Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Report: Israel Won't Warn US Before Iran Strike  
User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 4087 posts, RR: 1
Posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4883 times:

Report: Israel won't warn US before Iran strike

Israeli officials say they won't warn the US if they decide to launch a preemptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, according to one US intelligence official familiar with the discussions.

Israeli officials said that if they eventually decide a strike is necessary, they would keep the Americans in the dark to decrease the likelihood that the US would be held responsible for failing to stop Israel's potential attack.

Read more here:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4195792,00.html


There is no way there will come anything good out of this .. Not for Israel, for the region or for the world ... But that's my opinion ...

156 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineflyingclrs727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 733 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4883 times:

Probably a good idea.

User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3362 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4844 times:

Well, as long as they don't expect the US to step in (invoking an unknown clause of a non-existing friendship treaty) I don't have any problem with not warning the US beforehand. If they're brave enough to attack Iran (which might be a challenge unless they attack from Turkey) then it means they are well prepared for whatever comes their way, whether good or bad. And if any UN condemnation heads Israel's way, the US should join in strongly condemning the actions (or at the very least abstain but not veto).


"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlinetu204 From Russia, joined Mar 2006, 1255 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4837 times:

So they won't tell the world when they make the decision to cease to exist?


I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7271 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4813 times:

Quoting tu204 (Reply 3):
So they won't tell the world when they make the decision to cease to exist?


Huh? Israel has one of the better and stronger armed forces. Their Air Force is top notch, maybe the best in the world.

I find it hard to believe they would do this, hopefully they will know what they are doing and make the right decisions. But for now don't see any military action happening on either side.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently onlinewolbo From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 494 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4801 times:

If the Zionists do decide to attack Iran I hope Obama will be sensible enough to refuse any active participation. But given the Zionist influence in American politics, a truly unhealthy phenomenon, I'm not convinced he will.

User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4756 times:

So basically Israel appears to be saying, "We will strike against Iran, but we are not going to give you the precise details."

Over the past months Israel has been repeating that time is running out, it will soon be too late, we need to take decisive action. So the US is aware of Israel's desire and intention to attack Iran. They just won't know the time and date.

This can work to the US's advantage. The President remains seen as being reasonable and seeking to achieve an end to Iran's nuclear ambitions by diplomatic means and sanctions, while Israel has nothing to lose. If Iran were to respond they would be universally declared to be the wrong-doers and US aid would continue to flow to Israel.

None of the Arab states will worry too much if Iran suffers a setback. There may be the odd editorial in Arab media voicing a preference for diplomatic solutions rather than military ones, but we know from the Wiki leaks that Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Jordan, among others, wanted the US to attack Iran. Who knows, they may even turn a blind eye to Israeli aircraft passing through their airspace, while complaining about a gross violation after the fact.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20334 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4739 times:

Quoting wolbo (Reply 5):

If the Zionists do decide to attack Iran I hope Obama will be sensible enough to refuse any active participation. But given the Zionist influence in American politics, a truly unhealthy phenomenon, I'm not convinced he will.

I was born and raised Jewish. And I have to agree.

Having said that, this could work very well to Obama's advantage. Here we are going into an election year with gas prices rising (I paid $4.47/gal yesterday) and a huge budget deficit and now Obama is going to get forced into military action against Iran.

...unless the Israelis will do it for him. Win for Obama, win (hopefully) for Israel.

Let's not forget, Israel does have the Bomb. Well, not officially, but they do have the Bomb.


User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 4087 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4726 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
Let's not forget, Israel does have the Bomb. Well, not officially, but they do have the Bomb.

Indeed they have ... several of them ...

Let's hope that they are smart enough not to use them ..


User currently offlineCadet985 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 1665 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4707 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 6):
Who knows, they may even turn a blind eye to Israeli aircraft passing through their airspace, while complaining about a gross violation after the fact.

...or at least putting up a front of complaining.

I have heard this suggested before. Realize that the Middle East is so small in terms of size that launching a missile at Israel would have repercussions around the region in terms of damage and radioactive fallout. So pretty much, so save face and not fight fellow Muslims, I think that if Israel were to strike Iran, the Muslim countries you named might just turn a blind eye.

Marc


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15831 posts, RR: 27
Reply 10, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4683 times:

Quoting wolbo (Reply 5):

If the Zionists do decide to attack Iran I hope Obama will be sensible enough to refuse any active participation.

That's the beauty of it. The Israelis get to do the dirty work. All America has to do is sit back and let it happen.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 6):
The President remains seen as being reasonable and seeking to achieve an end to Iran's nuclear ambitions by diplomatic means and sanctions, while Israel has nothing to lose.

The Americans need to use this as diplomatic leverage. Make it clear to Iran that they should play ball, otherwise unleash the Israelis. Be the good cop and tell the Iranians that they are much better off dealing with us than the Israelis.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8467 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4531 times:

I would far prefer that Iran can work themselves out of their corner, but if this is going to happen then I prefer it happens while President Obama is in office. Can you see how any of the GOP candidates would handle that situation?

And if there is going to be a strike on Iran I prefer that we are as far away as possible. We don't need another 10 to 20 year ME War.

But I believe we need to be realistic about this. Gas prices will increase through the roof. Terrorism would increase, including probable acts inside the US.

And, I believe, our economy will take a huge hit because of fear & a lack of public confidence.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 12, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4460 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
Let's not forget, Israel does have the Bomb.
Quoting Mortyman (Reply 8):
Let's hope that they are smart enough not to use them ..
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10):

That's the beauty of it. The Israelis get to do the dirty work. All America has to do is sit back and let it happen.

For once, words almost fail me........

Probably because, due to having been born during WW2, one of the first newspaper photographs I (vividly) recall seeing was this one:-

http://media.nowpublic.net/images//b...cad4f45b2d6dd9dd2e879d954d9d23.jpg

And I further recall my later 'national service' facing the Russians in Germany. All of us (and, I'm sure, our Russian and East German opposite numbers) were haunted by the thought that, if we ever found ourselves involved in a 'conventional war,' we might at any time hear on the radio that our homes and families had been wiped out by nuclear strikes.

Any such attack on Iran (which would, of course, lead to many thousands of deaths, including death from fallout in all neghbouring countries) would lead to decades of bitterness and reprisals. And the responsibility would inevitably rest in the end not with Israel but with the United States and all other Western powers, for having 'let it happen' - and, presumably, in the case of the USA, for having supplied the weapons in the first place. The consequences would make the 'War on Terror' look like 'peace in our time.'

Far from 'letting it happen,' my view is that the United States must prevent any such attack 'at all costs.'

[Edited 2012-02-29 18:56:16]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinethegreatRDU From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2311 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4435 times:

Quoting wolbo (Reply 5):
f the Zionists do decide to attack Iran I hope Obama will be sensible enough to refuse any active participation. But given the Zionist influence in American politics, a truly unhealthy phenomenon, I'm not convinced he will.

Yes...Israel is "powerful" by proxy of the US....unfortunately the grip is too tight



Our Returning Champion
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4414 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 2):
If they're brave enough to attack Iran (which might be a challenge unless they attack from Turkey)

It wouldn't surprise me if there is a lot of backdoor deals going on between the Israelis and their Arab neighbors with regards to an Iranian attack. Israel does a lot of third party deals with countries that refuse to recognize them diplomatically, which to me is like paying somebody else to wipe for you. Iranians and Arabs have never been friends going back centuries, so that might override the fairly young disagreements with Israel. How does the saying going? The enemy of my enemy becomes my friend?

Quoting tu204 (Reply 3):
So they won't tell the world when they make the decision to cease to exist?

How did you arrive at that conclusion?


User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2492 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4379 times:

If Israel dare chooses to launch a unilateral unprovoked strike against Iran they will literally be pushed into the Mediterranean Sea.

How exactly do you expect Iran - or any sovereign nation - not to respond to an unprovoked destruction of military and civilian facilities?

So what if Iran is trying to make the bomb. They aren't stupid enough to use one first, IMO they (most likely) would want it as a deterrent against Sunni and American power projection in the region. Just like the US, UK, Russia, China, France, India, Pakistan, and DPRK have it, as a deterrent. None of these states are stupid enough to use one first.

It's already known Israel has in excess 200 nuclear warheads, since the late 1960s. This nonsense about Israel being "suspected" of being a nuclear weapons state is just that. They built a reprocessing plant in the 50s with the help of the French, you don't really need a reprocessing plant for civilian use unless you're trying to separate isotopes (for a nuclear device). We know this because of Mordechai Vanunu, whom Israel abducted from foreign territory and imprisoned for telling state secrets.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10930 posts, RR: 37
Reply 16, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4360 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 12):
Any such attack on Iran (which would, of course, lead to many thousands of deaths, including death from fallout in all neghbouring countries) would lead to decades of bitterness and reprisals. And the responsibility would inevitably rest in the end not with Israel but with the United States and all other Western powers, for having 'let it happen' - and, presumably, in the case of the USA, for having supplied the weapons in the first place. The consequences would make the 'War on Terror' look like 'peace in our time.'

This is 100% true.

Are Zionists ready to go out on a bombing spree on Iran with their flghter jets to the risk of putting the world in great danger and at risk of a thermonuclear war? This is extremely selfish if you ask me, especially when it's been proved that Iran has no nuclear weapons, not one, while they, Israel, have a countless number of them. This is so hypocritical.

This is what General Leonid Ivashov says. He knows what he is talking about better than you or I.

The US and its allies started the psychological preparation of world public opinion for the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons to resolve 'the Iranian problem'. The US propaganda machine is working hard to create the impression that a 'surgically precise' use of the nuclear weapon with only limited consequences is possible. However, this has been known to be untrue since the 1945 US nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

After the very first nuclear strike, it will become totally impossible to prevent the use of all of the available means of mass destruction. In the situation of a mass extermination of their nations, the conflicting sides will resort to whatever means they have without limitations. Therefore, not only the nuclear arsenals of various countries, including those whose nuclear status is not recognized officially, will come into play. No doubt, chemical and biological warfare (and, generally, any poisonous substances), which can be produced on the basis of minimal industrial and economic resources, will be used.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5309

The pretext for the operation against Iran does not appear serious. Judging from both the technical and the political points of view, there is no possibility of it developing nuclear weapons in the near future.

Leave the Iranians alone.

No war.


     

[Edited 2012-03-01 00:29:32]


There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4349 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 15):
they will literally be pushed into the Mediterranean Sea.

By whom?

Israel may not enjoy the best of relations with neighbouring countries but those countries generally see Iran as a bigger "threat" to regional security. Those states are not going to permit Iran's forces to deploy through their territory. They may huff and puff for local consumption but they are likely to do exactly what they did after Israel attacked Iraq in 1981 - nothing.

Sure, at the time there was a UN resolution condemning Israel, even Margaret Thatcher criticised Israel. The US suspended (for a whole two months) the delivery of some aircraft but blocked any punitive action being imposed by the UN. After the dust settled, it was business as usual.

More recently, what was the response when Israel bombed Syria's al-Kibar nuclear facility in 2007? Is there any reason to believe things would be all that different now?


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10930 posts, RR: 37
Reply 18, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4338 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 17):
More recently, what was the response when Israel bombed Syria's al-Kibar nuclear facility in 2007? Is there any reason to believe things would be all that different now?

There wasn't this gigantic armada in the Persian Gulf ready to make the first move with Iranian naval forces and all their allies ready for retaliation. Makes a huge difference if you ask me. Could mean a global conflagration involving nuclear weapons.

Iran has not attacked anyone in 200 years. I would strongly advise that they be left in peace.

  



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2492 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4336 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 17):
By whom?

Iran quite obviously.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 17):
Is there any reason to believe things would be all that different now?

Iran's current military capability far exceeds Syria's or 1980's Iraq. I would not doubt an attempted Iranian strike (however successful) against the Israeli nuclear facilities in the Negev and elsewhere. Personally, I believe that it is a gross mistake to believe that Iran will sit idle against such physical belligerence. Which is why such belligerence is misplaced in the first place. Furthermore, it is based in racism, ignorance, and intolerance.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15831 posts, RR: 27
Reply 20, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4323 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 15):
IMO they (most likely) would want it as a deterrent against Sunni and American power projection in the region.

Of course they would. And we wouldn't want that, so we try and stop them. We don't want to be deterred.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 16):
This is extremely selfish if you ask me, especially when it's been proved that Iran has no nuclear weapons,

The point is to keep it that way.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 16):
After the very first nuclear strike, it will become totally impossible to prevent the use of all of the available means of mass destruction.

Who's going to shoot back? You just said the Iranians don't have nukes. So who's going to launch one?

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 17):
By whom?

Nobody. It won't happen.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 17):
Is there any reason to believe things would be all that different now?

Not even a little bit. The Iranians have little means of retaliation and it's doubtful anyone will stick their neck out for them when doing so would likely mean Israel and the US opening a full can of whoop ass on them.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 18):
I would strongly advise that they be left in peace.

Good. The Iranians should have no trouble being peaceful without nuclear weapons then.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4322 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 18):
I would strongly advise that they be left in peace.

I agree with you: Iran should be left in peace but the so-called "civilised world" is hell-bent on confrontation with Iran. I have purely addressed what the response to an attack might be.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 19):
a gross mistake to believe that Iran will sit idle

Yes Iran may respond by launching some retaliatory strikes, but that is a far cry from Israel being "literally pushed into the sea." Iran may have a large military capability but it is isolated - it can not count on support in the same way that Israel can, despite any criticisms Israel's allies may voice.

Things could get very messy and I agree that the sabre-rattling should stop but I think it is an exaggeration to say at this stage that in a contest between Iran and Israel that the latter will become history. Everyone knows that Israel does have WMDs. Iran doesn't and is unlikely to for some time, according to US intelligence reports.


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10930 posts, RR: 37
Reply 22, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4311 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 20):
The Iranians have little means of retaliation

How do you know? Did you go to Iran doing a whole tour of their forces and checked them out?

Your assertions are ridiculous and unproved.



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2492 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4293 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 20):
Of course they would. And we wouldn't want that, so we try and stop them. We don't want to be deterred.

This old generation of American thinking has expired. I still meet youngish people who think this way, as if it's the Vietnam and Cold War all over again. It's actually a good thing for America not to be the policeman of the world. And it will come within time, Americans just need to accept it. China's already kicking our ass in the global natural resources and development front.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 21):
Yes Iran may respond by launching some retaliatory strikes, but that is a far cry from Israel being "literally pushed into the sea." Iran may have a large military capability but it is isolated - it can not count on support in the same way that Israel can, despite any criticisms Israel's allies may voice.

Israel being such a tiny, populous nation would suffer HUGE casualties in the event of a successful strike upon it's territory. Which i why, IMO, they shouldn't start things they cannot finish. It'd be pretty dumb for the Israeli leadership to automatically assume the US and Europe are going to cover them. Furthermore, they actually don't have such a long range strike capability against multiple sites 1000nm+ away. Obama doesn't want another war, especially before the election.

Israel has been blowing smoke for the past 7 years or so re. Iran. When are they going to put up or shut up? I'd be afraid of those ~900 Shahab 3 missiles myself.

Maybe Israel should stop being so belligerent, and its neighbors would stop hating them so much? But that'd require everyone to step out of the sandbox and sit at the table and talk like grown up boys and girls.   



oh boy!!!
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 7625 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4275 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 16):
The US and its allies started the psychological preparation of world public opinion for the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons to resolve 'the Iranian problem'.

I missed this one, when have the EU, UN and USA been preparing thr world for an Israeli nuclear strike on Iran?

All reports on the issue going back over 5+ years has been that western powers have been trying to pressure Iran to not develop nuclear weapons, the last President Bush even deferred the negotiations to the EU, is the suggestion that the EU has been paving the way for a nuclear strike by Israel?

All I have seen discussed was a conventional strike using bunker buster bombs to cripple or destroy underground facilities, I will have to go and do some additional research as I must admit I totally missed the discussions of Israel launching a nuclear strike on Iran, and since everyone is convinced that Iran does not have nuclear weapons it can only be an Israeli strike and not a nuclear counter-strike by Iran.


