NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2461421.ece

Once again, we see the futility in buying the latest and best air defense systems from France and Russia.

And the futility of trying to assemble nukes on the sly, within range of Israeli bombers.

I find it quite interesting that despite the Syrian purchase of the latest French air defense radars and computers, and the latest Russian air defense missiles, none of the F-15s was hit - it would appear that the whole air defense system was completely worthless.

Does Israel want to start a war?

.... nvm

Does Israel want to start a war?

.... nvm

Kind of hard for Syria to win a war without nukes.

Their air force was completely destroyed inside of three days, along with their air defense system.

Can't win a major war without that.

Looks like they bought equally bad crap this time around. Shows you that the best, the very latest stuff from France and Russia is just complete crap, and will get you killed.

Kind of hard for Syria to win a war without nukes.

Their air force was completely destroyed inside of three days, along with their air defense system.

Can't win a major war without that.

Looks like they bought equally bad crap this time around. Shows you that the best, the very latest stuff from France and Russia is just complete crap, and will get you killed.

Well that's obvious, Hezbollah proved how asymmetrical tactics work best against Israel, this would include anti-air weapons - but mostly shoulder-launched ones dispersed through militia in the population, plus hidden missile sites. Syria is still living in the Cold War. As for war, what I meant was Israel upsetting Egypt and the rest.

Well that's obvious, Hezbollah proved how asymmetrical tactics work best against Israel, this would include anti-air weapons - but mostly shoulder-launched ones dispersed through militia in the population, plus hidden missile sites. Syria is still living in the Cold War. As for war, what I meant was Israel upsetting Egypt and the rest.

If you haven't noticed, Egypt gives a flying fuck.

For instance, they've shot Palestinians dead who have tried to flee Gaza. 30 years ago, maybe they would have seen things differently, but they get billions from the US, and are equipped with US planes, etc.

What a poorly-sourced, badly-written, speculative piece of garbage. The Times has really gone downhill since Murdoch took over.

Syria's nuclear program is built around a 30 kW research reactor which cannot even generate nuclear fuel, let alone nuclear weapons. All they do is produce small amounts of certain isotopes and neutrons. Unless North Korea literally dropped nukes straight into Bashar al-Assad's lap, they did not and could not have had nukes. This whole thing could have been blown out of the water simply by consulting the Nuclear Threat Initiative online, instead of which they chose to be the unsurpassed dive artists for the latest cherry-picked raw intelligence and selective leaks from the Bush Administration.

That's so five years ago...literally. Let's hope it doesn't have the same ultimate effect.

I really don't know what Israel was thinking, but it was a profoundly stupid thing whatever the real reason was.

This was an incredibly stupid manouevre, because it obviously wasn't about the nukes. So what was it? Probably about Lebanon. Israel wants to know that a more pliant figure will be elected when Émile Lahoud steps down. But again they've misread the situation, because Michael Aoun is the main opposition contender, and Bashir has no influence over him.

What the hell? This article came from nowhere! How long was this operation in the works, I wonder? I am stunned. I wonder if Syria is going to try to attack Israel in response.

I don't know, the details of these things tend to be very murky.

As for the air defences, I wouldn't want to bet money on them being crap. It seems a lot more likely that the Syrians just aren't very well trained or weren't alert enough. Lots of weird things tend to happen that on paper one wouldn't count on (remember that Israeli ship getting hit with a missile because it had turned off its defences - they interfered with IDF jets overhead).

The really weird thing is that the Syrians have been so quiet about it. That's why I assumed nothing really happened when I first heard about this. Last time they cried to anyone who would listen and then some. So either this stuff was so supersecret that they couldn't even think of a good lie to make it into a stuffed animals factory or something, or they figured it was fair game (in which case last time must have been something bad).

What a poorly-sourced, badly-written, speculative piece of garbage. The Times has really gone downhill since Murdoch took over.

Syria's nuclear program is built around a 30 kW research reactor which cannot even generate nuclear fuel, let alone nuclear weapons. All they do is produce small amounts of certain isotopes and neutrons. Unless North Korea literally dropped nukes straight into Bashar al-Assad's lap, they did not and could not have had nukes. This whole thing could have been blown out of the water simply by consulting the Nuclear Threat Initiative online, instead of which they chose to be the unsurpassed dive artists for the latest cherry-picked raw intelligence and selective leaks from the Bush Administration.

That's so five years ago...literally. Let's hope it doesn't have the same ultimate effect.

I really don't know what Israel was thinking, but it was a profoundly stupid thing whatever the real reason was.

Ok, dolt - it was in the New York Times, and the Observer as well...

It isn't a nuclear plant.

It's a place where parts brought in from North Korea by ship are assembled, based on designs given to them by A.Q. Khan.

Doesn't take anything but a building.

If you haven't noticed, Egypt gives a flying fuck.

For instance, they've shot Palestinians dead who have tried to flee Gaza. 30 years ago, maybe they would have seen things differently, but they get billions from the US, and are equipped with US planes, etc.

Umm, dude, it's called strategic regional interest. Plus your article seems bs to me.

Kind of hard for Syria to win a war without nukes.

Their air force was completely destroyed inside of three days, along with their air defense system.

Can't win a major war without that.

Looks like they bought equally bad crap this time around. Shows you that the best, the very latest stuff from France and Russia is just complete crap, and will get you killed.

It's not the equipment, it's the men. After having examined and thoroughly studied the region, contemporary Middle Eastern militaries, save for Israel, have, quite simply, proven themselves to be inept. If the men are willing and able, they will be effective with whatever weapons they have. For that matter, the Pantsyr-S1E is very sophisticated and capable, with advanced multi-spectral radar.

It's the men behind the equipment.

Ok, dolt - it was in the New York Times, and the Observer as well...

Oh, well, if it's in the New York Times, then it couldn't possibly be false, could it? It's not as if they have a reputation for running selective, cherry-picked leaks of raw intelligence designed to plant the impression that a Middle Eastern nation has or is acquiring nukes, do they?

And as for the Observer, it's was one of the few papers in the 1930s that supported Franco, and it's now drifted to some sort of Nick Cohen-brand cozying up to the authoritarians in power, be they New Labour or the US neocon movement.

It isn't a nuclear plant.

It's a place where parts brought in from North Korea by ship are assembled, based on designs given to them by A.Q. Khan.

Doesn't take anything but a building.

Well, as a matter of fact, it does take more than a building. It takes enough nuclear material, it takes a lot of work and experience that the Syrians simply do not have. It's not as if they make Erector Sets for nuclear weapons programs, where you just snap them in by number and voila you have a functioning nuclear program.

And the whole AQ Khan story was refuted three years ago by El-Baradei. It seems, when it comes to Syria, everything old is new again.

If you would like to be led around by the nose for an almost precise rehash of the same falsified claims that flew around during the buildup to the Iraq War, feel free. I, however, refused to be misled then, knowing it to be a rehash of claims which were being made before the First Gulf War, and I'm not itching to start now.

The really weird thing is that the Syrians have been so quiet about it. That's why I assumed nothing really happened when I first heard about this. Last time they cried to anyone who would listen and then some. So either this stuff was so supersecret that they couldn't even think of a good lie to make it into a stuffed animals factory or something, or they figured it was fair game (in which case last time must have been something bad).

That doesn't follow. It simply could be a site where they stored conventional weapons. Nobody's going to be weeping for bombed out bullets, missiles, small arms, and tanks. Lacking the emotional pull of a bombed civilian area, if they came out with something like that, and that was what Israel expected to be hitting, then they've just confirmed that the quisling who is telling tales out of school is an accurate source of information and should be encouraged.

Something happened.

We think Israeli warplanes crossed into SYria and destroyed a site where nuclear materials were being gathered for the purposes of building a nuclear weapon. North Korea may be involved. NObody is saying much leaving us with only our own speculations.

Nevertheless, something happened.

