done in the past, and the sort of thing I'd expect them to see again. Netanyahu in particular has demonstrated his willingness to readily resort to conventional violence.

Israel fires missles into militant hideouts, although many times they are hiding among the population. They are also known to launch rockets and mortars at Israeli towns from Arab settlements, Israel is hardly targeting civilians. Arab terrorists however do walk onto Israeli school buses and blow up their children. Whats even worse for their case is that many Jews and Arabs are integrated in Israel.
As bad as this may sound, I have to question the wisdom of throwing stones at a tank. I'm not sure about them, but I know for a fact I'll lose that battle everytime.
I also have to point out that Israel is one of the few nations to use rubber bullets on the population. Our police barely do that here.

Israel may not directly target civilians, but they show no regard for them. Most of the time, they use missles to destroy buildings they6 suspect terrorist are in, as well as many unsuspecting civilians, or bomb a car driving down a busy street, once again killing many innocent civilians. Israel has killed many more innocent people then terrorists. That's a fucking lot of "collateral."

Yes, throwing stones at tanks is not smart, but it required no responce, as it was no threat. Especially since there were primary school students amoungts the throwers. Fireing on them was inexcusible.


As someone else said, Israel has the technology to be more humane, if marginally so. If the Palistinians had planes and bombs to bomb military targets, they would. Right now, they see their people and their family suffering under Israeli occupation, and they lash out in the only way they can. Which, of course, only makes things worse for all involved.

To me, both sides are to blame for the bloodbath the situation has turned into. Them and the Brits and French, who created problems, then cut and run. Especially the Brits with their false promises to both sides.