ISRAEL will have to ACT on IRAN if UN can't - Reuters

[stop the bleeding]

Wed Mar 8, 2006 9:28 AM ET

By Louis Charbonneau

BERLIN (Reuters) - If the U.N. Security Council is incapable of taking action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself, Israel's defense minister said on Wednesday.

Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz was asked whether Israel was ready to use military action if the Security Council proved unable to act against what Israel and the West believe is a covert Iranian nuclear weapons program.

"My answer to this question is that the state of Israel has the right give all the security that is needed to the people in Israel. We have to defend ourselves," Mofaz told Reuters after a meeting with his German counterpart Franz Josef Jung.

Iran denies wanting nuclear weapons and says it is only interested in the peaceful generation of electricity. It has also threatened to retaliate if Israel or the United States were to bomb any of its nuclear facilities.



read full article here:

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-03-08T142833Z_01_L08205988_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN-ISRAEL.xml&rpc=22

Oh brother

on edit: I found this via www.rawstory.com

[tatertop]

1. I'll second that: Oh Brother!

[European Socialist]

2. It's the end of the world as we know it. If Iran gets attacked.

[katty]

35. Predictable: Israel's green light (bush admin in cheering section)

[OKIsItJustMe]

42. Israel has attacked an Iraqi nuclear plant before

June 7, 1981

1981: Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor

The Israelis have bombed a French-built nuclear plant near Iraq's capital, Baghdad, saying they believed it was designed to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.

It is the world's first air strike against a nuclear plant.

With remarkable precision, an undisclosed number of F-15 bombers and F-16 fighters destroyed the Osirak reactor 18 miles south of Baghdad, on the orders of Prime Minister Menachem Begin.
...

[katty]

47. yes, I know

[Pachamama]

67. Hey! It's the 25th Anniversary of Israel bombing a Nuclear Plant! Got to

celebrate it somehow and commemorate it with something spectacular!

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :party:

[sarcasmo]

91. I agree with that statement, while many here still think things will be OK

[Just Me]

3. More talk of pre-emptive warring.

I think Israel is actually damaging her security with all this provocative talk of aggressive motives.

:shrug:

[revree]

4. So it's OK for Israel to have them, but not her enemies?

I am going to eat some chocolate. It's the only thing that makes sense right now.

[malaise]

24. I'll join you n/t

[katty]

36. that has ALWAYS been their/u.s. position-nothing new

[katty]

37. Israel holds election March 28/Iranian Bourse & curiously a

major Solar Eclipse/March 29 that will be visible in ME

[progressivebydesign]

56. I'll have some chocolate too. This world has gone insane. n/t

[GeorgiaDem69]

80. It IS ok for Israel to have them, but not Iran

One thing I absolutely don't understand is the naive view held by some on this board that Israel is somehow the "bad guy" in the Middle East. Do any of you understand that they are a country surrounded by people who have stated that their goal is the destruction of Israel? I can't decide if people are simply idiots or anti-Semitic. Israel has people getting blown up in markets and malls every week by suicide bombers that are given at LEAST moral support by Iran and possibly financial/physical support. Iran absolutely has NOT shown that they are responsible enough to possess nuclear weapons. Its not about sovereignty, its about whether governments are stable enough to own a weapon that could destroy another country.

[Burning Water]

96. Could be a

little of both, IMO

[Bassic]

5. The problem is that if Iran does develop nuclear weapons,

a nuclear war between them and Israel is a very real possibility. It could be started by either one, there are a lot of trigger-happy people on either side.

[Don Claybrook]

8. I don't agree

Do you remember mutually-assured destruction? I don't see why either Iran or Israel would suddenly become suicidal. Both countries are well aware that ceasing to exist as a nation is a very real possibility in the event of a nuclear exchange.

[Bassic]

11. Well, the difference is that Iran is led by extremist Muslims

who often don't give a crap about being destroyed in the processess of waging religious warfare. And Isreal is periodically ruled by hard core extremist zionists who don't give a crap about.