:p

It simply could be a site where they stored conventional weapons.
I don't know...the Israelis do lots of bad and crazy things, but I don't think they'll go and possibly start a war without pretty reliable evidence. And if it's true that the North Koreans are there, then there are just two possible reasons: missiles or nukes. Neither is an appealing prospect for Israel, but I still think that if they considered it good enough a reason to pull a stunt like this, it was probably the latter.

But what makes you think the Syrians wouldn't just go out and tell the world that some civilian place was hit, and make it a big PR thing?

Ok, dolt

You really are the charmer, aren't you?

Well, as a matter of fact, it does take more than a building. It takes enough nuclear material, it takes a lot of work and experience that the Syrians simply do not have. It's not as if they make Erector Sets for nuclear weapons programs, where you just snap them in by number and voila you have a functioning nuclear program.


Bollocks.

This is the same disinformation we've had spread by the dove movement for years. The fact is, any well-trained physicist can take the materials and build a low-yield nuke in under a year.

Nuclear programs don't need to be big and expensive. The ONLY tricky part is separating U-235 from U-238. That requires some reasonably specialized equipment, but in this case it isn't even clear if THAT would have been necessary - as it would have been a lot easier for NK to have sent small quantities of U-235 rather than large quantities of U-238.

Say what you like about the rest - and to be frank, attacking the messenger just makes you seem less reliable - but don't give me the lie that making a bomb is difficult.

I would actually prefer the Arabs to have nuclear weapons, at least it would keep the Israelis from acting like they own the region.

Something happened.

We think Israeli warplanes crossed into SYria and destroyed a site where nuclear materials were being gathered for the purposes of building a nuclear weapon. North Korea may be involved. NObody is saying much leaving us with only our own speculations.

Nevertheless, something happened.

:p

True. Very true. Even though RO has started a thread abnout it, we must indeed remember something happened.

I don't know...the Israelis do lots of bad and crazy things, but I don't think they'll go and possibly start a war without pretty reliable evidence.

Which is what my hypothetical explicitly granted: reliable evidence. Reliable evidence for Israeli intelligence doesn't mean that the nuke story is real. There can be an enormous difference between what the state intelligence services know to be true and what is fed to the public.

But what makes you think the Syrians wouldn't just go out and tell the world that some civilian place was hit, and make it a big PR thing?

:headbang:

They would go out and tell the world if Israel hit its civilians. That is why I explicitly stated an alternative scenario that involved neither nukes nor civilians.

The point was that there does not need to be any nukes here for the Syrians to be keeping quiet about what they hit, because the Israelis may have gone in knowing that they were going to hit a conventional military site. If they did, releasing that information to the world at large would confirm that whatever Syrian asset they have who is feeding Israel information about these sensitive locales is giving them accurate information.

:headbang:
Write clear and concise sentences, and you can avoid these things...

The point was that there does not need to be any nukes here for the Syrians to be keeping quiet about what they hit, because the Israelis may have gone in knowing that they were going to hit a conventional military site.
Why in hell's name would the IDF want to hit a conventional military site inside Syria?

That requires some reasonably specialized equipment, but in this case it isn't even clear if THAT would have been necessary - as it would have been a lot easier for NK to have sent small quantities of U-235 rather than large quantities of U-238.

Well, as long as we're making up stuff on the fly, why don't we just presume that North Korea forked over a few nuclear warheads? There's precisely the same amount of evidence for either.

Nobody here, so far, is asking cui bono. Syria wants to resume diplomatic relations with the United States, and North Korea wants out of the international doghouse. Neither of them have any reason for fomenting a nuclear scare on the eve of a resolution from the six party talks. The only people who benefit from this are the neocons in the administration who have actively tried to scuttle any forthcoming agreement (e.g. in the interference with unfreezing Korean accounts at Banco Delta Asia) and the Israelis.

1) Barak notches up an easy success on his braces, unlike his disgraced predecessor.

2) People who have advocated peace talks with Syria, like Avi Dichter, are going to be looking foolish.

3) It'll make the half of the Israeli populace that doesn't want to give the Golan Heights back start worrying very seriously about a Syrian threat, and delegitimizes any talk about restoring the Golan Heights to Syria.

4) They think Bashar has some influence over Michel Aoun. They're wrong, but it's still a reason.

5) For the neocons, Syria has been on the agenda for ten years, at least, ever since it was singled out as one of the countries to topple by the PNAC.

6) By linking it to the North Koreans, they achieve the collapse of the six party talks, the continuation of North Korea's pariah status, and effect the disgrace of the moderates in the State Department.

In short, the US and Israel have a very definite reason to be making it up as they go along, but if it were real, it would be counterproductive for both North Korea and Syria.

Say what you like about the rest - and to be frank, attacking the messenger just makes you seem less reliable - but don't give me the lie that making a bomb is difficult.

If making a passing aside about the poor quality of the Times under Murdoch's ownership makes me "seem less reliable" than a claim which is less believable than the Zinoviev Letter, then I have to say I have no confidence in your judgment whatsoever.

And I can grant in your hypothetical scenario, the possibility of building a bomb is increased considerably. If they made hypothetical do-it-yourself nuclear bomb kits and sold them at Marks and Sparks, that would make it easier still. So what? It has nothing to do with the way nuclear proliferation is monitored and checked in the real world.

Write clear and concise sentences, and you can avoid these things...

The only way I could have avoided it in this case would be to write like William S. Gray.

Why in hell's name would the IDF want to hit a conventional military site inside Syria?

To send a message to Bashar to ensure that he will be "helpful" when the Lebanese elections rolls around so that Israel and the US get a pliant client state. They've misread the region, as I've said before, since Aoun does not get his marching orders from Bashar.

To secure an easy military victory for Barak in the wake of the humiliation of last year's invasion of Lebanon.

To undercut peace activists who have proposed dialogue with Syria and to frighten the wits out of the Israelis so they refuse to give the Golan Heights back.

To re-establish confidence in the IDF which has been badly shaken not only by their rout in Lebanon, but also by the recent killings of three Palestinian children and directing the public's gaze away from the lies they told in the wake of that event.

To give a thrill to the hawks among the Israeli right-wing, since the use of the Israeli Air Force (far superior to anything else in the region) gives them nothing but bliss.

And, lastly, because it is still a military base or arms cache in a country which owns some of the land they're hanging on to. Syria is not friendly to Israel, so destroying anything of their military—especially under the pretext of destroying something serious—is yet another reason.

The only way I could have avoided it in this case would be to write like William S. Gray.
No, you're basing your argument on your own assumptions. Unless I were happy to assume that this is all a giant Israeli conspiracy, what you said made no sense because it makes no sense to attack a conventional military installation during peace time. I simply didn't realise you were one of those types.

To send a message to Bashar to ensure that he will be "helpful" when the Lebanese elections rolls around so that Israel and the US get a pliant client state...
-snip-
Of course. Afterall, they're Israelis so by definition they're part of some WASP conspiracy and have no legitimate concerns whatsoever.

Never understood air strikes into other countries; aren't they EXTREMELY illegal? If France bombed a German site they'd start a WW.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2461421.ece

Are they friggin' insane?!? They risk a nuclear fallout and a war for...what?

I'd like to see someone with a geiger counter to run over that site as blowing up a nuclear material storage site sounds quite dangerous and in a sense - as in long term contamination - more dangerous than blowing up the actual nuke :eek:

No, you're basing your argument on your own assumptions. Unless I were happy to assume that this is all a giant Israeli conspiracy, what you said made no sense because it makes no sense to attack a conventional military installation during peace time. I simply didn't realise you were one of those types.

I'm basing my argument of what I know of the region and contemporary geopolitics. There is no reason for Syria to be seeking nuclear weapons at this sensitive time, nor is there any reason for North Korea to be providing them with any or the means to make them at this sensitive time. Syria could give them nothing in return, not even oil, which would justify them placing their international reputation in such extreme danger just as the six-party talks are getting somewhere. You're the one rejecting it on no basis other than it doesn't make sense to you, but you've given no reason why any of the reasons I've adduced don't make sense.

And as for your characterization of my statements as an "Israeli conspiracy", with whom are they supposed to be conspiring? I accept that they planned the attack and carried it out. Are they conspiring with themselves?