User currently onlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13194 posts, RR: 15
Reply 25, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4358 times:

Unfortunately, leading Republicans and Democrats - who won't do anything jointly about creating real jobs in our country or go after the Wall Street crooks - are unified in supporting President Obama to call the shots to attack Iran or allow Israel to do so. You have too many Americans who still want massive revenge for the shaming of the USA for the 1979-1981 Iranian Embassy hostage crises. You have a plurality of Americans who want to see an Islamic leadership country destroyed as revenge for 9/11. You have too many of influence in America and too many in Israel who are so narrow minded as to the survival of Israel over any other needs that they are blind. Some 'religious' types want the 'Armageddon' such an attack would bring in their life times to assure their getting into heaven.Then there is the big monster in the room - the world needs access to Iranian oil.

I wish President Obama would take any bombing attack on Iran by the USA or Israel off the table and make it clear he will not support and would indeed use all power to thwart one. Yes that might hurt his re-election but on this matter, but I would rather see him lose in November than see the murder of 1000''s in an attack, the creation of a possible fallout disaster (like Chernobyl) in the region, the huge motivation of terror and war in the region, Israel, the USA and the world and the economic disaster the massive jack up in oil prices in an economically weak world would be disastrous. Do USA persons want $7-9.00/gallon gasoline? I don't think so.

I hope sanity prevails, let Iran alone. We did nothing to prevent Pakistan, India and Israel create nuke weapons, why should we do anything as to Iran.


User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3362 posts, RR: 8
Reply 26, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4340 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 17):
Is there any reason to believe things would be all that different now?

Not really, although Israel would have taken Syria a bit more serious (no puns intended here). Of course, this is assuming Assad renounces support of terrorism, which we know hasn't happened.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 18):
Iran has not attacked anyone in 200 years. I would strongly advise that they be left in peace.

Not directly. But who's to say they will keep their nuclear weapon and not give it to, say, Al-Qaeda or Hezbollah? For all intents and purposes, Iran never attacked, even though the bomb was born there.

I agree and support the fact that every nation has a right to nuclear technology. Unfortunately, what Iran does does not grasp is that to the international community (except the Chavez axis), Iran is not seen as trustworthy of having it.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10930 posts, RR: 37
Reply 27, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4403 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 25):
I hope sanity prevails, let Iran alone. We did nothing to prevent Pakistan, India and Israel create nuke weapons, why should we do anything as to Iran.

Double standard, because Israel says so.



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineraffik From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 1718 posts, RR: 4
Reply 28, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4382 times:

If they attack Iran, expect World War 3 in the Middle East.
Hezbollah, who is essentially run by Iran will attack Israel from Lebanon and Syria, who also has the same Iranian ties will attack Israel from Syria. Iran also could attack . It would be a disaster, I hope it doesn't come to that.
I have family in Lebanon and it's just returned to stability. We don't want any more trouble



Happy -go- lucky kinda guy!
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 7625 posts, RR: 8
Reply 29, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4375 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 25):
I wish President Obama would take any bombing attack on Iran by the USA or Israel off the table and make it clear he will not support and would indeed use all power to thwart one.

How exactly would he or any US President do that, the USA is a democracy not a dictatorship, there is only so much a sitting president can do without the support of the people and their representatives.
What are his options: Cease military aid - never get through congress - cease financial support - never get through congress - and by not getting through congress I mean that the citizens of the USA will actually be telling their representatives how to vote. A fact that some pay not much attention to is that Israel has built up its own military industrial complex, is it large enough to sustain them in a long and protracted war, probably not, but it has sufficient capability to allow them to conduct activities unhindered by any US sanctions.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 25):
I hope sanity prevails, let Iran alone. We did nothing to prevent Pakistan, India and Israel create nuke weapons, why should we do anything as to Iran.

In all such instances, short of actual war there is / was nothing the world and the USA was willing to do to prevent the ability. If the USA banned the sale of its material to Iran the European, Russians or Chinese take up the slack and vice versa, this goes all the way to embargos of food, medicine, oil and any other items that the international community chooses to use. To my knowledge, only Libya accepted inducements, and now that the country is more open, someone should actually check to see if it was all just a show to get funds and acceptance back into the international fold.

Reality is that the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not front and center on the minds of the world population.


User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3877 posts, RR: 14
Reply 30, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4342 times:

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 9):
Muslims, I think that if Israel were to strike Iran, the Muslim countries you named might just turn a blind eye.
Quoting luckyone (Reply 14):
It wouldn't surprise me if there is a lot of backdoor deals going on between the Israelis and their Arab neighbors with regards to an Iranian attack.

The traditional official "leak" publication of the Israeli defense forces and the Mossad is the Times of London, and it was reported in 2008/2009 that the Saudis pretty much told the Israelis that they would look the other way if Israeli fighter jets need to use Saudi airspace to strike Iran.

What people are forgetting, though, is that a nuclear Iran isn't just seen as an existential threat by the Israelis--the Saudis and the various Persian gulf nations (and Mubarak era Egypt) also view a nuclear Iran as an existential threat--and the concern is that by allowign the Iranians to get the bomb, that all the other nations in the Middle East will also feel the need to develop their own nuclear weapons program as a deterrent.


User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1214 posts, RR: 4
Reply 31, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4333 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 25):
Yes that might hurt his re-election but on this matter, but I would rather see him lose in November

Have you told Mr. Obama himself? I'm sure it would calm his nerves to know somebody is willing to have him lose in November.

We all know Obama will do whatever it takes to stay in office another 4 years, just like almost every other politician out there. Don't pretend otherwise.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15831 posts, RR: 27
Reply 32, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4288 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 22):
Did you go to Iran doing a whole tour of their forces and checked them out?

What great weapons does Iran have that can rain death and destruction on us and Israel?

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 23):

This old generation of American thinking has expired

Some people thought it did and replaced it with the "spreading democracy" crap. How's that working out?

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 23):
It's actually a good thing for America not to be the policeman of the world.

It's not about being the policeman. It's about working to ensure America cannot be threatened or challenged in what is a very sensitive part of the world.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 23):
It'd be pretty dumb for the Israeli leadership to automatically assume the US and Europe are going to cover them.

Why would that be dumb? The US would cover them.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 25):
who won't do anything jointly about creating real jobs in our country or go after the Wall Street crooks - are unified in supporting President Obama to call the shots to attack Iran or allow Israel to do so.

A good old fashioned shooting war is going to create some jobs. How do you think the Great Depression ended?

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 25):
Yes that might hurt his re-election but on this matter, but I would rather see him lose in November than see the murder of 1000''s in an attack,

I doubt there's anything that could cause Obama to lose in November.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 25):
the huge motivation of terror and war in the region

They already dislike us. It's better that they dislike us without nuclear weapons.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10930 posts, RR: 37
Reply 33, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4108 times:

Israeli officials suggest mass starving Iranians to death to stop Tehran's (non-existent) nuclear weapons program

Quote
Iran's citizens should be starved in order to curb Tehran's nuclear program, officials in Jerusalem said Wednesday ahead of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's upcoming trip to Washington.
...
"Suffocating sanctions could lead to a grave economic situation in Iran and to a shortage of food," the source said. "This would force the regime to consider whether the nuclear adventure is worthwhile, while the Persian people have nothing to eat and may rise up..."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4196885,00.html

The same as when Madeleine Allbright defended the mass starving of Iraqi children "I think the price is worth it" she said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo&feature=player_embedded

Old tactics being revived. Shocking.

 Wow!



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12593 posts, RR: 34
Reply 34, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4067 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 34):
Iran's citizens should be starved in order to curb Tehran's nuclear program, officials in Jerusalem said Wednesday ahead of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's upcoming trip to Washington.

i thought Netanyahu had ordered that there be no public comment about Iran and its nuclear program, ahead of his meeting with Obama, next Monday. Can we be sure that these comments are accurately reported? If so, it is disappointing and unhelpful; Israel, the US and everyone else concerned about Iran should always make it clear that their conflict is with the mullahs and ayatollahs, not the ordinary Iranian citizen.

While on the surface, Israel would be said to have taken action against Iran without US support, the US could see Israel's preps and departing aircraft on satellite and I'm sure that an appropriate codeword would be agreed to let the US know of the impending plan.

As for Iran, any Israeli attack on Iran cannot be focused only on its nuclear facilities; it MUST take out the Iranian leadership, military command/control infratructure, IRGC leadership etc, so that there is enough confusion in the wake of an attack to prevent an effective response; Iran itself is now badly split and it may not take much to create a condition that would lead to conflict between (for example) the IRGC and other groups.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 35, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4056 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 34):
Israeli officials suggest mass starving Iranians to death to stop Tehran's (non-existent) nuclear weapons program

"Iran's citizens should be starved in order to curb Tehran's nuclear program, officials in Jerusalem said Wednesday ahead of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's upcoming trip to Washington."

Puts me in mind of an earlier famous quotation, MadameConcorde, usually attributed to Karl Marx:-

“History repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.”

http://www.countercurrents.org/teltumbde060711.htm

In fact, exactly-similar policies were applied during WW2 by Nazi Germany to the populations of occupied countries, particularly in the Soviet Union, and particularly to 'easily-controlled' groups (which included prisoners-of-war and Jews):-

"The Hunger Plan caused the deaths of many, primarily Jews in the Soviet Union whom the Nazis had forced into ghettos, and Soviet prisoners of war, which were most easily controlled by the Germans and thus easily cut off from food supplies.[1] Jews for example were barred from purchasing eggs, butter, milk, meat or fruit.[5] The so-called "ration" for Jews in Minsk and other cities within the control of Army Group Center was no more than 420 calories per day. Tens of thousands of Jews died of hunger and hunger-related causes over the winter of 1941-2."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan

It deeply saddens me that Israel now appears to be favouring applying to Muslims the same policies that Nazi Germany applied to Jews in the relatively recent past........

But I shouldn't really be surprised. The expression 'history repeats itself' is long-standing and well-known.

And appears to remain both relevant and accurate, right up to the present time.........



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3362 posts, RR: 8
Reply 36, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4032 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 32):
It's not about being the policeman. It's about working to ensure America cannot be threatened or challenged in what is a very sensitive part of the world.

And what do you call that? If you don't want to be threatened, then you take every precaution to make sure that it doesn't. You monitor, raise flags when something is up, and use force to stop something that goes against public order...hmm...sounds a lot like police work to me.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1214 posts, RR: 4
Reply 37, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4029 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 37):
And what do you call that?

So me protecting myself in my home makes me a policeman? I monitor things, raise flags (call for help) when something is up, and put a few rounds in any intruder if necessary.

I'm not a policeman.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8760 posts, RR: 3
Reply 38, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4004 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 25):
Yes that might hurt his re-election but on this matter, but I would rather see him lose in November than see the murder of 1000''s in an attack

This is the whole reason I voted for BO. He was against the Iraq invasion and said so. That took real balls or so it seems. Maybe it is naive, but I think he could tell Netanyahu to go to hell with his preemptive killing plans. My appeal is still strategic. An attack does nothing but help Iran galvanize its moral position.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31702 posts, RR: 56
Reply 39, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3969 times:

This war would be a Long & expensive one.....The price of oil will shoot up.
I dont think the planet can afford this.....



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3877 posts, RR: 14
Reply 40, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3956 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 36):
In fact, exactly-similar policies were applied during WW2 by Nazi Germany to the populations of occupied countries,
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 36):
It deeply saddens me that Israel now appears to be favouring applying to Muslims the same policies that Nazi Germany applied to Jews in the relatively recent past........

The analogy is erroneous and dishonest--these are not identical scenarios. The key difference here is that Israel doesn't control Iran--whereas Nazi Germany controlled the occupied countries--this is not a domestic policy against an interal minority. Sanctions against a foreign country are a perfectly legitimate means of accomplishing foreign policy goals--and aren't guaranteed to work (and probably won't work as long as Russia and China remain close to Iran). That same plan--the idea of suffocating sanctions--has been used against North Korea by the U.S, and in other instances--but at no point was the U.S. compared to the Nazis.


User currently offlineGiancavia From Vatican City, joined Feb 2010, 1384 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3889 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 18):
There wasn't this gigantic armada in the Persian Gulf ready to make the first move with Iranian naval forces and all their allies ready for retaliation. Makes a huge difference if you ask me. Could mean a global conflagration involving nuclear weapons.

Iran has not attacked anyone in 200 years. I would strongly advise that they be left in peace.

What peace are they basking in? Trying to build a Nuke doesnt sound very peaceful to me and big LOL at the Iranian fleet. I realise this is Airliners.net and not military.net but it does amuse me at times when people debate military topics.

Invading and occupying Iran would be a task, If Iran gained NUKES it would be a problem.. but the Iranian Navy a threat to the open sea.. do me a favour.. I could push 5 rubber duckies with water guns taped to them out from Kuwait and make them look more intimidating. Irans power is in its useage of terrorist organisations not its STRONG military or its "allys" armada. Saudi is Irans enemy, Iraq is Irans Enemy.. Egypt is under US influence.. where are all Irans allys? Syria on the verge if not already in civil war and a Lebanese Based Terrorist group?

Its like nearly as bad as Galloway who thinks the falklands would be threatened by Argentinas amazingly underfunded tin can navy. No clue.. no clue at all.


Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 40):
This war would be a Long & expensive one.....The price of oil will shoot up.
I dont think the planet can afford this.....


If a "war" happens it will be an allied effort most likely led by the USA despite what people on here will babbel on about. It wont be a ground invasion or occupation. It will be selected targeting of sites, it will be removal of nuclear scientists. I think its likely strikes will come sooner or later because there seems little doubt Iran is trying to build Nuclear weapons despite endless warnings from countless international organisations and nations. This will not sit well with most of the West and contrary to popular ANET belief it wont sit well with most of the Middle East. Nobody wants Iran to have nukes, Especially its neighbours.

We can all be dramatic and emo and "no war" blah blah blah but in the long run the world will be a much worse place if a country like Iran with its current leadership has Nukes.

[Edited 2012-03-03 00:11:28 by SA7700]

User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8760 posts, RR: 3
Reply 42, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3848 times:

Quoting Giancavia (Reply 43):
We can all be dramatic and emo and "no war" blah blah blah but in the long run the world will be a much worse place if a country like Iran with its current leadership has Nukes.

I missed the part where the justification of killing people in cold blood was.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20334 posts, RR: 59
Reply 43, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3849 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 34):
Israeli officials suggest mass starving Iranians to death to stop Tehran's (non-existent) nuclear weapons program

Wait. You disagree that they are starting a nuclear weapons program?

That's rather unique.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 36):
It deeply saddens me that Israel now appears to be favouring applying to Muslims the same policies that Nazi Germany applied to Jews in the relatively recent past........

I tend to agree. I wonder when they are going to start building concentration camps.


User currently onlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13194 posts, RR: 15
Reply 44, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3830 times:

The best hope to prevent either Iran pursuing nuke weapons and an attack on their facilities by Israel or the USA is continuing the access to Iran's oil. Indeed perhaps that is part of Iran's perverse plan, to extort more money for their oil by using the nuke threat. We have seen North Korea do the same thing several times, including this week, using nuke development threats as extortion to get food and other goods for their country's citizens.

If Iran plays it too hard and they do get bombed, they they would lose at least short term all oil income, which in turn would destroy their overwhelming exports and income, destroy the economy of Iran and possibly chase out the leaders there in a 'Iranian spring'.

This weekend and into early next week is the AIPAC conference, with almost all politicians pledging their unconditional love for Israel - and access to millions of campaign contributions. Obama will be meeting on Monday to kiss the ass of the Israeli PM, extreme right-wing-nut Netanyahu instead of kicking it to deny him any support to bomb Iran. Of course the Iran nuke situation will as others have noted will be the overwhelming story. I wish Obama and these politicians were meeting with real day to day Israelis, including from the most anti-war and civil rights minded citizens as well as Palestinian leaders - Christian as well as Islamic, but that won't happen.

Let us pray and/or hope sanity prevails.


User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2492 posts, RR: 8
Reply 45, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3786 times:

I will be so happy if oil goes to USD250/barrel. Cheers for oil investments. :P

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 25):
I wish President Obama would take any bombing attack on Iran by the USA or Israel off the table and make it clear he will not support and would indeed use all power to thwart one. Yes that might hurt his re-election but on this matter, but I would rather see him lose in November than see the murder of 1000''s in an attack, the creation of a possible fallout disaster (like Chernobyl) in the region, the huge motivation of terror and war in the region, Israel, the USA and the world and the economic disaster the massive jack up in oil prices in an economically weak world would be disastrous. Do USA persons want $7-9.00/gallon gasoline? I don't think so.