You've got two extremist groups baring teeth at eachother, and that could very well be enough to make them go overboard.

Mutually-assured destruction is enough to deter most people because most people are sane and balanced. Religious fanatics, however, are not and that's what you've got running both countries (sometimes,anyway, because Isreal's moderates have much more political weight than Iran's moderates)

Granted, it is not a likely scenario, but nonetheless it is entirely possible.

[HuffleClaw]

15. that is pretty much what people said about india and pakistan

and they came pretty close to a 'nuclear exchange' a couple times too, or so the story goes, the results of which were that cooler heads prevailed.

[Bassic]

18. Yes, and that is the most likely scenario here as well

but still, it remains a distinc possibility. We're talking about people who clearly have no consideration for the lives of the people in either country. All you need is for one of them to decide that it's god will and press the button. The other, wether cool headed or not, would automatically counterstrike.

As I said, it is very unlikely, but it still could happen.

[no_hypocrisy]

20. Don't forget to add the fundamentalist Christians/Zionists who welcome

a trigger for the End of the World/Judgment Day so that Jesus can come back and clean up the mess they made.

[Bassic]

21. Yeah, they're just as dangerous, but I think a conflict is more

likely to involve Israel than the US for now.

[no_hypocrisy]

25. Here's the connection.

Israel feels threatened.
It unilaterally and pre-emptively bombs Iran. Many citizens die.
Iran retaliates in kind against Israel. Many citizens die.
Washington, D.C.: Who's in charge? Christian fundamentalists who love Israel for the reason I previously stated.
U.S. response: Go to Israel's defense since it was attacked unprovoked by Iran. After all, Israel is an ally and is not subject to strict scrutiny of its actions.

[Bassic]

27. I agree but I doubt the reaction would be so quick or drastic from the US

point. For once they would have the luxury of not being labeled as the assailants, so that might stay their hand a little to gain political capital with the rest of the world. Of course the current administration is run by blundering fools, so they might not think of that in time to prevent a strike.

[katty]

48. that's right-these 'folks' are serious about their Armageddon-on

[Occulus]

54. They're betting it all on that, you know.

If that doesn't happen (Jesus coming back), all of christianity will be completely and utterly discredited for all time.

[daleo]

28. And the USSR was led by extremist Marxists

And China was led by extremist Marxists.

(From the USSR and China's point of view in the 1940s to 1980s the U.S. and U.K. were led by extremist capitalists who would do anything to protect their wealth).

This refrain is an old one.

[Bassic]

31. The difference is that extremist marxists

did not believe that martyrs who died for the cause automatically went to paradise with 70 virgins (for example). Political extremism is very dangerous, but religious extrism is even more dangerous because it makes people belittle human life in favor of whatever paradise concept they believe in.

That is why it is entirely possible that someone within the Isaeli or Iranian governments might be fool enough to launch an attack. Such a person might very well not give a rat's ass about his people dying in a retaliatory attack.

Again, I know this is very unlikely.

[daleo]

52. I remember when it was their very lack of religion that was the danger

The argument was as follows:

Marxists didn't believe in God or the afterlife, just the historical inevitability and desirability of world revolution. Therefore, individual people were expendable to the committed communist leadership, if their destruction moved the historical process forward and resulted in the greater good of the communist order. No fear of God's retribution would still their hand on the nuclear button, so to speak.

There was a time when religious fanatics were thought to be much preferable to communists, because they believed in God just as "we" do - that's why Reagan got the arms and money to support the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, for example.

I am just saying that all of these arguments can be lifted from one context to another, essentially unchanged. That tells me they aren't very good arguments i.e. they have propaganda value rather than explanatory value.

[Runcible Spoon]

61. BINGO!

there is most certainly a difference between the ideology of those at the reins of power and the propaganda sold to those who are actually risking their necks to fight these wars. Those in power (or lusting for it) will sell anything (from religion to duty to country to support for the People/Revolution) by exploiting existing social structures and by essentializing those commonly given excuses as naturalized and obvious discourses/values/reasons to die for cause X. Arguably some leaders actually believe in their own propaganda, but don't try to sell me that Bush really believes he is spreading freedom and democracy...