Of course. Afterall, they're Israelis so by definition they're part of some WASP conspiracy and have no legitimate concerns whatsoever.

Israelis (mostly Jews) are by definition part of a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant conspiracy? If you're going to make up strawmen, please at least let them be internally consistent. And since when did I try to argue that a Lebanese president with fealty to Hezbollah wouldn't be a legitimate concern? I've said nothing about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of any of the potential reasons I've given, so please stop being dishonest and pretending otherwise.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2461421.ece

Once again, we see the futility in buying the latest and best air defense systems from France and Russia.

And the futility of trying to assemble nukes on the sly, within range of Israeli bombers.

I find it quite interesting that despite the Syrian purchase of the latest French air defense radars and computers, and the latest Russian air defense missiles, none of the F-15s was hit - it would appear that the whole air defense system was completely worthless.

No, it just proves that like most Arab states, they couldn't organise a pissup in a brewery - or as my Lebanese mate said, 'there is no such word in Arabic for organised".

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2170188,00.html

Hey look, another opinion! According to this one, it was a dry run for a raid on Iran. Well I'm glad that's all cleared up.

Again, buying the latest and greatest technology around is impressive. Less so when the older shit your enemy uses completely outclasses you because? You forgot to read the fucking instructions.

"How do I aim missiles?"
"Not sure? Can anyone read Russian?"
*silent pause*
"How did we buy this crap!?"

Well something shady is going on. Syria certianly doesnt need poor quality North Korean cement so what exactly was that ship doing there?

There is no reason for Syria to be seeking nuclear weapons at this sensitive time, nor is there any reason for North Korea to be providing them with any or the means to make them at this sensitive time. Syria could give them nothing in return, not even oil, which would justify them placing their international reputation in such extreme danger just as the six-party talks are getting somewhere.
Nor is there a reason for Iran to be seeking nukes, but they are. Let's face it, the little bit of rational thought required for some shaky regime to seek nukes is easily covered by Israel being the only power in the middle east with them, and the unpredictability of US policy in the region.

As for what Syria could give North Korea...money would be the obvious answer. One of the main avenues through which Kim's regime makes the little money it has is the export of weapons. Their most popular articles are the various Scud derivatives they sell (which by now have become positively huge).

Now, we know the North Koreans were customers of Mr. Khan. We know that Iran was/is too. If it isn't the North Korean government proliferating as a matter of policy (and I'm not at all convinced Kim isn't ready to play the game...get the international recognition from the 6 party talks on one hand and the export income on the other), it is Mr. Khan's network, which by now is bound to include North Korean scientists as well.

You're the one rejecting it on no basis other than it doesn't make sense to you, but you've given no reason why any of the reasons I've adduced don't make sense.
Now I have.

And as for your characterization of my statements as an "Israeli conspiracy", with whom are they supposed to be conspiring? I accept that they planned the attack and carried it out. Are they conspiring with themselves?
The way you painted it, it is a conspiracy of Barak and a few other high-ranking politicians and the IDF in order to defraud their own populace by telling him they're doing it for immediate security reasons when in fact they're doing it to score political points.

And because you couldn't help but drop the US in there somewhere, it becomes the same tired old story of evil Israel and its victims.

I've said nothing about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of any of the potential reasons I've given, so please stop being dishonest and pretending otherwise.
It's obvious what you're implying. You don't think there was a threat to Israel here, but instead that the Israelis struck for political points, that the target was not of significant value, but that it was instead just a message.

I'm asking you why it is so difficult to accept that maybe Israeli politicians and military officers are actually concerned about the threat of nuclear weapons being aimed at Israel, that maybe they wouldn't sacrifice their own pilots, soldiers or even civilians of any denomination unless they thought it was absolutely necessary, and that such debates are carried out just as they would be anywhere else. That losing a bunch of highly-trained special forces, F-15 jets and their pilots and probably a host of valuable sources is too big a risk to just send a message they could just as well get across at a press conference.

And as for Lebanon...you're not actually naive enough to believe that Israel, the US and Syria don't have lines of communication open behind closed doors to voice their concerns, are you? And besides, bombing some site in Syria isn't gonna scare Assad or his colleagues. They know the context, they know that Israel can't begin a proper campaign - it doesn't have the money, manpower or diplomatic support. And most of all, it doesn't have the domestic political will to begin a war against Syria over an involvement in a Lebanese election in which no amount of Syrian support for Hezbollah is going to change the outcome.

Again, buying the latest and greatest technology around is impressive. Less so when the older shit your enemy uses completely outclasses you because? You forgot to read the fucking instructions.

"How do I aim missiles?"
"Not sure? Can anyone read Russian?"
*silent pause*
"How did we buy this crap!?"


Hahaha. Indeed, Russia did supply Syria with air defense systems, but there have been talks of Russia supplying personel to work the system. Also, the Russians are planning to create a naval base in Syria. This is not the first time they have interfered, if you remember, in the War of Attrition, over 4000 Russian personel were brought to Egypt, to man their Soviet planes (because yes, the Egyptians couldn't handle the translation...).

As for the Nukes, Not only did North Korea probably never have Nukes, they would most definitely not give them to Syria just like that. If you look at where the attack took place, near the Iraqi border, it is reasonable to believe that it was some kind of shipment coming in from Iran via Iraq (even more of a reason as to why the US should leave some sort of military presence between two countries that deal weapons to terrorists). Most likely this was a large shippment of conventional weapons to Hizzbollah that Israeli intelligence picked up on. There is no PR involved on either side (except perhaps Syria calling out to the UN). Despite all these cries against invading another country's airspace and all, if the US found out al-quada is bringing in a large shippment of weapons to Cuba that are directly aimed to bomb florida, I think noone would doubt their actions if they were to send a few planes to bomb the trucks in which they were being carried. This is exactly the same.
Any comments?

As for the Nukes, Not only did North Korea probably never have Nukes, they would most definitely not give them to Syria just like that.

North Korea certainly has plutonium and HEU.

A.Q. Khan certainly sold Syria designs for nuclear weapons.

All you need after that is a few machinists, and you're in business.

Some of you seem to think that assembling a nuclear weapon from engineering diagrams is rocket science - it's not.

Kind of hard for Syria to win a war without nukes.

Their air force was completely destroyed inside of three days, along with their air defense system.

Can't win a major war without that.

Looks like they bought equally bad crap this time around. Shows you that the best, the very latest stuff from France and Russia is just complete crap, and will get you killed.

Let's face it. SAMs aren't as effective as their builders say they are. To quote an old pilot saying. "No one has ever been shot down by a SAM he could see."

Something happened.

We think Israeli warplanes crossed into SYria and destroyed a site where nuclear materials were being gathered for the purposes of building a nuclear weapon. North Korea may be involved. NObody is saying much leaving us with only our own speculations.

Nevertheless, something happened.

:p

"I don't know when, and I don't know where, but something aweful is going to happen. And don't marry that fat man, girl. He only wants you for your money." - Robin Williams, talking like Miss Cleo



:D

I would actually prefer the Arabs to have nuclear weapons, at least it would keep the Israelis from acting like they own the region.

Who acts like they own the region again?

Well, as long as we're making up stuff on the fly, why don't we just presume that North Korea forked over a few nuclear warheads? There's precisely the same amount of evidence for either.

Nobody here, so far, is asking cui bono. Syria wants to resume diplomatic relations with the United States, and North Korea wants out of the international doghouse. Neither of them have any reason for fomenting a nuclear scare on the eve of a resolution from the six party talks. The only people who benefit from this are the neocons in the administration who have actively tried to scuttle any forthcoming agreement (e.g. in the interference with unfreezing Korean accounts at Banco Delta Asia) and the Israelis.

1) Barak notches up an easy success on his braces, unlike his disgraced predecessor.

2) People who have advocated peace talks with Syria, like Avi Dichter, are going to be looking foolish.

3) It'll make the half of the Israeli populace that doesn't want to give the Golan Heights back start worrying very seriously about a Syrian threat, and delegitimizes any talk about restoring the Golan Heights to Syria.