Thank you.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 32):

Some people thought it did and replaced it with the "spreading democracy" crap. How's that working out?

There are some situations where "spreading democracy" doesn't work at all. I'm actually no a fan of spreading democracy ad nauseam if people don't want it. That has little relevance to Iran and the bomb.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 32):
It's not about being the policeman. It's about working to ensure America cannot be threatened or challenged in what is a very sensitive part of the world.

??? Since when did one sovereign nation get to decide the internal affairs of another?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 32):

Why would that be dumb? The US would cover them.

I personally hope not. It's not our job to clean up the UK's mess.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 34):
As for Iran, any Israeli attack on Iran cannot be focused only on its nuclear facilities; it MUST take out the Iranian leadership, military command/control infratructure, IRGC leadership etc, so that there is enough confusion in the wake of an attack to prevent an effective response

As if this would be so easily done. Iran is much more spread out than Saddam's Iraq was. Such an attack would not be outside the realm of the US or the Russians, but the Israelis? Please.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 35):

It deeply saddens me that Israel now appears to be favouring applying to Muslims the same policies that Nazi Germany applied to Jews in the relatively recent past........

A lot of these hardcore Zionists seem to forget the notion of abused versus abuser.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 38):
This is the whole reason I voted for BO. He was against the Iraq invasion and said so. That took real balls or so it seems. Maybe it is naive, but I think he could tell Netanyahu to go to hell with his preemptive killing plans. My appeal is still strategic. An attack does nothing but help Iran galvanize its moral position.
exactly One cannot realistically expect a sovereign state not to respond to foreign bombing on its territory. It is foolish. Even if you are against the spread of nuclear weapons, it is a different argument to bomb a sovereign nation for no good reason.

Quoting Giancavia (Reply 41):
What peace are they basking in? Trying to build a Nuke doesnt sound very peaceful to me and big LOL at the Iranian fleet. I realise this is Airliners.net and not military.net but it does amuse me at times when people debate military topics.

If you want to compare peace to having nuclear weapons, then what kind of peace are the US, UK, France, Britain, and Russia in? Let alone India, Pakistan, DPRK, and Israel?

No peace, is it?

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 44):

If Iran plays it too hard and they do get bombed, they they would lose at least short term all oil income, which in turn would destroy their overwhelming exports and income, destroy the economy of Iran and possibly chase out the leaders there in a 'Iranian spring'.

Forget Iran losing income. The price of crude oil, and every petroleum product and byproduct would skyrocket.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15831 posts, RR: 27
Reply 46, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3769 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 45):
There are some situations where "spreading democracy" doesn't work at all.

...and this is one of them. This is about making sure that the Iranians cannot threaten us or our allies.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 45):
Since when did one sovereign nation get to decide the internal affairs of another?

Since we got the planes and the missiles and the ships, that's when. This is classic security dilemma: them strengthening their defenses inherently weakens ours. I'm sure that I don't need to explain why that is bad or why we don't want them to develop nuclear weapons.

America needs to go to Iran and get the Iranians to play ball. And if they're smart they'll do it. Not because they don't have the right to have a military, not because they all of the sudden want to make gestures of good faith. They'll do it because if they don't the Israelis might blow away their facilities.

Sovereignty only goes as far as it is able to be enforced. There's a pretty good chance that the Israelis and Americans could club Iranian sovereignty like a baby seal.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 45):
A lot of these hardcore Zionists seem to forget the notion of abused versus abuser.

The hardcore Zionists have never been abused, since they are mostly red state evangelicals.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2492 posts, RR: 8
Reply 47, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3765 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 46):
This is about making sure that the Iranians cannot threaten us or our allies.

Why is Israel that much more of an ally than anyone else in the Mid East?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 46):

Since we got the planes and the missiles and the ships, that's when.

Under international law, hardly. Under a 13yo boy's military wet dream, maybe. There's more to be said using diplomacy than hate and war mongering. But some people are no better than a snake in the grass.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 46):
They'll do it because if they don't the Israelis might blow away their facilities.

And therefore wipe themselves off the map of the Middle East.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 46):
Sovereignty only goes as far as it is able to be enforced. There's a pretty good chance that the Israelis and Americans could club Iranian sovereignty like a baby seal.

Sovereignty is an ideology not a physical constraint. It should be respected by international law. It has been seen that the State of Israel does not respect international law for many decades. Yet, ironically, everyone wants to talk about Iran.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 46):
The hardcore Zionists have never been abused, since they are mostly red state evangelicals.

Since they are too young to remember the pain of WWII. Most of those people have died. Including within my own family.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15831 posts, RR: 27
Reply 48, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3765 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 47):
Why is Israel that much more of an ally than anyone else in the Mid East?

Guilt over the Holocaust and a strong religious right lobby. Maybe with a little sprinkling of racism on top.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 47):
There's more to be said using diplomacy than hate and war mongering.

A diplomatic solution is ideal, but this situation seems to be making the transition from normal diplomacy to here's-what-you're-gonna-do-otherwise-you-may-not-have-a-palace-tomorrow diplomacy.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 47):
And therefore wipe themselves off the map of the Middle East.

Who's going to do that? The Arab world is not thrilled with Iran's behavior either.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 47):
Sovereignty is an ideology not a physical constraint.

...only in classrooms and the naive minds of idealists. Maybe we can get the League of Nations back together while we're at it.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2492 posts, RR: 8
Reply 49, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3764 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 48):

Guilt over the Holocaust and a strong religious right lobby. Maybe with a little sprinkling of racism on top.

= a bunch of nonsense.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 48):
A diplomatic solution is ideal, but this situation seems to be making the transition from normal diplomacy to here's-what-you're-gonna-do-otherwise-you-may-not-have-a-palace-tomorrow diplomacy.

Sometimes you have to accept that wimpy kid into the varsity squad, rather than pounding the **** out of him year after year.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 48):
Who's going to do that? The Arab world is not thrilled with Iran's behavior either.

They should stand up for themselves then, rather than the big bad US and by proxy Israel.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 48):

...only in classrooms and the naive minds of idealists. Maybe we can get the League of Nations back together while we're at it.

I think you meant the opposite of what you wrote in reference to my post.

The hypocrisy is that apparently "international law" only works in favor of the big and bad nations, not the beleaguered and decided upon ones.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineGiancavia From Vatican City, joined Feb 2010, 1384 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3752 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 45):
If you want to compare peace to having nuclear weapons, then what kind of peace are the US, UK, France, Britain, and Russia in? Let alone India, Pakistan, DPRK, and Israel?

No peace, is it?

I dont see your point, None of them should have nukes either. How does allowing another bat**** crazy government to have nukes improve the worlds situation.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 45):
Forget Iran losing income. The price of crude oil, and every petroleum product and byproduct would skyrocket.

The same way that when Iran last claimed it would mess around with oil production other Middle Eastern states said they would step it up and cover the lost produce?

I have no idea why people make excuses or back sick twisted regimes that murder their own people, Use secret police forces or are looking to create weapons that can destroy large amounts of people at one time but its seems to be the modern fad.

Lets look around.. Irans major influences outside IRAN are what? A Syrian government that is openly murdering its own citizens on a daily basis and a Terrorist group in Lebanon that openly targets civilians.. this is the kind of sick stuff Iran influences and backs yet the world should be happy they are trying to create Nukes? Oh please.. really.. wake up.


User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3877 posts, RR: 14
Reply 51, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3700 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 45):
Since when did one sovereign nation get to decide the internal affairs of another?

When the internal affairs of a sovereign nation threatens or has the potential to directly threaten the internal affairs of another nation.


User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3362 posts, RR: 8
Reply 52, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3700 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 37):
So me protecting myself in my home makes me a policeman? I monitor things, raise flags (call for help) when something is up, and put a few rounds in any intruder if necessary.

I'm not a policeman.

No, but going to your neighbor's house and raiding it sure does, even if you don't see eye to eye with him.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 53, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3690 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 47):
Why is Israel that much more of an ally than anyone else in the Mid East?

I have to believe this is largely because of religion.

Israel figures prominently in the apocalyptic visions of the hard core Christians. Likewise, your rank and file American sympathizes with Jewish people at the expense of Muslims. Even before 9/11.

If there were no such thing as religion the situation in the Middle East would be markedly different. I'd like to say 'better' but my crystal ball is not that good. But I can say that a rational observer should have been able to foresee that formally establishing a new state favoring members of one religious group on land that is claimed to be holy by multiple religions was going to be trouble. And that by continuing to favor that group over the years (contrary to its own Constitutional principles) the US has not helped improve the situation.

The accusation that the US is Israel's dog on a leash is not completely without merit.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 54, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3676 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 53):
But I can say that a rational observer should have been able to foresee that formally establishing a new state favoring members of one religious group on land that is claimed to be holy by multiple religions was going to be trouble.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, SmittyOne.

It took hundreds of years of civil wars and conflict before the Western democracies arrived at what, to my mind, is the only 'formula' that produces relatively-stable societies. That formula is basically made up of three fundamental principles - democracy, equality before the law, and freedom of religion.

It's perfectly clear that Israel's current political system fails to deliver 100% on ANY of those three principles. So it is doomed to fail. My own opinion only - but, like all oppressive regimes, I reckon that the only question is 'WHEN' - not 'WHETHER' - it fails.........

[Edited 2012-03-03 07:13:20]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3877 posts, RR: 14
Reply 55, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3560 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 54):
relatively-stable societies
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 54):
doomed to fail

That's a pretty big logical leap--equating not being a relatively stable society/country to being a society/country that is doomed to fail. Just because a country is unstable or a society is unstable does not mean that it is doomed to fail.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15831 posts, RR: 27
Reply 56, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3542 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 49):
= a bunch of nonsense.

You have to understand that many, many evangelical Christians believe that in order for Jesus to return and the world to end the Jewish people must be restored to the land God promised them in the Old Testament. It is these people who make up the more powerful Zionist lobby in the US, not Jews. People often make the mistake of conflating Judaism with Zionism, but they are not the same thing. There are many non-Jewish Zionists and many non-Zionist Jews.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 49):
They should stand up for themselves then, rather than the big bad US and by proxy Israel.

They cannot be seen as supporting Israel, even if they agree strongly in this instance.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 49):
The hypocrisy is that apparently "international law" only works in favor of the big and bad nations, not the beleaguered and decided upon ones.

Of course it does. Don't be fooled: those Nazis were hanged not just because they were war criminals. They were hanged because we won and they lost.

Moral of the story: win.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 57, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3497 times:

Quoting us330 (Reply 55):
That's a pretty big logical leap--equating not being a relatively stable society/country to being a society/country that is doomed to fail.

us330, please note that I was referring not to the country as a whole but to 'Israel's current political system.' Misguided political systems quite often fail and get replaced by more balanced ones. Quite recently, for example, we have seen the end of communist dictatorship in Russia and of apartheid in South Africa. Reform in those places didn't happen because the people in power had a sudden 'Road to Damascus-style' conversion; it happened because it was eventually widely realised that, even if one discounted issues of equal rights etc., the old systems got in the way of maintaining even reasonable levels of economic growth, and therefore prosperity. From the viewpoint of the oppressors as well as the oppressed.

In that connection, it appears that poverty is a 'rising issue' in Israel at the moment. And that it is by no means limited to the 'untermensch,' the Muslims, but is increasingly affecting Jews as well:-

"WASHINGTON — The International Monetary Fund warned Israel Monday of potential instability due to the high unemployment and deep poverty among Arab-Israelis and ultra-orthodox Haredi Jews.

"Severe poverty is concentrated in these groups," it said in a report on the Israeli economy.

Only 40 percent of Haredi men have jobs, and only 20 percent of Arab-Israeli women are employed, it said, and their wage levels are low compared to other Israeli groups.

"Stability in Israel in the long run will remain in question unless the low participation in labor markets of minority populations -- notably the Arab-Israeli and Haredi communities -- is addressed," it said.

"As these groups are set to grow to half of the entire population in 30 years, up from a quarter now, these participation issues are macroeconomic in scale."


http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...0194bfea5fecf8c5f7e5ecd8ee7d8c.271



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21855 posts, RR: 55
Reply 58, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3485 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 37):
So me protecting myself in my home makes me a policeman? I monitor things, raise flags (call for help) when something is up, and put a few rounds in any intruder if necessary.

I'm not a policeman.

But you'd be a policeman if you put a few rounds in someone who is stalking around the yard of one of your neighbors, which is the more applicable scenario here.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8760 posts, RR: 3
Reply 59, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3469 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 56):
You have to understand that many, many evangelical Christians believe that in order for Jesus to return and the world to end the Jewish people must be restored to the land God promised them in the Old Testament. It is these people who make up the more powerful Zionist lobby in the US, not Jews. People often make the mistake of conflating Judaism with Zionism, but they are not the same thing. There are many non-Jewish Zionists and many non-Zionist Jews.

Wonderful and very important point to make is all I can say.


User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3877 posts, RR: 14
Reply 60, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3466 times:

Nav, here is what you said:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 54):
That formula is basically made up of three fundamental principles - democracy, equality before the law, and freedom of religion.

It's perfectly clear that Israel's current political system fails to deliver 100% on ANY of those three principles.

but in your reply, you cited a document that referred to economic disparity as a reason for societal disruption, a point that I don't disagree with (see the French Revolution), but one that fails to square with your own conclusions in a prior post.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 57):
And that it is by no means limited to the 'untermensch,'

You can also make a perfectly valid criticism of Israel without resorting to comparisons with the Third Reich--there are plenty of other words that you could have chosen to make a similar point given the context, ie "repressed minority.' The choice of untermensch is uncalled for.

Back to the topic at hand, however. There was a concept in the Cold War known as "tails wagging dogs," and I do fear that the same pattern in the Middle East


User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12593 posts, RR: 34
Reply 61, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3444 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 59):
You have to understand that many, many evangelical Christians believe that in order for Jesus to return and the world to end the Jewish people must be restored to the land God promised them in the Old Testament. It is these people who make up the more powerful Zionist lobby in the US, not Jews. People often make the mistake of conflating Judaism with Zionism, but they are not the same thing. There are many non-Jewish Zionists and many non-Zionist Jews.
Wonderful and very important point to make is all I can say.

Absolutely agree; sadly, it is also people like these who talk about "The Rapture" and believe in creationism and other loony ideas and have really very little idea of the reality of world politics, who exercise such a big influence on US foreign policy; the big danger is that it's something presidential candidates of both parties feel that they have to acquiesce to.

Interesting bit of prescience here by the Telegraph; it's complete guesswork of course, but educated guesswork. The Telegraph, by the way, has been a strong supporter of action against Iran for quite some time:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-Obama-on-Irans-nuclear-plans.html

(Notice also - a lot of very crude anti-semitic comments at the end of the article.)


User currently offlineFlyboyOz From Australia, joined Nov 2000, 1987 posts, RR: 25
Reply 62, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3412 times:

Of course, the Bible has mentioned about the future. It mentions that North is gonna to attack Israel and God will attack Israel's enemies. See Ezekiel 38 and 39. Time will tell.


The Spirit of AustraliAN - Longreach
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2492 posts, RR: 8
Reply 63, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3294 times:

I am getting ready to clear this thread.

Quoting Giancavia (Reply 50):

I dont see your point, None of them should have nukes either. How does allowing another bat**** crazy government to have nukes improve the worlds situation.

In a perfect world, either no one would have nuclear weapons, or everyone would.

My point is that there is no government or group of governments on this earth that has the RIGHT to say another government cannot have nuclear weapons. The NPT is pointless and only a tool of the NPT NWS. It is an inane human right to develop technology. You have no right over me to tell me I cannot use the wheel. Now if you have a bigger stick and keep smashing my wheels as I try to build them, you have that de facto privilege but not a de jure right.



Quoting Giancavia (Reply 50):

The same way that when Iran last claimed it would mess around with oil production other Middle Eastern states said they would step it up and cover the lost produce?

??? WTI and especially Brent are already overpriced because of the "Iran premium". So what is your point? And actually KSA, Kuwait, UAE don't have that much spare capacity anymore. In the event of NO Iranian exports, there would still be a loss of some ~2 million barrels/day from the market. Saudi Arabia's 12.5 million b/d stated capacity is BS. It would be a bigger impact than Libya's going off the market. Brent would be ~$150 and WTI would be ~$120+

Anyway the extra Saudi crude is heavy and sour...and most of the refineries importing Iranian crude are set up to process sweet light crude. If you don't have the equipment ready you can't refine it!