[Bassic]

74. Most of the time that is true.

But sometimes it is not. For example an unbalanced man the likes of Hitler in the last days of the war would not have balked at the idea of using nuclear weapons (had he succeeded in developing them of course)

[Bassic]

73. That however, was a minsonception.

It is an undeniable fact that faith can push people to extremes much more easily than political ideology. It encompasses the masses much more completely.

Extremist marxists, in the end, were but a select group made up of those who held some power. That is not the case with religious extremism : it thrives among the masses. Muslim extremist, for example, have been know to willingly die for their cause. This is exactly the type of people who run Iran right now, and that is what makes a nuclear conflict a very real possibility, albeit unlikely. Pushed to extremes the people in charge just might be capable of sacraficing milions of lives for their goals.

Israel is also run by extremist zionist whose zealotry equals the Iranians and surpasses (for now) that of the American religious right. That is a recipe for disaster.

Lastly : the simple fact that no nuclear conflict arose between the Capitalist and Communist worlds does not mean that such a conflict was impossible. Leaders back then simply managed to avoid it but imagine for a second that Stalin had lived another decade. Still a conflict would have been unlikely, but I remain convinced that even back then it was a distinc possibility.

All that I am saying is that we should not discard this possibility out of hand simply because it hasn't happened yet. As unlikely as it is, nobody wins if we just ignore it.

[Runcible Spoon]

93. I'm still not buying the faith argument wholesale.

Listen, most Americans will put their lives on the line for their children. A smaller percentage would die for their country. Another small percentage would die for their faith. HArdly anyone would die for their state, or their town, or their political party (in this country). THe point is, we have to look beyond the label of "faith" and investigate how/why people configure their identities. The more essential/concrete/immutable an ideology or belief is to someone (being a parent, being a Christian, being an American, being a Texan, etc) the more likely they are to die for it. This varies cross-culturally of course.

[Bridget Burke]

85. And the only country to ever drop atomic bombs...

Was led by patriotic, god fearing Christians!

[Bassic]

88. Indeed, but that is beside the point.

The fact that only the US has used nukes in no way prevents other nations to use them. American Fundies do not have a monoploy stupidity. They are more dangerous than ever, but so are Islamist extremists as well as Zionist extremists.

[GeorgiaDem69]

90. I THINK

that even mainstream American fundamentalists would hesitate to use the bomb. When you start talking about American extremists like Reverend Phelps then all bets are off. It seems to me that the most extreme portions of Iranian society control their government. There's no argument that the current American government is the most conservative and corrupt administration in decades, but I don't think they represent the most extreme portions of our society (maybe Shotgun Dick Cheney does).

[Bassic]

92. Indeed and that is exactly my point about Iran

The Iranian equivalent of Robert Phelps are in charge right now, and that is why they are a cause for concern.

[cantstandbush]

57. Well, the real difference is that Israel has already attacked four of

its neighbors, three unprovoked, and Iran has not. AND the only nation to ever use nukes against another nation has been the US who has already threatened to use them when and where they want to.

[Jim Sagle]

69. Israel has never attacked ANYONE unprovoked.

And you goddamn well know it.

[martymar64]

95. Except the USS Liberty

and YOU Goddamned well know it.

[Bassic]

83. They were attacked a number of times themselves as well

Remember Yom Kippour? (spelling?)

There's no black and no white, the antagony between Isreal and the Islamic countries dates back to the very creation of the Hebrew state.

[EuroObserver]

62. Iran sems to be a relative reasonable,

relatively well-organised and relativey peaceful (but complex) society to my eye.

The extremist provacateurs appear to reside in the other (read neocon PNAC USA) camp. What's more, they dare to pretend to speak not only in the name of US people (in general) but also in the name of "The West", or "the International Community", which I, for one, find extremely illegitimate and insulting.