4) They think Bashar has some influence over Michel Aoun. They're wrong, but it's still a reason.

5) For the neocons, Syria has been on the agenda for ten years, at least, ever since it was singled out as one of the countries to topple by the PNAC.

6) By linking it to the North Koreans, they achieve the collapse of the six party talks, the continuation of North Korea's pariah status, and effect the disgrace of the moderates in the State Department.

In short, the US and Israel have a very definite reason to be making it up as they go along, but if it were real, it would be counterproductive for both North Korea and Syria.



If making a passing aside about the poor quality of the Times under Murdoch's ownership makes me "seem less reliable" than a claim which is less believable than the Zinoviev Letter, then I have to say I have no confidence in your judgment whatsoever.

And I can grant in your hypothetical scenario, the possibility of building a bomb is increased considerably. If they made hypothetical do-it-yourself nuclear bomb kits and sold them at Marks and Sparks, that would make it easier still. So what? It has nothing to do with the way nuclear proliferation is monitored and checked in the real world.

Ohh, nice dodge. Lots of information, so apparently no need to actually answer my post.

You said, and I quote:

"It takes enough nuclear material, it takes a lot of work and experience that the Syrians simply do not have."

Simply, not true.

As for "who benefits", well the obvious answer is "The Syrian Government". Israel has nukes; Syria is the enemy (self proclaimed, no less) of Israel; it makes perfect sense that Syria wants nuclear arms of it's own. I don't blame them.

As for why NK: NK has nukes, but also has a serious lack of cash. Syria isn't the wealthiest nation on earth, but they can certainly scrape up a few million in USD. Both countries benefit.

As for unbelievability, all I can say is: only in YOUR mind. Nuclear non-proliferation has been exposed long since as a bad joke; The west is playing catch-up with the weapons dealers as usual, and as for The Times, well, all I can say is they seem a lot more reliable than wherever you're getting your info from.

*the OP*
They'd best have had proof, that's all I can say.

Never understood air strikes into other countries; aren't they EXTREMELY illegal? If France bombed a German site they'd start a WW.
They are unless you're in a war with the other state, which IIRC, Syria and Israel continually are. It's a hugely grey area, though, really.

Israel doing this makes perfect sense to me. They are not going to run the risk of allowing a hostile power nuclear technology. They bombed Saddam's reactor at Osirak, and they have now decided to bomb a Syrian nuclear cache.

Syria, meanwhile, might want nuclear technology of their own. They may be acting as a middleman for Iran. Their intentions might be peaceful, but I doubt it.

What does not make sense is why Syria would spend money on acquiring nuclear technology, given Israel's history of bombing Arab nuclear programs without bothering about such things as international law or declarations of war. Besides, what can a nuke do that chemical weapons can't?

Wait, I think I've figured it out. Syria is preparing for the possibility of all-out war with Israel. And they know that Syria's military is nowhere near as powerful as Israel's. They plan to use nukes as an equalizer - vaporise a few Israeli tank columns or something (Israel, I think has nuclear weapons for similar purposes - oh, and to counter Arab chemical weapons). Syria is after tac-nukes, in case the Israelis have chemical warfare gear.

As for Israel penetrating Syria's air defenses, the Syrians clearly forgot that Israelis are ninjas.

Nor is there a reason for Iran to be seeking nukes, but they are.

Which is yet another proposition for which there is no evidence. It's being pushed into the zeitgeist, despite the National Intelligence Estimate and many other experts saying that they're at least a decade away from a functional nuclear program, because of political concerns now. And I honestly think that the biggest political concern is that they're telling the truth, that it is for domestic, civilian purposes. Nuclear power plants would free up all the oil they're currently using for electricity and convert it to oil for the market, for which they could demand payment in any currency they liked, and it would be paid.

Let's face it, the little bit of rational thought required for some shaky regime to seek nukes is easily covered by Israel being the only power in the middle east with them, and the unpredictability of US policy in the region.

And that's worth throwing away all the political good will that they're trying to create, and painting a big target on themselves at a time when there's an administration run by people who named one's country as a target for war a full decade ago? I'd say the policy of the US with Syria is pretty easily predictable at this point, and it's Syria's efforts, rather than the US's, which has managed to stave off major international incidents. So why would they provoke one now?

As for what Syria could give North Korea...money would be the obvious answer. One of the main avenues through which Kim's regime makes the little money it has is the export of weapons. Their most popular articles are the various Scud derivatives they sell (which by now have become positively huge).

Again, you're missing my point. It's not that Syria couldn't give something to North Korea, but as I said before they couldn't give them enough to justify the risk to the six party talks and the potential of North Korea's permanent isolation. China is one of the countries pressuring North Korea to sit down at the table, and they obey because North Korea only exists at the will of China. If China wanted to, they could cause a domestic meltdown by shutting off all aid tomorrow, and nobody who wanted to help (even assuming Syria is one of them) would be in a position to take up the slack.

Now, we know the North Koreans were customers of Mr. Khan. We know that Iran was/is too. If it isn't the North Korean government proliferating as a matter of policy (and I'm not at all convinced Kim isn't ready to play the game...get the international recognition from the 6 party talks on one hand and the export income on the other), it is Mr. Khan's network, which by now is bound to include North Korean scientists as well.

The whole AQ Khan/Syria angle was refuted three years ago, and there's been absolutely no evidence provided to suggest that the link is any more than the same nonsense that was floated around back then. I really don't understand the motivation here. Do you want to be misled?

The way you painted it, it is a conspiracy of Barak and a few other high-ranking politicians and the IDF in order to defraud their own populace by telling him they're doing it for immediate security reasons when in fact they're doing it to score political points.

Yes, and that's based on the knowledge that Syria's nuclear program is so small as to be negligable, literally. When Joseph Cirincione was writing his book Bomb Scare, he didn't include Syria because their nuclear program was practically non-existent. So absent Noth Korea just dropping nuclear weapons into their lap, there was no immediate security concern.

And because you couldn't help but drop the US in there somewhere, it becomes the same tired old story of evil Israel and its victims.

Did I say "evil Israel"? Do you need me here for this conversation, or will you just argue with the voices in your head? The actual reason that I dropped the US in there is that I do not believe that Israel would undertake such an action without running it by the US first, particularly when it involved violating the airspace of a US and NATO ally. That is further made obvious because days after the leak, instead of the angry not-for-attribution dissension one would expect if Israel had not cleared it, we get instead a highly-coordinated set of selective leaks which are used to support the neocon agenda in Syria and with regards to North Korea at the six party talks.

I'm asking you why it is so difficult to accept that maybe Israeli politicians and military officers are actually concerned about the threat of nuclear weapons being aimed at Israel, that maybe they wouldn't sacrifice their own pilots, soldiers or even civilians of any denomination unless they thought it was absolutely necessary, and that such debates are carried out just as they would be anywhere else. That losing a bunch of highly-trained special forces, F-15 jets and their pilots and probably a host of valuable sources is too big a risk to just send a message they could just as well get across at a press conference.

Then I will answer: the reason it's difficult to accept this story of Syria trying to acquire the means to build a nuclear arsenal from North Korea right now is that it's patent nonsense. I must admit though that absent the hurdle of believing completely ahistorical and unevidenced nonsense, there is no serious bar to believing the story.

And as for Lebanon...you're not actually naive enough to believe that Israel, the US and Syria don't have lines of communication open behind closed doors to voice their concerns, are you? And besides, bombing some site in Syria isn't gonna scare Assad or his colleagues.

Actually, the backstory itself is enough to make Assad and his collagues aware of Israel's concerns, because if they can get the world at large to believe that Syria is trying to obtain North Korean nuclear materials, then they go back to the drawing board in terms of diplomatic relations with the US, and the US and Israel get to set the agenda in this new situation. Bashar is being offered a Hobson's choice now: get in line with what the US and Israel want or don't.

Ohh, nice dodge. Lots of information, so apparently no need to actually answer my post.

You said, and I quote:

"It takes enough nuclear material, it takes a lot of work and experience that the Syrians simply do not have."

Simply, not true.