If the Iranians close the strait for even a week, who really knows about the price...

Quoting Giancavia (Reply 50):

I have no idea why people make excuses or back sick twisted regimes that murder their own people, Use secret police forces or are looking to create weapons that can destroy large amounts of people at one time but its seems to be the modern fad.

Lets look around.. Irans major influences outside IRAN are what? A Syrian government that is openly murdering its own citizens on a daily basis and a Terrorist group in Lebanon that openly targets civilians.. this is the kind of sick stuff Iran influences and backs yet the world should be happy they are trying to create Nukes? Oh please.. really.. wake up.

How many millions of peoples' deaths throughout history are directly attributable to actions of American and European governments? Do not play that card with me. I will straighten you out on that.

Quoting us330 (Reply 51):

When the internal affairs of a sovereign nation threatens or has the potential to directly threaten the internal affairs of another nation.

Who's threatening whom? Most of what I see is the EU, Israelis, and Americans threatening Iran. Ahmadinejad's little bit of Jew hate pales in comparison...and that vitriol is expected from a ME leader because of historical facts anyway. As I said before, it is really ignorant to believe that Iran would strike Israel first, bomb or no bomb. Just because their leadership might be emotional and verbose does not make them stupid.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 53):
I have to believe this is largely because of religion.

Sadly, I believe something similar.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 56):
You have to understand that many, many evangelical Christians believe that in order for Jesus to return and the world to end the Jewish people must be restored to the land God promised them in the Old Testament. It is these people who make up the more powerful Zionist lobby in the US, not Jews. People often make the mistake of conflating Judaism with Zionism, but they are not the same thing. There are many non-Jewish Zionists and many non-Zionist Jews.

I am cognizant of these facts. I do not believe that America should base ANY foreign policy decisions on religious motives. Yet we do, most likely because people in power mix their religious feelings with their intelligence and decision making processes.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 56):

Of course it does. Don't be fooled: those Nazis were hanged not just because they were war criminals. They were hanged because we won and they lost.

Moral of the story: win.

Are you joking? Those Nazis were hanged because they were vicious WAR CRIMINALS who conducted beastly, savage acts against other human beings, not because they simply "lost". In the smoke of WWII the UN was created, so that hopefully, we can achieve a better world through dialogue and not shooting and bombing.

Immature military wet dreams need to be put in check sir.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 57):
please note that I was referring not to the country as a whole but to 'Israel's current political system.' Misguided political systems quite often fail and get replaced by more balanced ones.

It's ok NAV20, the Arab's birth rate within Israel is MUCH higher than the Jewish birth rate. So they are going to have to deal with this problem soon, and start to treat the Israeli and Palestinian Arabs like human beings, and not trash and byproduct of occupation.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10930 posts, RR: 37
Reply 64, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3227 times:

I am sure mossad was there taking photos.   

Occupy AIPAC protesters rally against a war on Iran
Occupy AIPAC demonstrators have held a rally outside the pro-Israel lobby group’s annual conference in Washington to voice their opposition to potential war on Iran.

http://www.occupyaipac.org/2012/03/p...pac-conference-oppose-war-on-iran/

  



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinethegreatRDU From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2311 posts, RR: 4
Reply 65, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3220 times:

I'm glad people are starting to see AIPAC for what it is...

Obama selling his soul to them makes sick......

How can you put the well being of another country ahead of your own?



Our Returning Champion
User currently offlineGiancavia From Vatican City, joined Feb 2010, 1384 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3173 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 63):

How many millions of peoples' deaths throughout history are directly attributable to actions of American and European governments? Do not play that card with me. I will straighten you out on that.

How can you straighten me out on anything when you compare Regimes that support terrorism, Advocate the removal of a nation and all the people in it from existance, Publicly murders its own citizens during protests and hangs people for their sexual preference.. to the USA and Europe.

This is 2012 not 1500 if Iran cant get with the times and wants to be defiant then whatever happens is of its own making. I will make the point again.. IRAN has no allys other then a Syrian Regime Brutally murdering its own population and a terrorist organisation in Lebanon that targets civilians. If thats what you want to defend then it says alot about you.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 67, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3096 times:

Quoting Giancavia (Reply 66):
How can you straighten me out on anything when you compare Regimes that support terrorism, Advocate the removal of a nation and all the people in it from existance, Publicly murders its own citizens during protests and hangs people for their sexual preference.. to the USA and Europe.

This is 2012 not 1500 if Iran cant get with the times and wants to be defiant then whatever happens is of its own making.

Giancavia, what do you actually want done about Iran?

I thought that all that is currently being discussed is for Israeli aircraft (and, very probably, US ones as well, since the Israelis don't have big enough aircraft to carry the 30,000lb. MOPs - 'Massive Ordnance Penetrators' - which would be needed to reach the deepest of Iran's already-existing facilities) bombing Iran's nuclear plants? I don't readily see how that would end any Iranian support for terrorism, leave alone persuade them to make their laws on protests or sexual preferences more liberal?  

On the contrary, it would likely lead to a great deal more 'terrorism,' and probably further clampdowns on 'civil rights,' as well? Utterly counter-productive, on the face of it.

Perhaps you're thinking in terms of another Iraq or Afghanistan? A United States-led invasion and occupation of Iran? In that connection, you should bear in mind that, in political terms, both Iraq and Afghanistan amounted to failures in terms of securing any political reform; and that Iran is about four times as big as Iraq, and over twice as big as Afghanistan - with equally 'difficult' terrain?

So there'd be a need to invade and conquer the place, at great cost in terms of lives on both sides; and then to assemble occupation forces numbering some hundreds of thousands of people and (on recent experience) leave them there for at least ten years. With, again on recent experience, virtually no chance of any 'success' in terms of achieving meaningful political reform.

If no invasion/occupation is undertaken, merely bombing Iran's nuclear plants would not end Iran's nuclear development; it would only delay it. In fact, given that, even nowadays, more bombs miss their targets than hit them, it might not even achieve much of a delay........

So is that what you want the USA and it's friends and allies to do? Embark on 'Iraq Three,' invade and occupy Iran, simply because Netanyahu would like them to?

[Edited 2012-03-05 16:15:42]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2492 posts, RR: 8
Reply 68, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3009 times:

Quoting Giancavia (Reply 66):
How can you straighten me out on anything when you compare Regimes that support terrorism, Advocate the removal of a nation and all the people in it from existance, Publicly murders its own citizens during protests and hangs people for their sexual preference.. to the USA and Europe.

This is 2012 not 1500 if Iran cant get with the times and wants to be defiant then whatever happens is of its own making. I will make the point again.. IRAN has no allys other then a Syrian Regime Brutally murdering its own population and a terrorist organisation in Lebanon that targets civilians. If thats what you want to defend then it says alot about you.

Are we talking about the same America who conducted genocide upon Native Americans, burned witches at the stake, and enslaved and killed negroes by the thousands just for fun and economics? And the same Europe who gladly killed off a great percentage of its Jewish population because they were dirty, devious, untrustworthy, and abnormal? Oh I remember, they sent homosexuals and gypsies to the slaughter too. But 60 some years later, let's lecture Iran. Sure. You come from the moral high ground.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 69, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2951 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 68):
Are we talking about the same America who conducted genocide upon Native Americans, burned witches at the stake, and enslaved and killed negroes by the thousands just for fun and economics? And the same Europe who gladly killed off a great percentage of its Jewish population because they were dirty, devious, untrustworthy, and abnormal? Oh I remember, they sent homosexuals and gypsies to the slaughter too. But 60 some years later, let's lecture Iran. Sure. You come from the moral high ground.

There is something to be said for learning from the past.

I don't think the moral high ground is a particularly useful concept in politics, because everybody is dirty if you go back far enough! We live in 2012 and have to deal with things as they are today. Which is not to say that I advocate attacking Iran in this particular case.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 63):
Are you joking? Those Nazis were hanged because they were vicious WAR CRIMINALS who conducted beastly, savage acts against other human beings, not because they simply "lost".

I think the point was that had the US/UK/USSR lost WWII, there would have been plenty of them liable for war crimes. As justifiable as they may have seemed at the time, things like the strategic bombing campaigns came down to mass murder of civilians.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 63):
I am getting ready to clear this thread.
Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 63):
Do not play that card with me. I will straighten you out on that.
Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 63):
Immature military wet dreams need to be put in check sir.

Just my two cents...but a hostile tone undermines the persuasiveness of your arguments.


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10930 posts, RR: 37
Reply 70, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2953 times:

It seems that Netanyahu will have to get at it alone. Obama said more diplomacy all the paths to convincing Iran to stop their nuclear program haven't been exploited yet.

The other possibility to get the US into war is a false flag op done by Mossad against U.S. interests somewhere in the world and then accusing the Iranians.

anyway...

Israel’s Channel 2: U.S. Officials Believe Netanyahu Has Already Decided to Strike Iran

Channel 2 in Israel, sourcing a “senior American official”, says that the decision has already been made by the Israeli government to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“All U.S. intelligence officials are confident the Israeli leadership has already decided to attack Iran, unless a significant change happens in the coming weeks or months with the Iranian nuclear program,” Channel 2 reports.

The report comes just hours ahead of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to AIPAC in Washington.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/03/05...as-already-decided-to-strike-iran/

 Wow!



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineGiancavia From Vatican City, joined Feb 2010, 1384 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2929 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 68):
Are we talking about the same America who conducted genocide upon Native Americans, burned witches at the stake, and enslaved and killed negroes by the thousands just for fun and economics? And the same Europe who gladly killed off a great percentage of its Jewish population because they were dirty, devious, untrustworthy, and abnormal? Oh I remember, they sent homosexuals and gypsies to the slaughter too. But 60 some years later, let's lecture Iran. Sure. You come from the moral high ground.

Like I said its 2012 get with the times. If you went back in history you could sit there and justify every kind of sickness today because it happened at some point in time somewhere else. Its a terribly flawed argument that helps nothing.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 69):
There is something to be said for learning from the past.

Precisely.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 69):
Just my two cents...but a hostile tone undermines the persuasiveness of your arguments.

Not very persuasive anyway.. Iran should be able to have nukes because the Germans were Nazis at some point in the past. lol ok..

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 70):
It seems that Netanyahu will have to get at it alone. Obama said more diplomacy all the paths to convincing Iran to stop their nuclear program haven't been exploited yet.

Yeah.. Not really.
Like I mentioned before it becomes clearer with every passing day that Iran is trying to create a Nuclear weapon. This wont sit well with the other Middle Eastern states and they will be pressuring the USA just as much as Israel to get something done. Just because its easy for the media to stir up the EVIL ISRAEL opressing everyone in the region story doesnt make it remotely true. I would put all my money on the Saudis and most of the rest being more then happy about Israel/USA targeting Iranian nukes. Its going to happen.. and it wont be led by Israel it will be led by the USA. Iraq withdrawl was completed a long time ago, Afghanistan scaling down.. there will no doubt be a new focus for the global war on terror.


User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12593 posts, RR: 34
Reply 72, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2879 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 70):
It seems that Netanyahu will have to get at it alone. Obama said more diplomacy all the paths to convincing Iran to stop their nuclear program haven't been exploited yet.

Hard to know what else can be done. Things look different from Washington from what they look in Tel Aviv, because Washington is not in danger of attack; Obama, although I have a lot of respect for him, can afford to talk about giving things time to work and coasting along, dragging out the process; Israel can't. Now, I'll be completely honest and say that I do not particularly like Netanyahu; he has been a major obstacle to the ME Peace Process, but as PM of Israel, he has a responsibility to his people. Obama can afford to be wrong; Israel cannot. When a country which openly advocates the extermination of your nation is actively trying to develop a weapon which can do this, you CANNOT sit back and let it happen. If this were happening to Ireland, I'd take the same view as Bibi. The Iranians have been goading Israel for years, particularly since Ahmedinejad became President.

Let's try and look at this from the opposite side of the time spectrum (and assuming there were any of the Israeli leadership left to answer charges of dereliction of duty) and imagine there is an inquest into the attack on Israel, after it has happened; the leadership would be asked the question: we have previous experience of mad men advocating our demise as a people, why do you not take this one seriously? What exactly were you waiting for? Help from another country? A smoking gun? How much more evidence did you need?

We must bear in mind the psychological impact of the holocaust on Israeli thinking; to ignore this would be folly, to blame them, unfair.

Quoting Giancavia (Reply 71):
Like I mentioned before it becomes clearer with every passing day that Iran is trying to create a Nuclear weapon.

Absolutely agree; the IAEA has been let into some secret facility today, but I think this is just for show; they won't get to see anything Iran doesn't want them to see.

I don't want to see war; let me make that clear. I do think that we have the luxury of sitting back and thinking about it much more than Israel does; our worst fear is higher gas prices - not good, but nothing when compared to the murder of our families and the destruction of our society and our livelihoods. The west will get over $10 a gallon fuel prices in a while; Israel wouldn't recover from a nuclear attack by Iran quite so quickly.


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1500 posts, RR: 4
Reply 73, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2866 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 56):
They cannot be seen as supporting Israel, even if they agree strongly in this instance.

It kind of seems like we're doing them quite a favor then really. Is the understanding that we will police the Saudi's backyard so they don't have to get off the fence and take a position? Looking at it as dispassionately as possible that doesn't seem like a great deal for us.

Interesting thought though.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10930 posts, RR: 37
Reply 74, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2864 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 72):
Israel wouldn't recover from a nuclear attack by Iran quite so quickly.

Who said Iran is going to nuke Israel? Who said the Iranians are developping their nuclear program to build a nuclear bomb with the intention of destroying Israel? It's all propaganda coming from the pro-zionist media - a blatant lie from all the pro-Israel warmongers constantly on the offensive.

Iran always has always allowed UN inspectors in their installations. The inspectors never came to the conclusion that Iran is using their nuclear facilities for building a bomb.

Also what do you do with the Jewish communities in Iran? How do you explain that they never wanted to go back to Israel despite all the offers that were made to them by the Israeli governments?
They don't seem to be bothered at all by the fact that they are living in the country of the "Great Satan".

"" "" About 25,000 Jews live in Iran and most are determined to remain no matter what the pressures - as proud of their Iranian culture as of their Jewish roots. "" ""
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5367892.stm

If Iran was such a terrifying country don't you think they would have left a long time ago?

I am sure Israel will do whatever it wants regardless of the consequences. When it comes to dropping white phosphorus on civilians or shooting women and children who throw rocks at tanks they are consumate professionals but when it comes to an enemy that can actually fight back they will whine to the USA and send in the goyim to die for them.


 Wow!



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15831 posts, RR: 27
Reply 75, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2826 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 73):
Is the understanding that we will police the Saudi's backyard so they don't have to get off the fence and take a position?

No. The Arabs (Iranians are not Arabs by the way) do not particularly like the idea of an Iranian nuclear weapon either. But they cannot be seen as supporting Israeli interests which makes the entire situation very sensitive. That's why there were supposedly the secret arrangements for the Saudis to kick their radars' plugs out of the socket for an Israeli strike.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1500 posts, RR: 4
Reply 76, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2809 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 75):
No. The Arabs (Iranians are not Arabs by the way) do not particularly like the idea of an Iranian nuclear weapon either. But they cannot be seen as supporting Israeli interests which makes the entire situation very sensitive. That's why there were supposedly the secret arrangements for the Saudis to kick their radars' plugs out of the socket for an Israeli strike.

You're missing my point (such as it is- it's not a very meritorious thought). I'm suggesting that by allowing the Saudis to have a public view which is different from their actual view, we're fomenting an artificial sense of unity among the non-Israeli players in the Middle East which may be absent were the Saudis forced to pick a side.

Were the Saudis not reassured by our constant saber-rattling against Iran they might be forced into taking a harder line against them, thus putting pressure on their regime, or otherwise taking a harder line against Israel which would even the odds somewhat and make conflict less likely.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5743 posts, RR: 19
Reply 77, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2810 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 22):
Your assertions are ridiculous and unproved.

No less ridiculous and umproved than your "certainty" that Iran does not develop nucelar weapon

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 57):
Quite recently, for example, we have seen the end of communist dictatorship in Russia

We have?

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 63):
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 56):

Of course it does. Don't be fooled: those Nazis were hanged not just because they were war criminals. They were hanged because we won and they lost.