[Bassic]

77. You are right abour iranian society

Except for the fact that is is controlled by religious fanatics. That is why they are dangerous. If their moderate and progressive underground eventually manages to grap hold of power, than that will put a lot of fears to rest, but for the moment, it's rulers may very well be dagerous.

[Career Prole]

64. If extremists are a problem you might want to see this thread.

Gallup: More Than Half of Americans Reject Evolution, Back Bible

We have our own share of armageddonists roaming the halls of power.

[Bassic]

78. Yes, this is a very big problem

and no less scary than muslim extremism. Something will have to be done to limit their influence in the near future or we ma very well find ourselves living in a strict theocracy one day.

[GeorgiaDem69]

81. I agree that Iran is led by extremists and cannot be trusted

with nukes. Israel on the other hand has possessed them for at least 20 years, which is one of the things (in my opinion) that has kept some semblance of peace in the Middle East.

[Bassic]

82. Well the thing is Israel needs to be kept in check as well

because when push coms to shove, their extremists will be no better than the iranian ones. This is a complicated issue.

[GeorgiaDem69]

84. I agree that any countries extremists need to be controlled

The fact is, while Israel has acted in many ways over the years that are of questionable morality (and illegal under international law) as far as I know they have always done so in the interest of national defense. I don't think that Americans in their cozy little living rooms sitting in front of the computer are justified in criticizing Israel for acting in self-defense, even preemptively.

The difference between what we did in Iraq and a preemptive attack on Iranian nuke facilities by Israel is that Iraq was never a threat to the U.S., while Iran has always been a threat to Israel. Lest anyone forget, it was only a couple of months ago that the Iranian president said the Holocaust never happened.

[Bassic]

87. Indeed Iran is a danger to Israel.

As for Israel only acting in defense that is mostly true, if you don't cout the occupation of palestinian territories and the apporpriation of most of their ressources, but that is another debate entirely.

The point is that any strike by anyone, at this point, will have dire consequences for all of the Middle-East and possibly beyond.

[GeorgiaDem69]

89. Agreed

[MrPrax]

22. Good point...

It is much more unstable with a paranoid ranting Israel armed with nuclear weapons--they are MUCH more likely to waste Tehran for 'the reasons noted above by the Minister', if Iran is unarmed.

Israel and it's fanatics wouldn't care if Tehran was taught a lesson, they might care if Tel Aviv was also taught a lesson in response.

[Bassic]

33. Indeed, but on the other hand

I ran is currently run by extremist muslims. It is entirely conceivable (however improbable) that they take it upon themselves to launch an attack against Isreal. Any Iranians killed in a retaliatory strike would simply be martyrs in the Holy war to them. It is entirely possible, although fairly improbable.

[MrPrax]

72. Your right...

Good point to make...Iran is chock a block full 'extremists'.

I think we both agree that the very terrifying aspect to all this and what horror it might become, is that there are way too many 'extremists' all over TOO close to power...period.

I would like to see this de-escalated FAST and crap like the posted article, don't help.

[Bassic]

75. Entirely true.

My hope is that moderates somehow find a way to grab hold of power. Israeli moderates are well known and could very well be elected (although that seems unlikely right now) but there is hope even for the conservatives if a man like Sharon was able to make concessions.


In the case of Iran, there is apparently a large moderate and progressive underground over there. They have been fighting for more power for years, I just hope they eventually manage to get it. That would calm things down a bit.

[monktonman]

39. Israel has convinced...

themselves that they have a missile shield.

[leveymg]

41. That's a real problem. Illusions have no place in these calculations.

Any illusion means that there is error in the strategic balance, and that it will fail catastrophically.

The best thing that we could do is demonstrate the real gaps in their ABM system to the world. No more illusion. Return to stable balance of terror.

[leveymg]

32. It doesn't matter whether Iran gets the bomb or not. Israel will go nuc-.

lear if Iran retaliates against a bomb attack by launching its chem/bio warheads against Israel among other targets in the region.