So it is true that the Syrians have enough of the required materials for a bomb? I'd like to see some evidence of that, because so far the evidence presented right now could be charitably described as "thin".

As for "who benefits", well the obvious answer is "The Syrian Government". Israel has nukes; Syria is the enemy (self proclaimed, no less) of Israel; it makes perfect sense that Syria wants nuclear arms of it's own. I don't blame them.

Yes, Syria benefits by having all their work towards recognition and reconciliation between it and the US scuttled, and North Korea benefits by having their attempts to escape international censure and isolation scuttled on the eve of expected major developments in the six party talks. I find that about as believable as Ramsay MacDonald conspiring with the Soviet Union to facilitate the rise of Leninism in the UK or any of the other great political hoaxes.

As for why NK: NK has nukes, but also has a serious lack of cash. Syria isn't the wealthiest nation on earth, but they can certainly scrape up a few million in USD. Both countries benefit.

So is Syria going to support the North Korean economy by itself when China cuts North Korea off? That's what's at stake here. China has been pushing North Korea hard to get it at the bargaining table, and China is the one with the clout here because they're sustaining any vestige of the North Korean economy. The idea that North Korea would risk long-term financial meltdown for a few million euros, dollars, or whatever is absurd on its face.

As for unbelievability, all I can say is: only in YOUR mind. Nuclear non-proliferation has been exposed long since as a bad joke; The west is playing catch-up with the weapons dealers as usual, and as for The Times, well, all I can say is they seem a lot more reliable than wherever you're getting your info from.

You're able to make assessments of the relative reliability between your sources and mine before I disclose them? Impressive. Uncharitable people might think that's because you're committed to this "OMG SYRIA HAZ NUKES!!!!1111!!!" narrative come hell or high water, but I'm prepared to be nice and accept the possibility of clairvoyance here.

I think maybe those extremists Muslims are right when saying that there can be no peace if Israel exists, and this is a reason why. They keep on committing acts of war on their neighbors, and the world doesn't give a damn. I think the US should invaded and occupy Israel, because its a dangerous regime, with the possibility of having nuclear weapons.

Well something shady is going on. Syria certianly doesnt need poor quality North Korean cement so what exactly was that ship doing there?

Well, the ship was named the Al-Hamad. I must admit that I've only spent five years studying Arabic and none at all studying Korean, but I have to say that sounds like it was named by an Arabic speaker rather than a Korean one. Now, the flag it's flying is in dispute. According to two internet sources cited in Ha'aretz, it was flying a North Korean flag, and the third, an Egyptian government site, says it was flying a South Korean flag. Given the usual bureaucratic carelessness, it could be either, but neither flag requires that it actually have ever been docked in, owned by, or at all related to the country represented by the flag. In this case, there is another probable owner, the Al-Hamad Contracting company based out of the United Arab Emirates. To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a shipment of cement is just a shipment of cement.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2461421.ece

Once again, we see the futility in buying the latest and best air defense systems from France and Russia.

And the futility of trying to assemble nukes on the sly, within range of Israeli bombers.

I find it quite interesting that despite the Syrian purchase of the latest French air defense radars and computers, and the latest Russian air defense missiles, none of the F-15s was hit - it would appear that the whole air defense system was completely worthless.

I might be missing something... I've read stories on this froma number of different sources, and none of them can say catergorically WHAT it iswas that Israel forces hit.. if actually anything.

Israel seems to be claiming they surgically struck nuclear stockpiles... the US seems to be backing that story (although they seem to be basing their opinion entirely on what Israel is telling them). There seems to be a remarkable lack of any evidence, and an abundance of accusations.

I'll withhold judgment till I see something worth wasting time over.

I think maybe those extremists Muslims are right when saying that there can be no peace if Israel exists, and this is a reason why. They keep on committing acts of war on their neighbors, and the world doesn't give a damn. I think the US should invaded and occupy Israel, because its a dangerous regime, with the possibility of having nuclear weapons.

:D Good Joke. You have a great sense of humor!

:D Good Joke. You have a great sense of humor!



I'm serious.

I'm serious.

You've obviously lost your marbles then.

You've obviously lost your marbles then.

How so? Israel is a threat to peace. Peace is the absence of war and violence. Israel continually attacks its neighbors in acts of war, so therefore, how can it be peaceful?

It is a war mongering nation, that has nuclear capability. That is a threat.

How so? Israel is a threat to peace. Peace is the absence of war and violence. Israel continually attacks its neighbors in acts of war, so therefore, how can it be peaceful?

It is a war mongering nation, that has nuclear capability. That is a threat.
Israel has always been willing to accept peace with its neighbors. They gave up 2/3 of their territory for peace with Egypt and gave up much of the control of the Dead Sea for peace with Jordan.

Syria has been unwilling to accept peace with Israel and is technically at war with Israel making the Israeli attack legal.

As for Lebanon. They failed to follow the Resolution mandating they control Hezbollah. Israel didn't fire the first shots in that war. The only time Israel did fire the first shot was in 1967, and an Egyptian attack was imminent so Israel attacked out of desperation.

Israel has been a nuclear power since the late 60s or early 70s. They have fought many wars while being armed with nukes and have always refused to use them. That should tell you something.

Now you need to go pick up a book and learn your fucking history. You get a nice F in it.

I truly swear, there is something in the water that affects those who live downstate.

Israel has always been willing to accept peace with its neighbors. They gave up 2/3 of their territory for peace with Egypt and gave up much of the control of the Dead Sea for peace with Jordan.

Syria has been unwilling to accept peace with Israel and is technically at war with Israel making the Israeli attack legal.

When was the last time Syria attacked an Israeli site?

As for Lebanon. They failed to follow the Resolution mandating they control Hezbollah. Israel didn't fire the first shots in that war. The only time Israel did fire the first shot was in 1967, and an Egyptian attack was imminent so Israel attacked out of desperation.

As far as the resolution issue is concerned, why don't we bring up the issue of Israel failing to comply with countless UN resolutions.


Israel has been a nuclear power since the late 60s or early 70s. They have fought many wars while being armed with nukes and have always refused to use them. That should tell you something.
It tells me that they don't want the collective Muslim world sending countless mujahadeen to invade Israel. Its not a sign of peace, its a sign of Israel not acting stupid.

[/quote]
I truly swear, there is something in the water that affects those who live downstate.[/QUOTE]

Oh trust me, I am the only one of this opinion downstate. Its hard being a beacon of truth in such a dark and backward place.

Israel has always been willing to accept peace with its neighbors. They gave up 2/3 of their territory for peace with Egypt and gave up much of the control of the Dead Sea for peace with Jordan.

Syria has been unwilling to accept peace with Israel and is technically at war with Israel making the Israeli attack legal.

As for Lebanon. They failed to follow the Resolution mandating they control Hezbollah. Israel didn't fire the first shots in that war. The only time Israel did fire the first shot was in 1967, and an Egyptian attack was imminent so Israel attacked out of desperation.

Israel has been a nuclear power since the late 60s or early 70s. They have fought many wars while being armed with nukes and have always refused to use them. That should tell you something.

Now you need to go pick up a book and learn your fucking history. You get a nice F in it.

I truly swear, there is something in the water that affects those who live downstate.

Well hopefully Hezbollah can procure better missiles so they can launch another offensive against Israel, seeing as the Zionist can't seem to understand they're not wanted.

I think maybe those extremists Muslims are right when saying that there can be no peace if Israel exists, and this is a reason why. They keep on committing acts of war on their neighbors, and the world doesn't give a damn. I think the US should invaded and occupy Israel, because its a dangerous regime, with the possibility of having nuclear weapons.

LOL

And what do you call the 1948 Arab-Israeli, Yom-Kippur, and 6-day War?

I love it. I simply love the fact that the surrounding nations have attempted to, "Wipe Israel off the map" but have completley and utterly failed to do so on multiple occasions.

LOL

And what do you call the 1948 Arab-Israeli, Yom-Kippur, and 6-day War?

I love it. I simply love the fact that the surrounding nations have attempted to, "Wipe Israel off the map" but have completley and utterly failed to do so on multiple occasions.