Moral of the story: win.

Are you joking? Those Nazis were hanged because they were vicious WAR CRIMINALS who conducted beastly, savage acts against other human beings, not because they simply "lost".

Hate to break it to you, but BMI727 is spot on. What about nazis' former allies who started the WW2 by jointly invading Poland?
Afaik, no one was tried for their atrocities against tens of thousand Polish POWs, Ukrainians, Estonians and others. Instead they were referred to as "Uncle Joe" and were given half of Europe to loot as war trophy for their aggressor turned "liberator" schtick.


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1500 posts, RR: 4
Reply 78, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2805 times:

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 77):
Hate to break it to you, but BMI727 is spot on. What about nazis' former allies who started the WW2 by jointly invading Poland?
Afaik, no one was tried for their atrocities against tens of thousand Polish POWs, Ukrainians, Estonians and others. Instead they were referred to as "Uncle Joe" and were given half of Europe to loot as war trophy for their aggressor turned "liberator" schtick.

              



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 79, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2796 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 72):
Things look different from Washington from what they look in Tel Aviv, because Washington is not in danger of attack

The 'funny' thing is, of course, that Washington (and the rest of the United States, and the UK, and the whole of NATO) have actually been in danger of nuclear attack ever since 1945. All of us in the West learned to live with that danger, for many years; and it only receded after 1990, when public opinion in Eastern Europe forced communist governments to relinquish power and Germany was re-unified.

No-one in Europe now expects a nuclear war to break out - even though the nuclear weapons, of course, remain ready for use. And it is no longer a matter of such weapons being held only by the USA and Russia. Britain developed them quite soon after WW2, and since then France, India, Pakistan, China, and North Korea are known to have developed them, and Israel is 'suspected' of having done so. South Africa also developed the technology, but claims now to have dismantled the few nukes that it built.

So virtually the whole world remains 'in danger of nuclear attack.' But, fortunately, we've all 'learned to live with them,' and it's at least arguable that the existence of those weapons actually prevented a Third World War breaking out - because both likely 'sides' ended up facing 'mutually assured destruction.'

Quoting kaitak (Reply 72):
When a country which openly advocates the extermination of your nation is actively trying to develop a weapon which can do this, you CANNOT sit back and let it happen.

I think you should endeavour to 'see the other guy's point of view,' kaitak. At present Israel has the bomb, but no other country in the Middle East has it. Given Israel's constant state of conflict with its neighbours (not just Iran, but also other countries in the region) Iran very possibly sees its role as developing a 'deterrent' to answer the threat which Israel itself already poses.

The only way to prevent this would appear to be for Israel itself to agree to negotiate on the basis that it will dismantle its own nukes - and take other measures aimed at 'normalising' relations with its neighbours - in return for a proper non-aggression treaty signed by all the relevant countries in the region.

But I don't suppose that that approach ever crosses the mind of people like Netanyahu.........even though it has worked well on countless occasions elsewhere in the world.............



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13740 posts, RR: 61
Reply 80, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2769 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 74):
It's all propaganda coming from the pro-zionist media

Why is it that people who dislike Israel are the only ones ever throwing the term "zionist" out?

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 79):
Given Israel's constant state of conflict with its neighbours (not just Iran, but also other countries in the region) Iran very possibly sees its role as developing a 'deterrent' to answer the threat which Israel itself already poses.

That's like a mugger saying he needs a gun because his intended victims already have one.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 81, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2741 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 80):
"zionist"

To perhaps emphasise that there is a difference between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

A constant refrain if you criticise Israel is that you are by definition antisemitic. If you are Jewish and don't support the Zionist vision an additional term of abuse will apply - "self-hating". Being Jewish means either belonging to a particular "ethnicity" or being a person who follows the Judaic faith, while being a Zionist means being a follower of a particular political ideology. The two terms are not identical.

Oddly enough, those who fail to distinguish between antisemitism and being opposed to Zionism usually manage to distinguish (at least in public) between the people of Iran and the regime in Iran and would never admit to be being anti-Iranians.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8760 posts, RR: 3
Reply 82, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2729 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 80):
That's like a mugger saying he needs a gun because his intended victims already have one.
Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 74):
I am sure Israel will do whatever it wants regardless of the consequences. When it comes to dropping white phosphorus on civilians or shooting women and children who throw rocks at tanks they are consumate professionals but when it comes to an enemy that can actually fight back they will whine to the USA and send in the goyim to die for them.

At least it is preferable to talk in this way rather than actually fight in real life. Both sides are people. Peaceful people by definition deserve certain respect. All this talk is really about accusing the other side of non-peaceful interests. It is violence that is the true shame of humanity. I hope both sides remember that. The first side to offer violence is by definition the loser. THAT is the only path to world peace.


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13740 posts, RR: 61
Reply 83, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2723 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Flighty (Reply 82):
Peaceful people by definition deserve certain respect.

I absolutely agree, however when the President of Iran - freely elected by the people - has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, it's hard to call the government of Iran "peaceful".



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9734 posts, RR: 31
Reply 84, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2705 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 83):
I absolutely agree, however when the President of Iran - freely elected by the people - has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, it's hard to call the government of Iran "peaceful".

There are no free elections in Iran and it is a regime, not a government.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10930 posts, RR: 37
Reply 85, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2684 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 80):
Why is it that people who dislike Israel are the only ones ever throwing the term "zionist" out?

What do you do about anti-zionist Jews? Do you count them as people who dislike Israel?

Anti-Zionist Jews to Protest Zionist Purim Provocation
http://zen-haven.dk/anti-zionist-jew...protest-zionist-purim-provocation/

It has come to our attention that on Sunday, March 20 at 12:00, in front of the Iranian UN Mission at 633 Third Avenue, corner of 40th Street in Manhattan, certain rabble-rousers plan to hold a Megillah reading with the purpose of insulting the Iranian president and heating up tensions. Authentic Jews will be there to register their protest against these troublemakers, as well as express their pain and sorrow at this insulting and provocative behavior, which is a part of an approach that can have catastrophic consequences.

  



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7818 posts, RR: 5
Reply 86, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2653 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 43):
I tend to agree. I wonder when they are going to start building concentration camps.

Gaza is already a ghetto, with a little more turning of the screws by Israel it could become one massive concentration camp.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 46):
...and this is one of them. This is about making sure that the Iranians cannot threaten us or our allies.

But the Iranians aren't doing the threatening, the Israelis are! Maybe we should blockade Israel, starve them out and make them give up there weapons, as long as Israel has nukes the states around them will also try to get there own.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 48):
Guilt over the Holocaust and a strong religious right lobby.

Americans should also be guilty over the Armenian genocide, there are over 1 million Armenians in the US, but to Americans care, most probably don't even know what an Armenian is. Armenians are also Christians so you would think the Armenian cause should be much closer to the bosom of the religious right.


User currently offlineGiancavia From Vatican City, joined Feb 2010, 1384 posts, RR: 0
Reply 87, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2650 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 84):

There are no free elections in Iran and it is a regime, not a government.

This is the thing that makes me laugh.
When I see mind numbingly dumb statements like "The Iranians are peaceful" "They are elected" "They have never attacked anyone" blah blah blah. The guys in charge were elected how.. How quickly some of these "Hippies" forget they openly shot their own citizens during elections while using secret police to murder countless others. I use the term hippies because its the same lot of bandwagon jumpers that use any excuse to back whatever regime or agenda that goes against the west just to "stick it to the man". You know the same people that say "oil oil oil everything is about oil, all wars are about oil waa waa waa".

Ive mentioned it about 3 times and not surprisingly none of the Pro Iranian posts can counter it.. What sort of person can back this Iranian regime? Murdering its own citizens in the street, Hanging people with a different sexual preference.. They OPENLY support a terrorist organisation in Lebanon and their only ally in the world is another Regime that is slaughtering its civilians on a daily basis. If thats the kind of country people are happy to gain nukes then these people are as mentaly unstable as the Iranian leader.

Its pointless debating these people though because they will dig back a million years in history to find some kind of reasoning and justification for a new mad man to get his hands on a deadly weapon just so everything is "equal". Deluded..


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9734 posts, RR: 31
Reply 88, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2642 times:

The problem with the people living in free western societies is, that they have never experienced what a dictatorship is.
They take it for granted that we have the liberties guaranteed by our constitutions, that we have the division of powers, that you can sue your government and oppose it and don't have to fear anything and anybody for that.

The educated are a minority in countries like Iran or Syria or any other nation that does not have the same liberties we enjoy. Internet increases the number of educated who get access to other opinions and the chance to think about it. But when they have gained some relative liberties and a semi democratic, semi free election, they are outnumbered by the illiterate who believe what the local religious leader tells them, and they are outnumbered by those who live from the regimes by working for the government. .

That spoils the Arabellion, rather brings a winter than a spring. Still, give Iranians the liberties Egyptians have today, they would be a lot happier. The educated at least.

Calling elections in Iran or any similar country free is plain dumb. Whoever tries to establish a party that is not in line with the revolution will find out what happens. regardless if religious based or based on a political religion like communism, the liberties are only within the boundaries set by the regime.

The goal of the Iranian regime is to destroy Israel and they mean it. I don't like the idea that Israel may strike nuclear sites in Iran, but what choice do they have. Can you blame a country, can you blame people who have the experience that someone before actually did what he wrote and announced in a book to act before it happens again?

It is up to us in thw west to show the Iranian regime where the red line is and the educated iranians should uprise against their regime. They should do that NOW.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 89, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2635 times:

Quoting Giancavia (Reply 87):
What sort of person can back this Iranian regime?

It is not a question of backing a regime: it is a question of cutting through the propaganda and looking at facts. Yes, the regime in Iran is brutal and vicious. It murders its own people. So too do others yet they are regarded as being part of the club. Remember during the Arab Spring that there were plenty of people who advocated continued support for both Mubarak and Gadaffi because they provided stability and the alternative was worse. When the GCC armies were "invited" into Bahrain to shoot dead protesters and arrest doctors who treated the wounded the world was very restrained in its criticism. The fact is that Governments don't care about foreign populations: they care about their own national interests.

What sort of person, you ask? The same sort of person as those who justify other horrendous events. The same people who denounce Iran were quite happy to support the Taliban not too long ago. Then the USSR was the big bad wolf so a blind eye could be turned to the barbarities of the Taliban as long as they fought the Russians.

It has nothing to do with everything being equal but exposing the hypocrisy. Let us be absolutely clear. The isolation of Iran and the possibility of a strike against Iran has nothing to do with morality. It is all to do with politics.

Finally, this isn't the first time that an Israeli politician has tried to up the stakes in a US Presidential election year. As Haaretz.com puts it:

Quote:
He (Netanyahu) has a political interest in aiding his Republican friends against Obama, so his statement that "there wasn't a decision to attack" seems more like an attempt to stir things up ahead of the U.S. presidential elections than a command to Israel Air Force units.

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...ween-natanz-and-auschwitz-1.416913


User currently offlineEDKA From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 377 posts, RR: 1
Reply 90, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2610 times:

i wasnt going to comment, until i saw this....

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 43):
I tend to agree. I wonder when they are going to start building concentration camps

you should be ashamed of yourself... see below why

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 86):
Gaza is already a ghetto, with a little more turning of the screws by Israel it could become one massive concentration camp.

While life in Gaza is very hard, its not just Israel's fault... but of course, you and bunch of others choose to ignore that simple fact.

Besides, to compare conditions in Gaza to a Jewish ghetto or a concentration camp is disgusting... Maybe, if your grandparents or half of your family died in one of those, you would be more careful in choosing your words...

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 86):
But the Iranians aren't doing the threatening, the Israelis are! .

Unless you have selective memory, there have been plenty of threats by Iran...Israel has never threatened to "wipe Iran of the map"...


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15831 posts, RR: 27
Reply 91, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2547 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 86):
Armenians are also Christians so you would think the Armenian cause should be much closer to the bosom of the religious right.

The Book of Revelation says nothing about the Armenians.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10930 posts, RR: 37
Reply 92, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2522 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 88):
It is up to us in thw west to show the Iranian regime where the red line is and the educated iranians should uprise against their regime. They should do that NOW.

To the risk of starting World War III?
Are you ready to die for Israel for fallacious reasons?

This "Iran building nukes" retoric is all based on lies - the same as for Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
...

Secret State Agencies: 'No Hard Evidence' Iran Building Nukes, March to War Continues

Although all 16 U.S. secret state intelligence agencies confirmed, again, that "Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program years earlier," reaffirming the "consensus view" of not one, but two National Intelligence Estimates The New York Times reported last week, the march towards war continues.
...

In fact Iran's "Supreme Leader," Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated the obvious not only for Iranians but for the entire planet: "We believe that using nuclear weapons is haram and prohibited, and that it is everybody's duty to make efforts to protect humanity against this great disaster."

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29610

 



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1214 posts, RR: 4
Reply 93, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2515 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 92):
Are you ready to die for Israel for fallacious reasons?

Holy crap, cut down on the fear mongering. Who's to say if Israel performs a precision strike, we will all die?

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 92):
In fact Iran's "Supreme Leader," Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated the obvious not only for Iranians but for the entire planet:

So, you don't believe the leaders of the U.S. or Israel, but you believe the "Supreme Leader" of a state that has given reason after reason not to be trusted?

Uhhh.... ok then.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10930 posts, RR: 37
Reply 94, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2503 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 93):
Who's to say if Israel performs a precision strike, we will all die?

If the U.S. or Israel attack Iran, does Iran have the right to defend itself?
Whether it has the right to or not, you better believe they will.

  

For one, don't come moaning and whining if the price of fuel shoots through the roof.



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9734 posts, RR: 31
Reply 95, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2485 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 92):
In fact Iran's "Supreme Leader," Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated the obvious not only for Iranians but for the entire planet: "We believe that using nuclear weapons is haram and prohibited, and that it is everybody's duty to make efforts to protect humanity against this great disaster."

You know what, if one country on earth has learnt not to believe in the crap "supreme leaders" talk, it is Germany.
I mean, did you kneel down and cover your hair when you wrote that sentence?

So why does his country obviously run a programe to build nuclear weapons when it is prohibited? There is no need, no other purpose for thousands of centrifuges. This guy is a liar to the world and if you care to read what I wrote you see that the Iranian people should stand up against their leadership. That would prevent a war.

We should have done that somewhere along between 1933 and 1945 and the East Germans did it in 1989.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1214 posts, RR: 4
Reply 96, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2468 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 94):
For one, don't come moaning and whining if the price of fuel shoots through the roof.

I'm not saying it won't, nor am I saying that I want anybody to invade Iran, nor am I saying anybody needs to.

I'm simply saying the world won't end (i.e. ALL of us dead) nor should we believe Iran's Supreme Leader, especially if you discount other political leaders. I'm not excited about anything in this potential conflict.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 94):
If the U.S. or Israel attack Iran, does Iran have the right to defend itself?
Whether it has the right to or not, you better believe they will.

The only possibility of them killing us all is if they have nukes. You are quite sure they don't, so apparently we don't need to worry about that, really - just need to worry about the troops over there. They don't represent "all" of us, though. God forbid every single last one of them die in battle, its not the entire human race that has died.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3362 posts, RR: 8
Reply 97, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2461 times:

Quoting thegreatRDU (Reply 65):
How can you put the well being of another country ahead of your own?

The same way many Republicans put corporations ahead of the taxpayers. And THEY say Obama is leaving Israel isolated?

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 83):
Quoting Flighty (Reply 82):
Peaceful people by definition deserve certain respect.

I absolutely agree, however when the President of Iran - freely elected by the people - has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, it's hard to call the government of Iran "peaceful".

If there's anything we've seen these last few days is that the president is nothing more than a puppet who will be punished for showing signs of defiance against the Supreme Leader and/or ruling clerics.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 92):

So you'd blindly believe a regime that has shown it cannot be trusted?



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2435 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 92):
Secret State Agencies: 'No Hard Evidence' Iran Building Nukes, March to War Continues

I asked you this question the last time this topic came up, and you ignored it. Whom do you believe when the US apparently says one thing (according to a Canadian source about globalization) and the UN says another in their IAE reports?


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 99, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2381 times:

Quoting EDKA (Reply 90):
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 86):
Gaza is already a ghetto, with a little more turning of the screws by Israel it could become one massive concentration camp.

While life in Gaza is very hard, its not just Israel's fault... but of course, you and bunch of others choose to ignore that simple fact.