The trigger for this is an attack on Iran, not any future nuclear capability it might develop.

[Bassic]

34. That is true, the issue is indeed larger than Iran's

nuclear capability, by no means do I pretend the contrary. Iran's possible nuclear capability however, is also a cause for concern. And really, so is Isael's for that matter.

[Buck Rabbit]

65. A nuclear attack on Israel by Iran is not practical.

Israel is too small geographically to hit with nuclear weapons without reeking havoc on the same Palestinians that they would be attacking Israel for in the first place.

Muslims clerics vaporizing Jerusalem, one of their own holy cities, in a suicidal first strike makes no sense.

Lastly, beyond rhetoric, what actions have the Iranian Theocracy actually taken against any foreign government. They defended themselves when attacked by Iraq, other than that they have been largely Isolationist.


No one has ever used nuclear weapons on another country who had them to use back.

[Bassic]

76. No that is true.

Praticality, however, may not hold a candle to faith in the end. By no means is this sure to happen, in fact there is very little chance for it to happen, but Iranian leaders may very well be blinded by faith and the conviction that any muslim killed will simply be a martyr in the Holy war and go straigth to heaven.


Isreal may be small but it dominates the region because of it's ties to the US and that is a great irritant to extremist muslims. It is quite possible that they may eventually use them.

I realize that Iran wants to develop nukes in order to build up a deterring force to ward of possibly attacks, but if conflict escalates between these two bunches of extremists, it is impossible to say where it may lead.

[adigal]

70. Yes, this is worrisome. I have always supported Israel

but I really think they need to stay out of this because all they will do is fan the flames. And if, God forbid, Israel used Bush's policy of preemptive strikes, the world will literally explode from all of the anger. And our guys in Iraq will be right in the line of fire.

We will have a mess on our hands.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Poll_Blind]

7. Liberal Israelis are in serious trouble- Israeli culture is at a turning..

...point. I feel for the liberal Israelis who do not support the current conservative Sharonist government. They have known for a while now that their country was out of control. This is exacerbated by the fact that a number of Palestinian militant groups are also out of control. However, this is nothing to the situation they will find themselves in if their country attacks Iran.

I have seen no proof that Iran has nuclear weapons just as I have seen no proof that Iraq has them.

If Israel attacks Iran this is not only going to be ugly for Israel as a nation- it's also going to make life a hell of alot harder for liberals in Israel. Go check out the I/P forums for a wisp of a shadow of what the enmity is like between hawks and doves on this matter. In Israel on the street it is much much more pronounced.

There are a number of organizations in Israel like Gush Shalom, for instance, working for peace. These organizations are viewed through the same heretical lenses by the conservatives that our liberal organizations are viewed by the conservatives. Except you toss in things like the Holocaust which comes up frequently in the explosive internal politics of the nation and you have the makings of a civil war.

Their country is faced with many complex political issues which their current government has been "solving" with a heavy-handed militaristic approach. That approach is arguable in some sense. However on a macroscopic level Israel will find itself in deep deep shit both from the international community and from the struggle of warring political factions within itself should this come to pass.

History, even written in Israel, will judge the nation harshly for its behavior now. However, Israel which was created by an international community sympathetic to a people abused and nearly exterminated cannot afford to behave like their big-brother with deep pockets, the U.S., in this matter.

I'm not saying the Israelis can stop this. I fear there is little they can do if the Sharonist government decides to start military action. This is going to kill most political goodwill for the nation not only for goyim but for a significant portion of diasporic Jews. And therein lies the rub- if liberal diasporic Jews do not feel safe in Israel then the conservatives in Israel have effectively destroyed some of the hope that the creation of Israel intended to enshrine.

This is the chief reason why I currently detest the behavior of the Israeli government. They are destroying the spirit of Israel and changing it into something very few, Jew or gentile, are comfortable with.

PB

[peacetalksforall]

12. Thank you for your post. You are telling it as it is. This sentence

"And therein lies the rub- if liberal diasporic Jews do not feel safe in Israel then the conservatives in Israel have effectively destroyed some of the hope that the creation of Israel intended to enshrine."

is loaded with the truth.