Yeah, well those things are in the past, are they not? Shall we go invade UK because in 1812 war they invaded America? Of course not. Israel always says it wants peace, but its obvious that the peace they seek is the type where the Arab nations are completely submissive to the Zionist desires.

Yeah, well those things are in the past, are they not?

The very recent past.

Shall we go invade UK because in 1812 war they invaded America?

Yes.

Of course not.

Wrong.

Israel always says it wants peace, but its obvious that the peace they seek is the type where the Arab nations are completely submissive to the Zionist desires.

I'll give you that, but the surrounding nations aren't exactly the nicest bunch toward the Israelis now are they?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2461421.ece

Once again, we see the futility in buying the latest and best air defense systems from France and Russia.

And the futility of trying to assemble nukes on the sly, within range of Israeli bombers.

I find it quite interesting that despite the Syrian purchase of the latest French air defense radars and computers, and the latest Russian air defense missiles, none of the F-15s was hit - it would appear that the whole air defense system was completely worthless.

Though firing into a nation that you are still legally at war with, while violating air space, I condemn said action as it is grounds for Syria to legally resume action against Israel (Syria does not stand a chance but yea, it is an act of war)

On that note, Israel probably did the right thing in doing this but I am not going to jump and down and celebrate the attack. I condemn the attack most strongly.

On that note, Israel probably did the right thing in doing this but I am not going to jump and down and celebrate the attack. I condemn the attack most strongly.

The right thing only works if what they said is true. There is a great deal of accusation, but no proving.

I would actually prefer the Arabs to have nuclear weapons, at least it would keep the Israelis from acting like they own the region.

Um Israel does not own the region. The Muslims actually own the region. And if the Arabs had nukes, one wonders how long it would be before half of Israel goes up in fireballs.

Which is yet another proposition for which there is no evidence. It's being pushed into the zeitgeist, despite the National Intelligence Estimate and many other experts saying that they're at least a decade away from a functional nuclear program, because of political concerns now. And I honestly think that the biggest political concern is that they're telling the truth, that it is for domestic, civilian purposes. Nuclear power plants would free up all the oil they're currently using for electricity and convert it to oil for the market, for which they could demand payment in any currency they liked, and it would be paid.
1) If Iran wanted to free up oil for export, they'd stop subsidising it domestically. Or make a deal with the Americans and stop the sanctions.
2) Even with the potential export revenue, there is no reason to suspect that the vast costs of a nuclear program (both monetary and politically) would be justified.
3) Not even Iranians themselves believe the program is for peaceful purposes (link (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,432788,00.html)).
4) Why would they reject the offer to have ready-made fuel elements delivered and recycled by Russia to run their own plants? Why would they insist to have a domestic enrichment program? That's the thing that did it for me, it makes zero sense whatsoever if this is a peaceful program running for economic or environmental reasons.
5) Why the refusal to properly address the IAEA's concerns? Why keep the enrichment research program hidden for years? Iran signed the NPT, they could have gone and acquired what they needed openly.

I can't give you a 100% answer, but the argument that Iran is really after nuclear power for peaceful purposes is based more on hope than evidence, I think.

And that's worth throwing away all the political good will that they're trying to create, and painting a big target on themselves at a time when there's an administration run by people who named one's country as a target for war a full decade ago?
For them it's a world of uncertainty. It'd be foolish not to keep your options open.

I'd say the policy of the US with Syria is pretty easily predictable at this point, and it's Syria's efforts, rather than the US's, which has managed to stave off major international incidents. So why would they provoke one now?
It is? You're aware of the CIA's cooperation with the Syrian secret police on terror matters, right? Of Condi's trips to Damascus, the pleading for help in Iraq and Lebanon? The Saudi peace plan that Syria is AFAIK in favour of? The fact that this US administration will be gone in a short while? The fact that the no one has any idea what the US will do in Iraq and what things will look like afterwards?

US policy towards Syria would have been obvious six years ago. It is not anymore - the neocons have resigned or been pushed aside, and now you've got a conflict between them and the champions of realpolitik going on. Cheney and Bush are still there, but the Pentagon is now controlled not by Rummy but someone who couldn't give a shit about clashes of civilisations and doesn't like interfering in stuff that's not his business, and the state department has only strengthened its position with Rice on top (who is clearly not a neocon). And Congress is certainly not about to hand Bush favours on questionable foreign policy issues.

Again, you're missing my point. It's not that Syria couldn't give something to North Korea, but as I said before they couldn't give them enough to justify the risk to the six party talks and the potential of North Korea's permanent isolation.
I don't think Kim and his mates are measuring risks and rewards quite the same way we are. Kim likes to play games, he likes to gamble and he likes to be recognised as a great statesman.

He's not about to make any more concessions than the absolutely has to. I was surprised he apparently agreed to shut down those reactors (and surprised the Americans were happy to make a deal...there's more realpolitik for you). But he's not going to shut down one of the few established revenue streams to the military and the country in general.

China is one of the countries pressuring North Korea to sit down at the table, and they obey because North Korea only exists at the will of China. If China wanted to, they could cause a domestic meltdown by shutting off all aid tomorrow, and nobody who wanted to help (even assuming Syria is one of them) would be in a position to take up the slack.
And who says China cares what the North Koreans sell to Syria? I seem to recall that Hezbollah's missile that hit an Israeli ship was a Chinese design, manufactured in Iran. Pakistan's nuclear program is 99% Chinese, and until it became obvious that the Americans really, really wanted them to care, Beijing couldn't be bothered wasting a thought about a North Korean nuclear program.

The whole AQ Khan/Syria angle was refuted three years ago, and there's been absolutely no evidence provided to suggest that the link is any more than the same nonsense that was floated around back then. I really don't understand the motivation here. Do you want to be misled?
Even assuming that Khan sold or offered to sell designs, machinery and expertise to North Korea, Iran, Iraq and Libya, but not to Syria, the same channels are still open and going. People know how much money can be made from this, the Pakistani military knew exactly what Khan was going.

And even if you said that the Pakistanis were not involved, we know that the North Koreans could be making a nice sum of money doing the same stuff Khan did. They already have the connections and the channels, it's just like adding another product to their shopfront.

So no, I don't want to be misled. I simply don't believe that the Israelis would be risking the lives of their soldiers as well as a big international incident and yet another cooling of regional relations without good reason. I don't think bombing just some military site is a sufficient reason.

So the Israelis must have thought there was something serious going on there. There are relatively few things serious enough - some training facility or major weapons caché for Hezbollah or something related to WMD. The fact that there are North Koreans in the country and that Hezbollah hasn't said a word points towards the latter.

Yes, and that's based on the knowledge that Syria's nuclear program is so small as to be negligable, literally. When Joseph Cirincione was writing his book Bomb Scare, he didn't include Syria because their nuclear program was practically non-existent. So absent Noth Korea just dropping nuclear weapons into their lap, there was no immediate security concern.
Anything involving nuclear weapons is an immediate security concern for Israel. You know as well as I do that no conventional threat could pose a risk for the existence of the country today. The only thing that can is nuclear weapons.

They realised they failed to recognise and respond to Iran's actions in time. They're not about to make the same mistake...making a guess I would think the warehouse might have contained a few dozen centrifuges being set up for experimental purposes. That's the sort of thing that starts a nuclear weapons program, and letting it run just gives the Syrians vital research and expertise needed to make it quicker and bigger next time.

I'm not saying what they did was justified. I don't even know what exactly happened. I would have preferred if they had gone to the IAEA instead and presented their evidence. The sad thing is that I don't think they expect much anymore from international bodies, so they prefer to take these matters into their own hands and act decisively and unilaterally. Do I agree with that? No. Do I understand it? Yes.

Actually, the backstory itself is enough to make Assad and his collagues aware of Israel's concerns, because if they can get the world at large to believe that Syria is trying to obtain North Korean nuclear materials, then they go back to the drawing board in terms of diplomatic relations with the US, and the US and Israel get to set the agenda in this new situation.
And the thing about diplomacy is that it takes at least two sides. Neither Israel nor the US would gain anything from setting an agenda by means of pissing the other side off so much that no agreements can be reached.