Besides, to compare conditions in Gaza to a Jewish ghetto or a concentration camp is disgusting... Maybe, if your grandparents or half of your family died in one of those, you would be more careful in choosing your words...

I dunno, EDKA..........  

I've never understood why, because of what the Nazi Germans did to the Jews (and others), the Palestinians (who took no part in WW2) should have had their homeland taken away from them by force. I also recall, at the time, having a (Christian) Palestinian as a friend in my prep school. He and the rest of his family had been driven out of their home by Israeli forces during the 1948 war. They knew that they would never be allowed to return - indeed, non-Jewish refugees who fled from Palestine during the 1967 war also have no 'right of return'; even though anyone who professes the Jewish faith has an absolute right to move to israel tomorrow if they choose to do so. No-one can tell me that that is a 'just' state of affairs.

As to conditions in Gaza (and the rest of Palestine) Israel does have a practice of 'administrative detention.' That amounts to anyone the Israelis don't 'like' being imprisoned without trial, for an indefinite period, with no right of appeal. What's more, the detention centres are run by the Army, not by the police or the courts. That seems to me to be the exact equivalent of what the Nazis did to the Jews (and the communists, and the liberals, and anyone else who dared to criticise the Third Reich).

http://www.globaldetentionproject.or...ddle-east/israel/introduction.html

If the Jewish people want a 'national home,' I would have no objection to them receiving one (although I don't think it would be any sort of good idea). But, in terms of simple justice, that 'national home' should be in Germany, not in Palestine.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 96):
The only possibility of them killing us all is if they have nukes. You are quite sure they don't, so apparently we don't need to worry about that, really - just need to worry about the troops over there. They don't represent "all" of us, though.

Might be worth mentioning that, in the nature of military things, mere bombardment of Iran (even with nukes) would achieve nothing in itself. 'Bombardment' is just the beginning of any war - after that comes invasion and occupation. That would mean another pointless campaign, like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, involving some hundreds of thousands of soldiers, lasting a decade or more, and ending in failure.

Is that what you want? More of this sort of thing?

"Six soldiers who were killed when their armoured car was destroyed in a huge explosion in Afghanistan have been named by the Ministry of Defence. One was aged just 19, three of them were 20 and a fifth was 21.

"The men's bodies have been recovered and taken to Camp Bastion, the British base in southern Afghanistan. Initial inspections of their Warrior vehicle indicate it was hit by a huge Taliban bomb."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/ma...-soldiers-killed-afghanistan-named

If there are any more 'adventures' of that sort in the ME, I hope for two things. Firstly that Australia stays out of them; and secondly that the Israeli Army is required to participate as well.

[Edited 2012-03-08 04:23:05]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineEDKA From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 377 posts, RR: 1
Reply 100, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2344 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 99):
I've never understood why, because of what the Nazi Germans did to the Jews (and others), the Palestinians (who took no part in WW2) should have had their homeland taken away from them by force. I also recall, at the time, having a (Christian) Palestinian as a friend in my prep school. He and the rest of his family had been driven out of their home by Israeli forces during the 1948 war. They knew that they would never be allowed to return - indeed, non-Jewish refugees who fled from Palestine during the 1967 war also have no 'right of return'; even though anyone who professes the Jewish faith has an absolute right to move to israel tomorrow if they choose to do so. No-one can tell me that that is a 'just' state of affairs.

As we all know, the events and outcome of WW2 have shaped and influenced map and modern history of Europe. That includes Palestine/Israel issue.
But this is separate debate, not relevant to topic, and has been discussed many times before...

Let me tell you what I think about "just" - Palestinians were given several opportunities to create their own state since WW2... Yes, it wouldn't have been the same as before 1948...But at least they were given the opportunity... At which point, while being exterminated by Nazi Germany, were Jews given such luxury?

I am sure you are not one of them, but for those who don't know what exactly has gone on in these camps, there is plenty of literature to read and then try to compare the two...


Quoting NAV20 (Reply 99):
As to conditions in Gaza (and the rest of Palestine) Israel does have a practice of 'administrative detention.' That amounts to anyone the Israelis don't 'like' being imprisoned without trial, for an indefinite period, with no right of appeal. What's more, the detention centres are run by the Army, not by the police or the courts. That seems to me to be the exact equivalent of what the Nazis did to the Jews (and the communists, and the liberals, and anyone else who dared to criticise the Third Reich).


What you referring to cannot be possibly compared to the atrocities committed against Jews and others in concentration camps...Regardless of your political views, I hope you can agree to that.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9734 posts, RR: 31
Reply 101, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2306 times:

There has been some development in this case in the past 2 or 3 days which is

1 - the International Atomic Energy Commission is putting pressure on Iran for new inspections and this time seems to be backed by China and Russia. That is encouraging, the Iranians can fool or randmly show what they want to show and send the inspectors back but with Russia and China possibly swithcing sides there may be a new situation.

2 - Israel needs US assistance in the form of tanker aircraft and bunker busters, their own bombs won't do the job. and they don't have enough tankers for the logistics. Which means, they cannot attack without telling Obama and Obama will not support them before election day.

This may be a ride on the volcano as this may allow Iran enough maneuvering to achieve their goal - getting the nuclear bomb but the moves by Russia and China are encouraging.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7818 posts, RR: 5
Reply 102, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2321 times:

Quoting EDKA (Reply 100):
Let me tell you what I think about "just" - Palestinians were given several opportunities to create their own state since WW2... Yes, it wouldn't have been the same as before 1948...But at least they were given the opportunity

But they should never have had there land taken away from them in 48, just because some nations felt guilty about what happened WW2 doesn't mean that some other completely unrelated people should have to pay for it. The entire screw-up that is the Middle East is directly related to the god awful decision to create a jewish state, if it hadn't happened just imagine how much more peaceful the world would be.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 103, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2287 times:

Quoting EDKA (Reply 100):
What you referring to cannot be possibly compared to the atrocities committed against Jews and others in concentration camps...Regardless of your political views, I hope you can agree to that.

Don't know what it's got to do with 'political views,' EDKA - I regard the current mess in the 'Holy Land' - which is what I was encouraged to call it as a kid - as an humanitarian problem, not a political one.

As to the levels of current Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians, they appear to be quite well-documented. Lots of news items on the net, but this one appears to be pretty detailed and authoritative:-

"Declaration on Palestine Political Prisoners

"1. The Ministers of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) considered the critical
situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East
Jerusalem, in particular the grave situation of Palestinian political
prisoners being detained or imprisoned by Israel, the occupying Power.
The Ministers expressed grave concern that there are currently more
than 6,000 Palestinians held in 22 prisons and detentions camps in
Israel and in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East
Jerusalem, and that 300 of these prisoners are children under the age of
18. The Ministers also expressed grave concern that among the prisoners
were also 37 women as well as 10 members of the Palestinian Legislative
Council.

"2. The Ministers condemned the holding of the prisoners as a blatant
contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which governs
situations of foreign occupation and which they reaffirmed is applicable
to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, as
affirmed in numerous Security Council, General Assembly and Human
Rights Council resolutions as well as by the International Court of
Justice Advisory Opinion of July 2004. The Ministers conveyed their
strong support for the need to raise awareness of and internationalize the
issue of Palestinian political prisoners. They stressed that Palestinian
political prisoners held by Israel, the occupying Power, should be treated
as Prisoners of War, when applicable.

"3. The Ministers deplored that continuing arrests of Palestinian civilians,
including through use of brutal force in military raids, the
arbitrary use of administrative detentions, forcible interrogations and the transfer of
prisoners to Israel. They condemned all such illegal policies and
practices by Israel, the occupying Power, clearly aimed at intimidating,
dehumanizing and subjugating the Palestinian people. They also
condemned the extremely poor, unhygienic, undignified, and in some
cases life-threatening conditions under which Palestinian prisoners are
being held by the occupying Power. They expressed deep concern in
particular at the situation of the most vulnerable groups in Israeli
detention, including Palestinian women and children as well as ill,
disabled and paralyzed Palestinian detainees and the policy of deliberate
medical neglect, from which 200 persons have died. They condemned
Israel’s continued use of torture and other international prohibited
measures, which it authorizes through legislative and judicial decisions,
as well as other forms of physical and psychological mistreatment
against Palestinian prisoners, including the use of solitary confinement,
which deprives Palestinian prisoners of most basic humanitarian needs.

"4. The Ministers noted the devastating effect of detention upon Palestinian
prisoners and their families and stressed in this regard the urgent need
for speedy reintegration of former prisoners into society. The Ministers
condemned the Israeli practice of withholding the bodies of Palestinian
prisoners who were killed or died while in Israeli detention and their
burial in military graveyards.

"5. The Ministers stressed that under article 147 of the Fourth Geneva
Convention the aforementioned Israeli practices constitute serious
violations of international humanitarian law and in many cases amount
to war crimes and crimes against humanity which, pursuant to article
146 of the same Convention, should be subject to international criminal
prosecution, in accordance with universal jurisdiction, and referred in
this regard to the relevant provisions of the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court.

"7. The Ministers demanded that Israel to release without any preconditions
Palestinian prisoners arrested in relation to their activities opposing the
occupation, so-called “political offenses” and that the occupying Power
clearly and immediately define such “political offenses”. The Ministers
furthermore demanded that Israel cease the arbitrary arrest of
Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East
Jerusalem, as well as their unlawful transfer to prisons inside Israel."


http://www.kemlu.go.id/Documents/GNB...nian%20Prisoners-English-Final.pdf

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 102):
The entire screw-up that is the Middle East is directly related to the god awful decision to create a jewish state, if it hadn't happened just imagine how much more peaceful the world would be.

Couldn't agree more, KiwiRob. Theocracies are always bad news...........



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2492 posts, RR: 8
Reply 104, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2250 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 69):

Just my two cents...but a hostile tone undermines the persuasiveness of your arguments.

I believe in presenting truthful arguments. Not arguments that only serve one's purposes. If that comes across as hostile that is fine with me. That is whomever's problem who is reading it. It is not mine. If it's not the truth then call me on that, not the level of meekness or hostility of my points.

In fact. I never felt the need to baby anyone in getting over on my points. In a scholarly or even in a professional setting. So what if you hate the way I got my point across. My point was right, so that is ultimately the issue.

If you have a problem, that is your problem. If your emotions get in the way of reading my argument in an unbiased manner, that is your problem too. I studied psychology, so I know. Maybe I should be a little more, ugh how they say, neutral. It has never appealed to me. I would rather be hostile and true, than meek, neutral and a naive fool.

Quoting Giancavia (Reply 71):

Not very persuasive anyway.. Iran should be able to have nukes because the Germans were Nazis at some point in the past. lol ok..

Jaja, ok. You believe in letting the sins of western people get a pass but others do not. lol. ok.   

The funny part is...you didn't refute my argument. You just made a nonsense joke about my rhetoric and (true) history comment.



Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 77):
Hate to break it to you, but BMI727 is spot on. What about nazis' former allies who started the WW2 by jointly invading Poland?
Afaik, no one was tried for their atrocities against tens of thousand Polish POWs, Ukrainians, Estonians and others. Instead they were referred to as "Uncle Joe" and were given half of Europe to loot as war trophy for their aggressor turned "liberator" schtick.

BS! The US was already afraid of the Soviet Union and their largesse. The war was against the Nazis, WWII was NOT an ideological war. There could be enough discussion on this that could take up another thread.

Point is...all Nazis were not hung. Many of them blended back into civilian life. Those that were given punishment were often found guilty, and rightly so, of some heinous crime.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 80):
That's like a mugger saying he needs a gun because his intended victims already have one.

Exactly. Israel needs the gun because those big, bad, brown, dirty Arabs already have one.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 83):
I absolutely agree, however when the President of Iran - freely elected by the people - has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, it's hard to call the government of Iran "peaceful".

However, when the Government of Israel bombs Arabs nonstop in its own territory and in foreign sovereign territory, we don't frequently question their "peacefulness" do we?

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 88):

The goal of the Iranian regime is to destroy Israel and they mean it.

You don't know that, and it is patently ridiculous for anyone to say that.

Quoting EDKA (Reply 90):
While life in Gaza is very hard, its not just Israel's fault... but of course, you and bunch of others choose to ignore that simple fact.

Besides, to compare conditions in Gaza to a Jewish ghetto or a concentration camp is disgusting... Maybe, if your grandparents or half of your family died in one of those, you would be more careful in choosing your words...

Let's not go there. There are many people who have ancestors who suffered under Nazi and anti-Semite oppression. That does not make what Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza any better. In fact there are MANY Jews who think it is a damned shame.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 99):

I've never understood why, because of what the Nazi Germans did to the Jews (and others), the Palestinians (who took no part in WW2) should have had their homeland taken away from them by force.

If one looks to psychology it is easy to rationalize. Abused meet abuser! It is actually easy to become the abuser once you yourself have been abused, it is that much more familiar and "normal". It works on a personal level, and a societal one (geographical et al.).

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 101):
2 - Israel needs US assistance in the form of tanker aircraft and bunker busters, their own bombs won't do the job. and they don't have enough tankers for the logistics. Which means, they cannot attack without telling Obama and Obama will not support them before election day.

Obama doesn't want this BS period! He doesn't want another war.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9734 posts, RR: 31
Reply 105, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2227 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 104):
You don't know that, and it is patently ridiculous for anyone to say that.

Well, then you call the Iranian leadership liars, fine with me.

Read the whole paragraph and not just the single sentence you quoted and you know more. We had a guy in Germany who did exactly what he said some 15 to 20 years earlier.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlineEDKA From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 377 posts, RR: 1
Reply 106, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks ago) and read 2218 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 104):
Let's not go there. There are many people who have ancestors who suffered under Nazi and anti-Semite oppression. That does not make what Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza any better. In fact there are MANY Jews who think it is a damned shame

Read again what i said and dont twist my words... I am making point that is it wrong to compare the concentration camps and conditions in modern day Gaza... thank you

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 103):
Don't know what it's got to do with 'political views,' EDKA - I regard the current mess in the 'Holy Land' - which is what I was encouraged to call it as a kid - as an humanitarian problem, not a political one.

As to the levels of current Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians, they appear to be quite well-documented. Lots of news items on the net, but this one appears to be pretty detailed and authoritative:-

again, the ONLY point that i am making here is that it is wrong to compare this to concentration camps...if you cant see the difference, then we have nothing else to discuss here...


User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2492 posts, RR: 8
Reply 107, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks ago) and read 2219 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 105):
Well, then you call the Iranian leadership liars, fine with me.

Read the whole paragraph and not just the single sentence you quoted and you know more. We had a guy in Germany who did exactly what he said some 15 to 20 years earlier.

I read it, and I like many of your points. But why has not anyone been so worried about Pakistan having the bomb? But Iran? And I know some of the local politics. Just because they say "death to Israel" does not mean they are about to use arms against them, even if they acquire the bomb.

Has Israel used the bomb yet against any of it's Arab "aggressors"?

Mutually assured destruction (or devastation). No one is going to use the weapon. As long as the big bad US and NATO are overseeing the Middle East and Iran.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9734 posts, RR: 31
Reply 108, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2205 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 107):
But why has not anyone been so worried about Pakistan having the bomb?

we all know about that love/hate relation between the US and Pakistan. The US has bases in Pakistan and rumors have it that the US control tha Pakistani bombs. Besides, their enemy is India which is a nuclear power itself. We have the perfect balance of powers here which has prevented WW III in Europe during the cold war.



Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 107):
Has Israel used the bomb yet against any of it's Arab "aggressors"?

No and it will not unless it is attacked with nuclear bombs. Israeli is defending itself, that may look "aggressive2 to those sending little missiles across the borders once and so often but then to them the sheer existance of Israel is "aggressive".

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 107):
Mutually assured destruction (or devastation). No one is going to use the weapon

The problem with that opinion is that death is seen by some religious hardliners as something sweet and desirable, otherwise there would be no suicide bombers. These ideologies of religious hardliners who are political and religious leaders in personal union are the problem.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2492 posts, RR: 8
Reply 109, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2197 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 108):
and rumors have it that the US control tha Pakistani bombs

not exactly.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 108):
We have the perfect balance of powers here which has prevented WW III in Europe during the cold war.