Why do conservatives have to be bomb droppers? The real kind.

[Just Me]

16. I always appreciate such thoughtful, balanced posts like yours.

Thank you for sharing your perspective. :hi:

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fujiyama]

40. I am not

the biggest Sharon fan, but your post, while making some points, is not completely accurate.

First off, for all practical purposes, Sharon is dead. Before his incapacitation he did form a new party - Kadima - in response to the Likudniks, who basically felt he was giving too much away by pulling out from theh Gaza Strip. I found statements praising Sharon as a "man of peace" to be a stretch, but it is undeniable that he showed some political courage in pulling out of Gaza (at the alienation of some real fanatics - ie the settlers and other Likudniks - who made up his base).

If you thought Sharon was bad, then you must not be familar with Netanyahu and the like. They will make Sharon look like Shimon Peretz.

[Poll_Blind]

I disagree- specifically: Just because Sharon created Kadima, it...

...does not absolve him of the damage that he has done ih 30+ years of his conservative Israeli politics. He pandered to the settlers, just as conservatives in the United States pander to the fundamental Christian right. Once the death threats started pouring in from those same fundamentalists, he realized that theirs was a fire too strong to be harnessed or directed and he realized it could burn him just as badly as help him. He realized the schizm between the Israeli far right and the goals of Israel as a nation and backed off, forming Kadima. However because of the timing of his stroke we will never know how he would have fully realized the organization or in what directions he would have taken it.

I trust Sharon to be Sharon- expecting anything more or postulating that he would have made this or that change in direction or methods of executing power is reaching beyond what the facts and history will support.

I'm no fan of Bibi either but being the lesser of two evils, to speak metaphorically, does not make one good. I know you're not stating or even implying that Sharon was friend to any Liberal but I want to make a point about how I see him, even in comparison to his more hardline political bretheren.

What the people of Israel need is not the lesser of two conservative evils but a liberal government to facilitate peace both within the region and within the country itself and bring Israel back as an example of a country founded on recognition of the rights of all men.

PB

[fujiyama]

53. Regarding the last paragraph

Of course they don't NEED a choice of "two evils", but sometimes that's all we, or them get in a democratic society.

Israel needs someone like Rabin again, but we know what happens to those that give "too much" away for peace. They get killed often times by fanatics in their own nation. This sort of thing makes things difficult for reformers to accomplish much in any society.

As we know, Sharon's tenure was cut short. It's difficult to know what approach he would have taken in the future. As I said, Sharon had a history of violence against the Palestianian people and it was difficult for someone like him or Arafat for that matter to negotiate much in good faith with much trust or credibility from the other party.

That's why him taking ANY steps toward less violence was in my opinion a step in the positive direction.

But still, like you, I would hope they can do better. They certainly need that.

[Just Me]

55. I think Sharon finally FINALLY admitted to himself, those hard-line,...

,...policies kept the conflict in full-scale mode and would NEVER result in peace.

After 30+ years of failing to establish a secure Israel, Sharon FINALLY got it: radical right rule of force policies just recycle violence, over and over again, and perpetuate feelings of injustice and oppression, desperation and revenge. I won't even try to speculate how successful the new Kadima party would be had Sharon not had that stroke. I sincerely do hope that, Kadima will essentially replace the former radical party that has been fully responsible for escalating conflict rather than reaching towards resolution.

[katty]

50. great post-thank you

[RazzleDazzle]

9. Same damn script as the build-up to Iraq, except now

it's ISRAEL who has to act to defend if UN won't/can't. For Iraq it was the U.S. who just "had to act" if the UN wouldn't/couldn't.

Bah.

And then, of course, the U.S. would have to support and join Israel because Israel is, after all, our most important ally.

Hellllloooo WWIII. I thought we had you licked.

[kurth]

10. Let Israel and Iran go at it!

Stay out of the way. Far, far away.