Um Israel does not own the region. The Muslims actually own the region. And if the Arabs had nukes, one wonders how long it would be before half of Israel goes up in fireballs.

And this is bad how? Sorry but I am under the general impression that the Nagasaki and Hiroshima justification is accepted in this forum, so under that logic the removal of Israel (peaceful or otherwise) is required to save future lives and prevent future oppression and occupation by the Zionist-Nazi's.

Looks like they bought equally bad crap this time around. Shows you that the best, the very latest stuff from France and Russia is just complete crap, and will get you killed.

from the article in the OP:
Syria possesses between 60 and 120 Scud-C missiles, which it has bought from North Korea over the past 15 years. Diplomats believe North Korean engineers have been working on extending their 300-mile range.

Hardly state-of-the-art French or Russian missiles, I daresay, since Scuds are nothing but slightly-upgraded V-2 out of the early '50s. A Bulava or a Topol-M is totally a different story.
Also, I doubt that the IDF (or better, ISAF-Israeli Sneak Attack Force) faced Tunguska SPAA complexes or S-300 SAMs.

Anyway: usually, such sneak attacks are war without declaration thereof - just like Hitler's attack on Poland, or Japan's attack at Pearl Harbour.
It's called a crime in international laws. Since the UN are totally useless, however, I doubt that any move will be taken against Israel.

Well, the Arabs are going to love Israel even more after that... what an intelligent way to encourage peace processes and dialogue. :rolleyes:

1) If Iran wanted to free up oil for export, they'd stop subsidising it domestically. Or make a deal with the Americans and stop the sanctions.
Not if America is asking too much. Giving up civilian nuclear power is too much in the Iranians' view, I think.


2) Even with the potential export revenue, there is no reason to suspect that the vast costs of a nuclear program (both monetary and politically) would be justified.
3) Not even Iranians themselves believe the program is for peaceful purposes (link (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,432788,00.html)).
4) Why would they reject the offer to have ready-made fuel elements delivered and recycled by Russia to run their own plants? Why would they insist to have a domestic enrichment program? That's the thing that did it for me, it makes zero sense whatsoever if this is a peaceful program running for economic or environmental reasons.
5) Why the refusal to properly address the IAEA's concerns? Why keep the enrichment research program hidden for years? Iran signed the NPT, they could have gone and acquired what they needed openly.

I can't give you a 100% answer, but the argument that Iran is really after nuclear power for peaceful purposes is based more on hope than evidence, I think.

You know, I also think that Iran's nuclear programme isn't totally peaceful - at least, potentially. Then again, I understand that:
1.Many countries and powers bordering Iran got nukes: US and Britain (who are occupying Iraq) have nukes, Pakistan has nukes, Russia has nukes, Turkey hosts US bases with nukes, Israel has nukes, China and India (not very far away) have nukes. So, I think that a nuclear Iran will merely cause a slight shift of balance, not an increment in the region's instability.
2.If Iran used nukes, the US would raze Iran and turn Teheran into radioactive glass. Iranians and even Ahmadinejad know that. So, the eventual Iranian military nuclear project is going to be just a deterrent.
3.After all, it is Iran's right to have a civilian nuclear power, and no-one's got the right to ask them to cut it out - unless it can be proven that Iran's violating the NPT.
4.Iran's learned the lesson from North Korea and Iraq: if you have nukes the US won't invade you. If you haven't, they will.


I don't think Kim and his mates are measuring risks and rewards quite the same way we are. Kim likes to play games, he likes to gamble and he likes to be recognised as a great statesman.

I think that Kim's showed some balls and won the last hand...


So the Israelis must have thought there was something serious going on there. There are relatively few things serious enough - some training facility or major weapons caché for Hezbollah or something related to WMD. The fact that there are North Koreans in the country and that Hezbollah hasn't said a word points towards the latter.

My guess is that, if it was something en route to Hezbollah, it wouldn't be WMDs, but ATGMs and SAMs, they've proven deadly effective against the IDF last year, didn't they?

Not if America is asking too much. Giving up civilian nuclear power is too much in the Iranians' view, I think.
Well, the deals were on the table: you can have as many power plants as you can afford, just not the enrichment plants.

Economically, it's a pretty good deal. You save a bunch of money, don't have to worry about nuclear waste and if Russia starts charging silly prices you just ask France or China.

You know, I also think that Iran's nuclear programme isn't totally peaceful - at least, potentially. Then again, I understand that...
And I agree with most things you said. I'm not so sure that Ahmadinejad is the responsible type - even for an Iranian president he is pretty convinced of those Shia Messianic End-of-the-World type stories, and I definitely don't see the place having nukes make the region any more stable or safe.

Even if Iran were to behave itself, as a response you'd have the Saudis get nukes, followed by Syria and Turkey. And you're not going to tell me all those governments are stable, responsible and safe enough to make sure that those nukes stay where they're meant to be.

And that apart from my opinion that nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation is are bad things in and for themselves.

My guess is that, if it was something en route to Hezbollah, it wouldn't be WMDs, but ATGMs and SAMs, they've proven deadly effective against the IDF last year, didn't they?
Yeah, but this was a pretty big operation. A lot of effort for just a few more missiles.

Looks like they bought equally bad crap this time around. Shows you that the best, the very latest stuff from France and Russia is just complete crap, and will get you killed.

My understanding was that the Isrealis flew around the top of the air defence network (up into Turkey), so not a question of bad hardware, they just needed more I guess.

Well, the deals were on the table: you can have as many power plants as you can afford, just not the enrichment plants.
Economically, it's a pretty good deal. You save a bunch of money, don't have to worry about nuclear waste and if Russia starts charging silly prices you just ask France or China.

Politically, it isn't. It makes Iran depend on foreign supplies from richer countries, instead that being able to buy uranium ore directly from the producer - and it would be easy for Iran to buy uranium ore, since they have a lot of oil that can be turned into lots of $ and €.
Ahmadinejad is a nationalist, I doubt that he will condone a course of action that places his country in such a weaker position, or that the people who voted for him would agree to such deal.
I think that the ideal solution would be: ok for civilian nuclear power and enrichment on Iranian soil, but under the control of IAEA - and IAEA controls should be forced on ANY other country within the NPT, I think. This way, we get Iran's right to civilian nuclear respected, and more controls on nuclear fuel all around the world. It would be a win-win, but I doubt that many countries would accept strong IAEA controls over their own enrichment plants.
Shit, international politics is a nasty business.


And I agree with most things you said. I'm not so sure that Ahmadinejad is the responsible type - even for an Iranian president he is pretty convinced of those Shia Messianic End-of-the-World type stories, and I definitely don't see the place having nukes make the region any more stable or safe.
I think that most of that EotW shit Ahmadinejad banters about is more of consensus-keeping, than actual policies. However, it's just my guess.


Even if Iran were to behave itself, as a response you'd have the Saudis get nukes, followed by Syria and Turkey. And you're not going to tell me all those governments are stable, responsible and safe enough to make sure that those nukes stay where they're meant to be.
Turkey is actually stable, although it has some destabilizing expansionistic tendencies (Kurdistan and Armenia, anyone?), and strong nationalistic movements. Saudi Arabia is too much under the sway of the US to pose a real threat: if someone at the Pentagon thinks "jump!", the Saudi government jumps, even if the guy at the Pentagon was thinking about basketball rebounds. Syria is a different story, I agree.


And that apart from my opinion that nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation is are bad things in and for themselves.

Mine too. Damn nukes.
However, I prefer a balance between nuclear powers than a lack of balance with a nuclear power involved.

Yeah, but this was a pretty big operation. A lot of effort for just a few more missiles.
Meh. Israelis are known to be hyper-reactive, aren't they? Also, it wouldn't be a bad idea if they have in mind to use tanks against Syria or Hezbollah in the next future.
I think we can expect some military move on the Israeli side soon. Maybe the Golan, since the UNIFIL sits between Hezbollah and the IDF.