And in my view the perfect balance of power is Iran versus Israel/Sunni Muslims/US.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 108):
No and it will not unless it is attacked with nuclear bombs. Israeli is defending itself, that may look "aggressive2 to those sending little missiles across the borders once and so often but then to them the sheer existance of Israel is "aggressive".

Iran is defending itself against Sunni Muslim aggression, Israeli aggression, and US aggression. They are not stupid enough to use a nuclear device first. So what is the hateful rhetoric about? It is about the potential balance of power shift, nothing more. They will all have to start viewing Iran as an equal, and not a lesser than.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 108):
The problem with that opinion is that death is seen by some religious hardliners as something sweet and desirable, otherwise there would be no suicide bombers. These ideologies of religious hardliners who are political and religious leaders in personal union are the problem.

The religious hardliners in Iran have a very vocal platform; that does not equate to a political or military influence or leadership. In fact much the opposite. The extremist views from Iran are what the Israeli Government and western governments WANT you to hear, because they make sanctions and military actions that much more tolerable.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 110, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2191 times:

Quoting EDKA (Reply 106):
again, the ONLY point that i am making here is that it is wrong to compare this to concentration camps...if you cant see the difference, then we have nothing else to discuss here...

I don't see much difference at all, EDKA. It's a matter of locking up people (including women and children) in poor to life-threatening conditions, for political reasons rather than the more usual reason that they have committed crimes.

If it's any consolation, the Nazi Germans didn't invent the term 'concentration camp.' It was first coined by, of all people, the British - in the South African War in 1901/2. They were initially 'refugee camps,' but later 'moved on' to a much more sinister role:-

"The term "concentration camp" was used to describe camps operated by the British in South Africa during this conflict, and the term grew in prominence during this period.

"The camps had originally been set up by the British army as "refugee camps" to provide refuge for civilian families who had been forced to abandon their homes for whatever reason related to the war. However, when Kitchener succeeded Roberts as commander-in-chief in South Africa on 29 November 1900, the British army introduced new tactics in an attempt to break the guerrilla campaign and the influx of civilians grew dramatically as a result. Kitchener initiated plans to flush out guerrillas in a series of systematic drives, organised like a sporting shoot, with success defined in a weekly 'bag' of killed, captured and wounded, and to sweep the country bare of everything that could give sustenance to the guerrillas, including women and children.... It was the clearance of civilians—uprooting a whole nation—that would come to dominate the last phase of the war.

"As Boer farms were destroyed by the British under their "Scorched Earth" policy—including the systematic destruction of crops and slaughtering of livestock, the burning down of homesteads and farms, and the poisoning of wells and salting of fields—to prevent the Boers from resupplying from a home base many tens of thousands of women and children were forcibly moved into the concentration camps. This was not the first appearance of internment camps. The Spanish had used internment in the Ten Years' War that led to the Spanish-American War, and the United States had used them to devastate guerrilla forces during the Philippine-American War. But the Boer War concentration camp system was the first time that a whole nation had been systematically targeted, and the first in which some whole regions had been depopulated.

"Eventually, there were a total of 45 tented camps built for Boer internees and 64 for black Africans. Of the 28,000 Boer men captured as prisoners of war, 25,630 were sent overseas. The vast majority of Boers remaining in the local camps were women and children. Over 26,000 women and children were to perish in these concentration camps[45].

"The camps were poorly administered from the outset and became increasingly overcrowded when Kitchener's troops implemented the internment strategy on a vast scale. Conditions were terrible for the health of the internees, mainly due to neglect, poor hygiene and bad sanitation. The supply of all items was unreliable, partly because of the constant disruption of communication lines by the Boers. The food rations were meager and there was a two-tier allocation policy, whereby families of men who were still fighting were routinely given smaller rations than others. The inadequate shelter, poor diet, inadequate hygiene and overcrowding led to malnutrition and endemic contagious diseases such as measles, typhoid and dysentery to which the children were particularly vulnerable. An additional problem was the Boers' use of traditional medicines like a cow-dung poultice for skin diseases and crushed insects for convulsions.[46] Coupled with a shortage of modern medical facilities, many of the internees died."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...tion_camps_.281900.E2.80.931902.29

On the evidence, Israel is doing the same thing - locking people up (including women and children) on racial/political grounds, guarded by soldiers rather than policemen, in poor conditions with limited if any proper medical care. The only difference is that they can't even claim (as Kitchener did) that the place concerned was in 'a state of war.'

So, as far as I'm concerned, 'the shoe fits.'

[Edited 2012-03-09 05:16:59]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9734 posts, RR: 31
Reply 111, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2160 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 109):
The extremist views from Iran are what the Israeli Government and western governments WANT you to hear, because they make sanctions and military actions that much more tolerable.

As you may have noticed, I base my opinion not on what someone else wants me to hear or read. Knowledge of history, 50 years of having and developing a political opinion and the ability to do my own thinking, judging from different sources contributes to my views. Having seen how totalitarian regimes work is an asset here as well. We had one in the other part of Germany.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 109):
and US aggression.

LOL - I wish some of the aggressive US hostages who were kept for 444 days by peaceful Iranian students in the US embassy could read that.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15831 posts, RR: 27
Reply 112, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2112 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 104):
Point is...all Nazis were not hung. Many of them blended back into civilian life. Those that were given punishment were often found guilty, and rightly so, of some heinous crime

   The idea was that everyone over 18 had to be classified based on how much of a Nazi they were. The western Allies held about 90,000 Germans in 1947 and God only knows what the Soviets were doing. All this after spending much of the war bombing civilians. The winner makes the rules, so you better win.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1214 posts, RR: 4
Reply 113, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2103 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 99):
Might be worth mentioning that, in the nature of military things, mere bombardment of Iran (even with nukes) would achieve nothing in itself. 'Bombardment' is just the beginning of any war - after that comes invasion and occupation. That would mean another pointless campaign, like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, involving some hundreds of thousands of soldiers, lasting a decade or more, and ending in failure.

Is that what you want? More of this sort of thing?

Oh my God. Seriously? You read my post and choose to ignore the first half, and ask if what you describe is what I want? Here, let me quote what I said before:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 96):
I'm not saying it won't, nor am I saying that I want anybody to invade Iran, nor am I saying anybody needs to.

I'm simply saying the world won't end (i.e. ALL of us dead) nor should we believe Iran's Supreme Leader, especially if you discount other political leaders. I'm not excited about anything in this potential conflict.

All I'm doing is calling bullshit on MadameConcorde's post (which, by the way, anybody seen her lately? Nice timing to disappear... pretty convenient). Just because I disagree with a conclusion does not mean I agree with a polar opposite opinion on the topic.

 



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10930 posts, RR: 37
Reply 114, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2091 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 113):
All I'm doing is calling bullshit on MadameConcorde's post (which, by the way, anybody seen her lately? Nice timing to disappear... pretty convenient). Just because I disagree with a conclusion does not mean I agree with a polar opposite opinion on the topic.

1) You are using offensive language toward another Anetter, even more so toward an older woman. Not sure where you received your education if any at all. We did not do (or say) such things in my days, especially not in written form and displayed to the public.

2) Getting back to topic, I fully agree with one of the comments. The Iranian leaders are not crazy or suicidal.

Coming from Haaretz one of the most radical pro-Likud newspapers.

Published 02:35 09.03.12
Latest update 02:35 09.03.12

WATCH: Former head of Israeli Mossad: Now is not the time to attack Iran

Meir Dagan in first American interview says Iran%u2019s regime is rational, adding: that 'they are considering all the implications of their actions.'

Dagan tells 60 Minutes%u2019 Lesley Stahl that the regime in Iran is a rational one. When asked whether Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is rational, Dagan responded that he was.

%u201CNot exactly our rational, but I think he is rational,%u201D Dagan said.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...t-the-time-to-attack-iran-1.417426

Kapisch?



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2492 posts, RR: 8
Reply 115, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2028 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 111):
Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 109):
The extremist views from Iran are what the Israeli Government and western governments WANT you to hear, because they make sanctions and military actions that much more tolerable.

As you may have noticed, I base my opinion not on what someone else wants me to hear or read. Knowledge of history, 50 years of having and developing a political opinion and the ability to do my own thinking, judging from different sources contributes to my views. Having seen how totalitarian regimes work is an asset here as well. We had one in the other part of Germany.

Ok, so what's next??? I respect your arguments more since you can present them in a verbose and cogent manner, rather than a bunch of ridiculousness. Doesn't mean I agree.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 111):
LOL - I wish some of the aggressive US hostages who were kept for 444 days by peaceful Iranian students in the US embassy could read that.

Good and I wish some of the dead Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank could speak against US backed Israel. I wish they could read that and not feel inflamed. For apartheid, war, and extrajudicial killing/assault/oppression has been going on for how many years now in "Israel". When really it should be Israel and Palestine.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2492 posts, RR: 8
Reply 116, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2030 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 112):
The idea was that everyone over 18 had to be classified based on how much of a Nazi they were. The western Allies held about 90,000 Germans in 1947 and God only knows what the Soviets were doing. All this after spending much of the war bombing civilians. The winner makes the rules, so you better win.

90,000??? Millions of Germans were Nazis during the war. They didn't all swing from the hangman's noose. As I said, many of them transitioned harmlessly into the next German Government. And good for the Allies and the Soviets holding XXX,000s of those prejudiced minded Nazi bastards in captivity.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15831 posts, RR: 27
Reply 117, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2025 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 116):
And good for the Allies and the Soviets holding XXX,000s of those prejudiced minded Nazi bastards in captivity.

Meanwhile American air crews who quite possibly spent a decent part of the war bombing civilian targets got to go home and go to college. Not that I'm saying that it was the wrong thing to do, just that there is a double standard.

And then of course there were black veterans, who had to go back home and face prejudiced minded people themselves while German courts were sifting through 900,000 denazification cases.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2492 posts, RR: 8
Reply 118, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2017 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 117):

Meanwhile American air crews who quite possibly spent a decent part of the war bombing civilian targets got to go home and go to college. Not that I'm saying that it was the wrong thing to do, just that there is a double standard.

And then of course there were black veterans, who had to go back home and face prejudiced minded people themselves while German courts were sifting through 900,000 denazification cases.

Maybe we are finally close to agreement sir.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15831 posts, RR: 27
Reply 119, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2014 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 118):

The Germans didn't have to deal with that because they were prejudiced. The Germans had to deal with that because they lost. The lesson here is that the winner makes the rules so it's important to win.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2492 posts, RR: 8
Reply 120, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2006 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 119):

The Germans didn't have to deal with that because they were prejudiced. The Germans had to deal with that because they lost. The lesson here is that the winner makes the rules so it's important to win.

Nope, I don't think so. Just because you win doesn't make you right. Nor does it enable you to make the rules!



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15831 posts, RR: 27
Reply 121, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2005 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 120):
Just because you win doesn't make you right.

Maybe.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 120):
Nor does it enable you to make the rules!

Oh yes it does.

How many people get dragged to international court from the winning side, other than to be judges and such of course? If they do anything bad they would just get court martialed anyway. No, if you win you absolutely do get to make the rules and decide who gets in trouble and who doesn't. If you win you have nothing to worry about. Sure some hippies will wave signs and scream at you, but at the end of the day, what will they do?



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10930 posts, RR: 37
Reply 122, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1962 times:

Meir Dagan is a wise man.

The Telegraph (UK)

Former Mossad head says Israel should consider alternatives to Iran strike

Meir Dagan, the former head of Mossad, has said Israel must consider alternatives to a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

"An attack on Iran before you are exploring all other approaches is not the right way how to do it," Meir Dagan said to CBS's 60 Minutes, according to a transcript of a programme that airs on Sunday.
...
Since retiring from the intelligence agency, he has spoken out publicly against a possible Israeli military strike on Iran.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...r-alternatives-to-Iran-strike.html



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinebestwestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7302 posts, RR: 57
Reply 123, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1940 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 101):
Obama will not support them before election day.

I fear that the Israeli government will bounce Obama into conflict with Iran before the election.

If Obama fails to join in, he is then targeted as a weak leader and enemy of Israel.

If the Israeli government waits till after the election, Obama is less concerned with home opinion, and the Israelis lose their upper hand.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3362 posts, RR: 8
Reply 124, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1916 times:

Quoting bestwestern (Reply 123):
I fear that the Israeli government will bounce Obama into conflict with Iran before the election.

From what I've read, the Israeli government was thinking of having early elections, despite a stable coalition in the Knesset. This is thought to be due to Netanyahu's maneuver to avoid pressure from Obama should he win in November (Israel's elections are scheduled for next year). Netanyahu was thought to benefit from high approval ratings and either maintain or reinforce his coalition sometime this year so that he is the one calling the shots when the US elections come.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8760 posts, RR: 3
Reply 125, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1917 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 94):
If the U.S. or Israel attack Iran, does Iran have the right to defend itself?
Whether it has the right to or not, you better believe they will.

I don't believe Iran would retaliate much. So far it appears they are more civilized than that. But yes, the latitude for national defense against an attack is extraordinarily broad.

Quoting bestwestern (Reply 123):
If Obama fails to join in, he is then targeted as a weak leader and enemy of Israel.

That would be sad news for Israel.


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10930 posts, RR: 37
Reply 126, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1910 times:

Turkey will not support an attack/invasion of Iran.

Advisor: Iran invasion would destabilize whole region

10 March 2012, 13:11 (GMT+04:00)

Turkey does not support invasion of any kind into Iran by any outside forces, Turkish President's advisor on Middle East, Ershad Hurmuzlu told Trend.

Ormuzlu was answering the question about a possible attack on Iran by Israel or the U.S.

"Turkey will not support such a move, it would destabilize the whole region," Hurmuzlu noted.


http://en.trend.az/regions/iran/2001938.html



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinebestwestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7302 posts, RR: 57
Reply 127, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1868 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 125):

That would be sad news for Israel.

Who is the tail and who is the dog.... Israel bouncing the US into a war it doesnt want will be worse news for the US.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1214 posts, RR: 4
Reply 128, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1722 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 114):
1) You are using offensive language toward another Anetter, even more so toward an older woman. Not sure where you received your education if any at all. We did not do (or say) such things in my days, especially not in written form and displayed to the public.

With all due respect, you don't seem to condemn other such posts with similar wording when they support your point of view. Your usage of emoticons in many of your posts similarly conveys such opinion and feelings of hostility and dismissal. Of course, I am simply basing this on perceived meaning, and quite possibly my (paraphrasing) 'lack of education' has some impact on that.

Secondly, not knowing who you are speaking with comes with the territory in online discussion; I'm sorry, but I am not going to check each profile before I reply to a person - not to mention, we all know how accurate some of these profiles may be. I recall seeing your name here before in the forums, but can't possibly remember each and every personal detail revealed in every post I may (or may not) have read.

I'm sorry you found my post offensive, however your age, gender, or status does not give you a free pass to post opinion without receiving countering arguments from other members. In the future, I hope you would do other members the honor of replying to their countering arguments, instead of ignoring them completely until you find something you can pick on. My post was in no way a personal attack on you, but instead calling... well.. you know what... on your opinions, through simple reasoning. I do not know your background, but I wouldn't blindly attack you - especially if you must have done well in life in order to have flown on Concorde. I respect that, but that does not mean I cannot disagree with your posts. I disagree with even the best of my friends on a regular basis, simply because opinions are opinions.

Lastly, you are not as holy as you pretend to be, if you suggest somebody has not received any education at all. No worries, though - I can take a few jabs and survive.  

Have a good one.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10930 posts, RR: 37
Reply 129, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1632 times:

Why another war? What right do we have to bomb them?
Iranians are people like you or i. They go about their own business they don't bother anyone.

Tehran Persian Nightlife
parties, night gatherings...etc

The residents of Tehran are Persians who speak various dialects of Persian language .
According to a 2010 census conducted by the Sociology department of Tehran university in many districts of Tehran across various soci-economical classes in proprotion to population sizes of each district and soci-economic class, 67 % are Persians, 17 % Persian sub groups such as Lurs, Gilaks, Mazandaranis, 16 % are non Persians,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y_AqbcGFGg&feature=related


Jews in Tehran, Iran
... and they can drink Vodka!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm_kIPGV7b4&feature=related

[Edited 2012-03-13 01:39:57]


There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2492 posts, RR: 8
Reply 130, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 1593 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 126):
Turkey will not support an attack/invasion of Iran.