[wordpix2]

23. oh, yeah, that will be a big help to ME peace (sarcasm)

[HuffleClaw]

13. so, they've adopted bushco.'s policy of pre-emption?

and they are lying outright too, there's just NO WAY they'd do such an attack alone. NONE. they aren't capable. its just that simple.

[jpak]

14. Can they do it without US help or access to I-raqi airspace????

Israel has submarine-launched cruise missiles and long range ballistic missiles (presumably nuclear armed but also capable of delivering "conventional" explosives) - and long range F-15I fighter/bombers, but could they pull off an air strike without US help (AWACS, JSTARS, aerial refueling, SAR, electronic support) or access to Iraqi airspace????

I doubt it, and Iran would launch ballistic missiles against them - however effective or ineffective that would be....

Shit meet fan.

[HuffleClaw]

17. no, no they couldn't

not successfully they couldn't. iran has had more than enough time to prepare. it would HAVE to be a joint US/Israeli mission. this is bluster, meant to prod the IAEA into action. i'm hoping the IAEA is smarter than to bow to us/israeli interests in this matter.

[wordpix2]

26. WTF? Murtha was interviewed yesterday and said Iran was no imminent

threat. But America IS threatened because "the Army is broken." He cited tour-of-duty extensions, divorce rates up 70%, and no one signing up. Said there's no way we could fight a second front if we had to and Iran knows it so why doesn't BushCo STFU with its constant war mongering?

Sorry if I got a bit off topic here.

[daleo]

29. Reuters seems to have pulled the story now. n/t

On edit - a second later it was back. I wonder if there was a minor rewrite or something like that?

[0007]

86. What a provoking fucking title to this article......it has a the

sound of Rumsfeld written all over it!

[aquart]

30. That was fine when people were scared of the United States.

Back then, Israel could make a hit and we were there, in spirit, to protect them. Now, we're exposed on every flank. The entire world knows how badly damaged our military is, our finances, and they know that we can't protect our citizens during and after a disaster on our own soil.

If Israel were invaded tomorrow, she would be entirely on her own.

[Poll_Blind]

38. If Israel were invaded tomorrow she would not be entirely on her own.

The same nations of the earth which find unprovoked aggression odious in the case of Iraq and potentially Iran would find it equally odious should Israel the victim of unprovoked aggression. The United Nations would come to their aid.

Such is the reason why the United Nations exists. The same family of nations partly responsible for the creation of Israel would not turn their backs on that country should it be victimized.

There are many countries in the United Nations which find that Israel's current government acts outside the law on occasion and files resolutions to call attention to these acts. However, to state that Israel would not be helped at all, that "she would be entirely on her own" is a thankless and unnecessary slap at those who have helped her in the past and who will come to her aid in the future.

Israel needs to court a positive relationship with the international community which is why it has been a member of the United Nations since 1949. Israeli politicians still understand this need. To be part of a greater family of nations is the only way nations may band together to stop such abhorrent practices as unprovoked aggression.

Posts like yours attempt to portray Israel as a victim of the indifference of the world are very distorted and personally distressing to read.

PB

[leveymg]

44. One thing nobody in the world feels toward Israel today is indifference.

One thing that Israel needs to get over is its feeling that it is a victim of the world.

No country that has 300 nuclear warheads and global delivery systems is in any real danger of military annihilation. One can certainly understand given Israel's example why Iran is hell-bent on gaining its own.

The problem that Israel has with the prospect of Iran obtaining the bomb is not that it will ever be used, but that Israel will no longer be able to threaten Iran with a unilateral nuclear strike. Why they can't just grow up and learn to live with it, as did the U.S. in the face of nuclear arms built by Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, South Africa, and even North Korea, is beyond me.

[Spazito]

43. If Israel were to attack pre-emptively, watch all that desperately

needed foreign funds from the Saudis, China, etc, that is currently keeping the US afloat, be pulled faster than a wink.