And this is bad how?

Because the Arab World hates Jews and would love to see them dead.

Sorry but I am under the general impression that the Nagasaki and Hiroshima justification is accepted in this forum, so under that logic the removal of Israel (peaceful or otherwise) is required to save future lives and prevent future oppression and occupation by the Zionist-Nazi's.

I was going to respond but I decided to respond only with :rolleyes:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2461421.ece

Once again, we see the futility in buying the latest and best air defense systems from France and Russia.

And the futility of trying to assemble nukes on the sly, within range of Israeli bombers.

I find it quite interesting that despite the Syrian purchase of the latest French air defense radars and computers, and the latest Russian air defense missiles, none of the F-15s was hit - it would appear that the whole air defense system was completely worthless.

I'm so tired of war and fighting and weaponry.

I'm so tired of war and fighting and weaponry.

Clearly, you aren't a Lockheed shareholder. ;)

My understanding was that the Isrealis flew around the top of the air defence network (up into Turkey), so not a question of bad hardware, they just needed more I guess.

That would involve a violation of Turkish airspace. Even though Israel and Turkey have been on good terms in the past, I doubt Turkey would allow an attack through their airspace, especially with the new AKP government.

That would involve a violation of Turkish airspace. Even though Israel and Turkey have been on good terms in the past, I doubt Turkey would allow an attack through their airspace, especially with the new AKP government.

Israel tells the US to tell Turkey to let Israeli planes through Turkish airspace. Turks obey.

It could be.

Israel tells the US to tell Turkey to let Israeli planes through Turkish airspace. Turks obey.

It could be.

With the new Turkish administration, I think they would be in a position to say no to both Israel and the US. The AKP is no friend to the US or Israel.

And this is bad how? Sorry but I am under the general impression that the Nagasaki and Hiroshima justification is accepted in this forum, so under that logic the removal of Israel (peaceful or otherwise) is required to save future lives and prevent future oppression and occupation by the Zionist-Nazi's.

Somehow I'm not quite sure the eeevvvill ZioNazis will kill more than seven million people in the future.

Also, you seem to have forgotten about a couple of little things called fallout and Mutually Assured Destruction. Nuclear weapons produce fallout. It's bad. Mutually Assured Destruction is also bad. :rolleyes:

Yes, Syria benefits by having all their work towards recognition and reconciliation between it and the US scuttled, and North Korea benefits by having their attempts to escape international censure and isolation scuttled on the eve of expected major developments in the six party talks. I find that about as believable as Ramsay MacDonald conspiring with the Soviet Union to facilitate the rise of Leninism in the UK or any of the other great political hoaxes.

Excuse me: we are talking about a COVERT operation here. Syria thought they could keep it under wraps until it was a fait accompli. As for NK: We are talking about Kim Jong Il. The terms "Crazy as a bedbug" and "Doesn't give a shit about his people" come rather forcefully to mind.

As to the major developments, HAH! I'll believe that when I see it.

And then I won't expect NK to hold to the agreement.



So is Syria going to support the North Korean economy by itself when China cuts North Korea off? That's what's at stake here. China has been pushing North Korea hard to get it at the bargaining table, and China is the one with the clout here because they're sustaining any vestige of the North Korean economy. The idea that North Korea would risk long-term financial meltdown for a few million euros, dollars, or whatever is absurd on its face.


No, what's absurd is your belief that Kim gives a damn. This man is crazy. Worse, he's been brought up in a completely false version of reality - one where NK fought off the combined forces of the West, with just a little help from some Chinese advisors, when the West invaded a Korea on the verge of peaceful reconciliation (I am not joking).

You are making the error of attributing rationality where there is no evidence for it's existence.


You're able to make assessments of the relative reliability between your sources and mine before I disclose them? Impressive. Uncharitable people might think that's because you're committed to this "OMG SYRIA HAZ NUKES!!!!1111!!!" narrative come hell or high water, but I'm prepared to be nice and accept the possibility of clairvoyance here.

When someone will not disclose sources, I generally assume they are reasonable but not perfect. When someone makes a point of not revealing their sources, I generally assume non-existence.

Though firing into a nation that you are still legally at war with, while violating air space, I condemn said action as it is grounds for Syria to legally resume action against Israel (Syria does not stand a chance but yea, it is an act of war)

I'm sure they're not stupid enough to attack Israel directly, they'll probably just give more support to Hezbollah (which won't be good for Lebanon).

On that note, Israel probably did the right thing in doing this but I am not going to jump and down and celebrate the attack. I condemn the attack most strongly.

I'm not going to give any opinion until I know what the target was, if it was a civilian or legitimate military installation then surely Syria would be trumpeting the fact by now, but they're being strangely reticent. I'd guess that the Israelis attacked something which Syria shouldn't have had (a terrorist training camp? weapons shipments to Hezbollah? a nuclear facility?) but it's too early to know.

Somehow I'm not quite sure the eeevvvill ZioNazis will kill more than seven million people in the future.

Also, you seem to have forgotten about a couple of little things called fallout and Mutually Assured Destruction. Nuclear weapons produce fallout. It's bad. Mutually Assured Destruction is also bad. :rolleyes:

I think this is clinching proof (if any more was needed) that AP simply doesn't give a damn for the Palestinians: he uses them as a vehicle for his anti-Semitism, but he'd cheerfully subject them to nuclear war if it meant the destruction of Israel.

Historically, Israel and Turkey have had very good relationships. Besides, when it comes to this kind of thing, Israel doesn't care who it pisses off.

Here's how it might have gone:
Turkish Air Force: Israeli warplanes, you are in Turkish airspace. Turn around or you will be fired upon.
One minute later
Turkish Air Force: I repeat, Israeli warplanes, you are in Turkish airspace. Turn around or you will be fired upon.
Israeli Planes: Roger that. *Israeli planes turn around to head into Syria*

I think maybe those extremists Muslims are right when saying that there can be no peace if Israel exists, and this is a reason why. They keep on committing acts of war on their neighbors, and the world doesn't give a damn. I think the US should invaded and occupy Israel, because its a dangerous regime, with the possibility of having nuclear weapons.

Nonsense. The Israelis exist on the razor's edge- if they were to lose one war, they would be wiped out by their neighbors. Israel is the size of New Jersey and is, at it's narrowest point, 12 wiles mide. It is surrounded by neighbors who, at best, sullenly admit that Israel has the right to exist (Jordan, Egypt) and, at worst, dream of a second holocaust (Syria, Iran).

With that strategic reality, the Israelis have no margin of error- the Israelis have to decisively move against even the possibility that its enemies will obtain weapons of mass destruction.

Israel has never wanted anything other than peace from its neighbors, while the Arab world has spent the last 60-odd years dreaming of wiping Israel off the map.

What would you have Israel do in that situation?

And this is bad how? Sorry but I am under the general impression that the Nagasaki and Hiroshima justification is accepted in this forum, so under that logic the removal of Israel (peaceful or otherwise) is required to save future lives and prevent future oppression and occupation by the Zionist-Nazi's.

Oh, please, I see you are spewing your usual nonsense.

Israel does not "oppress" or "occupy" anyone. Israel ended up with territory that it did not really want after defeating its neighbors in wars that they started. When its neighbors were willing to negotiate in good faith and recognize Israel's right to exist, the Israelis happily gave the land back.

Israel has also pretty much unilaterally given the Palestinians their own state.

So, who exactly is at threat of future "oppression" and "occupation" by the Israelis?

Could this be another bit of propeganda from our "Free press" no one seeems to question things in the media now that Murdoch has most of the press in the English speaking world.





I'm not paranoid everyones out to get me .
i think someone said that ,the're probable after me now

Politics aside, does anyone else ever stop from time to time and reflect on the world we live in and think, "Holy fuck, we're fuckin' crazy!"

Politics aside, does anyone else ever stop from time to time and reflect on the world we live in and think, "Holy fuck, we're fuckin' crazy!"

"The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be."
-Douglas Adams

Yea, we're probably going to end up destroying the planet over a fish or something at this rate.