Advisor: Iran invasion would destabilize whole region

10 March 2012, 13:11 (GMT+04:00)

Turkey does not support invasion of any kind into Iran by any outside forces, Turkish President's advisor on Middle East, Ershad Hurmuzlu told Trend.

Hopefully they will at least attempt to shoot down any airplane overflying their airspace on their way to Iran, and not just talk about diplomatic bs.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9734 posts, RR: 31
Reply 131, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 1590 times:

Turkey is a NATO member and they host US airbases, they will certainly not "shoot down" aircarft of another NATO member

If you read the statement carefully, it says that "Turkey will not support...an invasion" . I am sure that the US are not thinking about an "invasion".

The statement says nothing about air strikes, which are fully sufficient to de-stabilize the Iranian nuclear program.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2492 posts, RR: 8
Reply 132, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 1587 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 131):
Turkey is a NATO member and they host US airbases, they will certainly not "shoot down" aircarft of another NATO member

You're right. They're pretty much a tool of western influence in the region and would kiss the west's ass to gain entry to the EU.  

So they can say whatever they want, they will turn a blind eye to Israeli/NATO/EU aggression towards Iran. Although, Turkey doesn't want to see a nuclear Iran either.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3362 posts, RR: 8
Reply 133, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1584 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 131):
Turkey is a NATO member and they host US airbases, they will certainly not "shoot down" aircarft of another NATO member

No, but they can deny use of airspace. Each NATO member can act accordingly on what they believe is the best, and if they decide to not participate in any invasion (as France did back in 2003), then they are entitled to do so as well. And as said, they can go as far as to close their airspace to NATO military aircraft.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 132):
You're right. They're pretty much a tool of western influence in the region and would kiss the west's ass to gain entry to the EU.

I don't think Turkey is that eager to be pals with the EU anymore or else they would have taken the same stance as the EU regarding the oil embargo and they would not be giving Israel the cold shoulder as they are doing now.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2492 posts, RR: 8
Reply 134, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1573 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 133):
I don't think Turkey is that eager to be pals with the EU anymore or else they would have taken the same stance as the EU regarding the oil embargo and they would not be giving Israel the cold shoulder as they are doing now.

I disagree but that is beside the point.


America/EU/NATO have been sending agents into Iran since before 1953. Which if you know Iranian history, you know what went on. This is a game, waiting to be played out, and we are just witnesses and blind sheep. If these three players want a leadership gone, they will stop at nothing to remove them. Look at Gaddafi. Gaddafi benefited so much of Africa, and NATO chose to destabilize him and remove him because of energy concerns and convenience.

Listen to this hypocrisy and ignorance.

Did NATO care when the IDF bombed Gaza and Lebanon? Don't tell me these Americans and Europeans care about human suffering when no one cared about those people, or the people in Darfur, or Rwanda. The only thing that benefitted the Bosnians was their complexion.

Against all this threat and foreign subversion, why wouldn't Iran want the bomb?



oh boy!!!
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9734 posts, RR: 31
Reply 135, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1565 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 132):
You're right. They're pretty much a tool of western influence in the region and would kiss the west's ass to gain entry to the EU

At the moment they do everythingt to stay out of the EU and I think they mean it.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 133):
No, but they can deny use of airspace.

yes, but who needs them, resp. their air space anyway? Look where the bases are in the region, besides Turkey and the bunker busters are delivered free domicile from a US base anyway.

Iran would not know what hit them until the aircraft are on their way back home.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 134):
Did NATO care when the IDF bombed Gaza and Lebanon?

Israel is not a NATO member, hence it is none of NATOs business. Israel can defend itself (thats what the name IDF says) when some idiots in Gaza or Lebanon think they should commit suicide by sending bombs to Israel.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2492 posts, RR: 8
Reply 136, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1560 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 135):
At the moment they do everythingt to stay out of the EU and I think they mean it.

Debt crises tend not to be long term, fortunately.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 135):
Israel is not a NATO member, hence it is none of NATOs business. Israel can defend itself (thats what the name IDF says) when some idiots in Gaza or Lebanon think they should commit suicide by sending bombs to Israel.

Hence. No one should believe the political posturing BS when NATO claims to be "protecting innocent civilians" or whatever such nonsense when in fact it is bombing a foreign nation and deposing a leader.

Libya isn't part of NATO. Why should have NATO been concerned when Gaddafi's forces killed rebels? It's a different situation...sure.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9734 posts, RR: 31
Reply 137, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1557 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 136):
Debt crises tend not to be long term, fortunately.

It has nothing to do with the debt crisis. It is simply political, too much testosterone.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 136):
Libya isn't part of NATO. Why should have NATO been concerned when Gaddafi's forces killed rebels? It's a different situation...sure

"NATO" was not concerned. NATO is not making politics, it is a tool for politics.

It's riding a razor making an argument here as we are standing by right now and watch the Syrian regime do the same thing, but can we stand by and watching a regime killing their own people and do business as usual once they succeeded?

People suppressed in a dictatorship always have the right to fight against the dictator. In Germany this is a constitutional right, an eternal paragraph in the constitution since 1949.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2492 posts, RR: 8
Reply 138, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1549 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 137):

"NATO" was not concerned. NATO is not making politics, it is a tool for politics.

It's riding a razor making an argument here as we are standing by right now and watch the Syrian regime do the same thing, but can we stand by and watching a regime killing their own people and do business as usual once they succeeded?

People suppressed in a dictatorship always have the right to fight against the dictator. In Germany this is a constitutional right, an eternal paragraph in the constitution since 1949.

I think with our opinions we could debate this all day between us. I am speaking of NATO countries and not NATO specifically. NATO and the US have not done anything in Syria because there really isn't anything of significant value there. There max oil production was ~150,000b/d and that is insignificant when it comes to EU supplies. Libya was much more crucial with regards to energy supplies to NATO and the EU. Libya was a different story.

And enough of the BS about protecting civilians.

Gaddafi was deposed by NATO countries because of his standing in the way of western control and influence over Libya's natural resources. The convenience of 'Arab Spring' was a cover. The Gaddafi regime treated most of its populace far better than most African nations do.

Syria is different, because no one really cares, because they have no significant geopolitical relevance or international-scale natural resources.

Iran...everyone cares, because of its significant regional geopolitical power, and vast natural resources of oil and gas.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9734 posts, RR: 31
Reply 139, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1542 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 138):
The Gaddafi regime treated most of its populace far better than most African nations do.

I was there and it was like German Democratic Republic with palm trees. If you kissed Gaddafis @ss and let him scr#w your under age daughter or son you had a good life. Not your kids though. Of course the west knew how "well" he treated his people and did little against it. The west is a minority in the United Nations, the majority are dictatorships and they voted such a nice country like Libya into the Human Rights Commission.

I recall an interview with his arrogant son Saif, after the revolt started and he said, Oh yes, that's nothing, we ride that out and the west will come to us after a few weeks and buys our oil, We know that, we are used to thisis. It's good that they caught him he is rotting in the dungeon they threw their opponents into.

BTW, we still have East Germans who liked their own cosy prison better than the free country where they have to make their own decisions.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 140, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1520 times:

@ PanHAM "Oh yes, that's nothing, we ride that out and the west will come to us after a few weeks and buys our oil."
The sad thing is that he was right. Had the regime established order in the first few weeks, it would have been business as usual.

The West did not, I repeat not assist in the overthrow of Gaddafi because he was in the habit of "scr#w your under age daughter or son". If the President of Italy can survive "giving paternal guidance" to minors, why would the EU and NATO care about someone in another country? The odd thing is that if you try to find links to such claims, all you end up with are allegations that Gaddafi was sodomised after he was captured but no links showing that he raped children. I despise Gaddafi but have to ask why? Perhaps you are using the expression figuratively rather than literally.

There was a considerable delay before the West made a decision to back the rebels. Being ever pragmatic, the West decided to test which way the wind was blowing and get on side with the possible victors. For all the talk of human rights, expediency was paramount. Previously, sanctions had been applied and I seem to recall a BBC reporter being present when bombs fell on Azizia a few years before the outbreak of revolt. How many millions did Gaddafi agree to pay for a crime that might not have actually been committed by the man imprisoned for it?

I was born in Libya. That delay may have caused the death of the son of a close friend. I do not know whether you have personally experienced the anxiety of knowing whether friends are alive or dead in these situations, and if you haven't you are indeed lucky and I envy you. If you have, I am sure that you understand. But there were days when I could not contact anybody and the lack of information was frightening. Of course I am equally worried about what happens now. How I hate the other thread here that says "I told you so," with smug satisfaction.


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10930 posts, RR: 37
Reply 141, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1499 times:

There is not only Iran. Mubarak gone Israel will now have to watch Egypt.

Friends no more? Egypt's MPs declare Israel No. 1 enemy

Egypt calls Israel its number one enemy, saying it will “revise all its relations and agreements” with Tel Aviv. In a protest against Israeli attacks on Gaza, Egyptian MPs have voted to expel Israel's Ambassador in Cairo, and to halt gas exports.

­"Egypt will never be the friend, partner or ally of the Zionist entity [Israel] which we consider as the first enemy of Egypt and the Arab nation," reads the text of a report prepared by the Arab Affairs Committee of the People's Assembly, the lower house of Egyptian parliament.

http://rt.com/news/egypt-israel-enemy-gaza-485/

 



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 142, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1457 times:

Quite a good (IMO) article here, which evaluates Israel's 'capabilities' in terms of aircraft, ordnance, aerial refuelling etc., and also looks at possible routes for any attack. Basically the 'findings' are, firstly, that Israel is short on suitable aircraft (particularly in the refuelling field); and, secondly, it doesn't currently have aircraft capable of carrying the larger bombs required to penetrate down to several of Iran's deeper facilities, nor does it have the required large bombs themselves. Thirdly, the only remotely-practical routes to and from Iran would require the permission of Turkey and/or Saudi-Arabia and/or Jordan; and that of the USA and its allies as well, if the Jordan route (which would also cross Iraq) is chosen. There would also be a high probability of significant Israeli casualties from Iran's own air force and anti-aircraft defences.

Leads me to believe that any such raids could only be undertaken with the full cooperation of the United States, up to and including the supply of larger aircraft and bigger bombs to deal with the 'deep' sites. It's already perfectly clear that Obama doesn't favour any sort of attack in the near future, so he's hardly going to provide Israel with extra aircraft and munitions in the short term.

So, IMO, it just 'ain't gonna happen.'

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/13/wo...east/israel-iran-attack/index.html

[Edited 2012-03-13 18:31:42]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2492 posts, RR: 8
Reply 143, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1433 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 140):
The sad thing is that he was right. Had the regime established order in the first few weeks, it would have been business as usual.

The West did not, I repeat not assist in the overthrow of Gaddafi because he was in the habit of "scr#w your under age daughter or son".

  

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 140):
If the President of Italy can survive "giving paternal guidance" to minors, why would the EU and NATO care about someone in another country?

   Because there is a double standard when it comes to "western" nations and non-"western" ones.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 140):
There was a considerable delay before the West made a decision to back the rebels. Being ever pragmatic, the West decided to test which way the wind was blowing and get on side with the possible victors. For all the talk of human rights, expediency was paramount.

Good. And what was expedient then? Butter up these NTC fools so that they will give you preferential contracts in the new Libya. And now? Subvert Iran until it falls under the same 'Arab Spring' pattern. Truthfully Obama is smarter than this, but he doesn't want to be embarrassed by Israel at the same time. And Israel is playing a very old game of kill or be killed...when they should be playing "make nice".



oh boy!!!
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9734 posts, RR: 31
Reply 144, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1428 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 143):
Because there is a double standard when it comes to "western" nations and non-"western" ones.

No, there isn't. The fundamental difference is that in the west, we have free elections where such people can get the kick into their @sses. We have a free press as well which can run campaigns to throw high officials out of office. Just happened in Germany. And we have an independent judicial system. Concerning Berlusconi, as long as the Italians liked him they kept him in office. He ran a better ship than most of his predecessors.

No such tools are available in dictatorships and what worries me most, especially in such discussions is, that democracies and dictorships are put on the same level.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 142):
So, IMO, it just 'ain't gonna happen.'

Yes, agree to that. The Israeli simply don't have the means to handle it. This has to be done with l,ong range bombers from Diego Garcia or Whitman, a clean cut to knock out the bunkers in a precisely timed mission. No invasion, hit and go, this likely won't happen before the election unless the situation escalates.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2492 posts, RR: 8
Reply 145, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1422 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 144):
No, there isn't. The fundamental difference is that in the west, we have free elections where such people can get the kick into their @sses. We have a free press as well which can run campaigns to throw high officials out of office. Just happened in Germany. And we have an independent judicial system. Concerning Berlusconi, as long as the Italians liked him they kept him in office. He ran a better ship than most of his predecessors.

No such tools are available in dictatorships and what worries me most, especially in such discussions is, that democracies and dictorships are put on the same level.

That is your opinion, when in fact, yes there is. Furthermore it is not the responsibility nor the privilege of a democratic government to subvert a "dictatorship" in the name of democracy. Similar to how a communist government cannot invade a democratic one and say, "this way is right!!" That notion is patently ridiculous.

The only way an external nation has a duty to interfere with internal politics is in regard to systemic human rights violations. But even in that case...it does not give you the legality to install a new government of "western" choice.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9734 posts, RR: 31
Reply 146, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1407 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 145):
The only way an external nation has a duty to interfere with internal politics is in regard to systemic human rights violations. But even in that case...it does not give you the legality to install a new government of "western" choice.

well, I can only recommend again to study some German history. Start in the 1920 till 1991. You may find the years 1945 to 1949 very interesting.

But I agree with you, it works only when there has been a liberal spirit before, it does not work in ancient societies that have not yet experienced personal freedom.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10930 posts, RR: 37
Reply 147, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 1312 times:

Christiane Amanpour speaks exclusively with the head of Iran's High Council for Human Rights about Iran's nuke program.
Top advisor to Iranian Supreme Leader tells me nuclear weapons a 'sin' and outlines an exit from nuclear crisis.

Watch the interview here:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video...anpour-iran-nuclear-intentions.cnn



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9734 posts, RR: 31
Reply 148, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 1307 times:

So, if Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, why do they do everything to persue getting nuclear weapons? Why do they run centrifuges ín underground shelters, just to mention one, many other activities that are not related to the peaceful use of nuclear energy but to weapons only.

As the infamous Walter Ulbricht , dictator of East Germany said in Summer 1961 "No one has the intention to build a wall", on August 13 they started to build a wall.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 149, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1292 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 148):
Why do they run centrifuges

Enriching Uranium reduces the amount of fuel used and the amount of spent fuel to be reprocessed or disposed of. Centrifuges are used in other countries whose primary concern is not necessarily the production of weapons grade material. Doubts may remain but reports circulating in the West acknowledge that enrichment of fuel in Iran is below weapons grade.

But even if Iran were wanting to develop nuclear weapons that does not automatically mean that they will be used. Their use would result in the destruction of Iran so there is no advantage to first use, as many others hostile to Iran have pointed out. On the other hand, Iran has seen the interference in neighbouring countries and may wish to ensure that it is not a victim of another country's desire for "regime change". For that it does not need nuclear superiority, just sufficient to dissuade a potential aggressor. None of that alters the nature of the regime: it is brutal and murderous in its treatment of internal opposition. But that does not mean that it is automatically predisposed to attacking its neighbours any more than other countries are.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 148):
Walter Ulbricht , dictator of East Germany said

No doubt if he were a politician in the West, he would have said that he was taken out of context. 
But I recall that passionate defender of trade unions in Poland, Margaret Thatcher, praising General Pinochet as being, in her words, "a champion of the free World," while describing the national Union of Miners in Britain as "the enemy within". She also said that politics and sport should not mix when people called for boycotting cricket tests in South Africa, only to urge athletes to boycott the Moscow Olympics.

Moral: all politicians tell lies when it is expedient.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9734 posts, RR: 31
Reply 150, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 1280 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 149):
Moral: all politicians tell lies when it is expedient.

I see no morale in equalizing democratic elected politicians with dictators, I mentioned that before. The British people could vote Mrs. T out of office, The east Germans had to live with Mr. Ulbricht or risk their lives leaving that place.

.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 149):
Their use would result in the destruction of Iran so there is no advantage to first use, as many others hostile to Iran have pointed out.

That would assume rational thinking on side of the Iranian government. If they were driven just be ideology, Ok, but religious ideology, sorry, I would not trust on that.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.