[Poll_Blind]

45. And the US is helping keep Israel afloat, financially.

If and I want to emphasize if Israel decides to act unilaterally or bilaterally with the U.S. in a military strike on Iran they may be able to deal with military reprisals. However, their conservative government has driven their economy into the ground and if they were to lose the financial backing they so desperately need they would be devastated.

Devastated.

I am always concerned about the possibility of a nuclear nation in severe financial straights. As with Pakistan, the nuclear arsenal would be in danger of falling into fundamentalist hands or worse, being sold by corrupt members of a bankrupt government.

PB

[Spazito]

46. Exactly, and we know, money is what it is all about

The US cannot afford to alienate those who are propping up their country and that very much includes the Saudis, Russia, China.

[Poll_Blind]

49. What a tangled mess...so many deals with the devil (s). Do you...

...think we can ever get out of it, somehow? Most of the time I don't even bother to think about how to disentangle this whole mess but I'd love to hear any ideas.

PB

[Spazito]

51. First, dump bush and his cabal, that will help....

Reform the UN so NO country has a veto on the Security Council, add more countries to the Security Council so it reflects today's world instead of the world of 1948. Strengthen the UN and given them more clout to resolve differences diplomatically.

Once resolutions have been passed by the Security Council with regard to sanctions, etc, then they must be enforced consistently instead of some being acted on while others are let slide.

No country should have more influence than any other when it comes to international matters, it must be a majority decision as per our current global world.

Those are my thoughts, only some beginnings but we have to start somewhere.

[Poll_Blind]

58. I was thinking more of the financial woes we're in- with all out...

...biggest creditors being, arguably, our worst enemies. :-(

I agree very much with suggestions for U.N. reform though- the U.S. has mocked and manipulated it at every turn then claimed a victim of it's "manipulation" when they don't get what they want!

PB

[Spazito]

59. Well, the bottom line is Americans have to bite the bullet and

do what is very painful. Cut funding in all but the essential programs and raise interest rates and taxes until the budget is balanced. If the cuts are across the board and fair then everyone is equally unhappy. Once the budget is balanced and any surplus is generated, the surplus needs to be divided into two, one half to return funding to programs and the other half reduce the debt.

There is no painless way to do it as Canada found out after a Conservative government nearly bankrupted us. It took 5 years of very hard times to balance the budget but, since then, we have had 8 years of surpluses which have allowed us to put money back into programs and reduce the debt.

[0007]

79. This makes good sense to me!

A Time Out needs to be called to sort this mess out.

[Emillereid]

60. Color me surprised! I've been expecting the Israeli angle for some time-

Israel will probably be assigned the first strike, followed by US backup -- and won't you know, after it's finished, the US will expropriate just enough land inside of Iran to provide a security buffer for Iraq that includes much of the Iranian oil fields.

[m0nkeyneck]

63. simple strategy

1)invest all you can in domestic energy(VLO,FTO,HAL,WNR,etc)
2)sell after invasion(at a profit of course)
3)re-invest in European alternative energy(Conergy AG, Iberdrola SA,etc)

make $$$ while saving the planet

[xchrom]

66. if anybody preemptively bombs iran -- we will.

mind you mossad will furnish all the directions and maps we need -- but we will do it.

there is some insane belief floating around these days that preemptively bombing this or that -- preemptively warring here and there -- is somehow furthering peace.

anybody seen their peace around?

[teryang]

68. It is Iranian conventional power and sovereignty that scares

...imperialists and Israel. Iran doesn't need nuclear bombs to push back American hegemony nor Israeli initiatives. Their nuclear "weapons" program is a red herring. The conventional nuclear program will give them a quantum leap in conventional economic power, currency reserves and political influence. This is the boogey man not any nuclear weapons threat.

Their developement into the leading regional power of the middle east is a natural one. The Anglo-American alliance and Israel are trying to turn back the clock. It's a futile destructive effort.

[Harper_is_Bush]

71. Unfair title. He said they will defend themselves, not "act". n/t

[Wordie]

94. Jeez...I hope this is no more than pre-election posturing. eom