Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

'Stop Iran or I will' - Netanyahu

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    by that definition either every country in the world should have nukes or none. Good luck with that.
    Well that is my POW on nukes already. I strongly believe in MAD since it seems there is no alternative to it.

    Israel did not sign the NPT, Iran did.
    That doesn't change the security problem Iran faces. Sould there be a war Iran would be defenceless against Israel without their own nukes. They would prefer to dishonor NPT than taking such a risk.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by TTL View Post
      That doesn't change the security problem Iran faces. Sould there be a war Iran would be defenceless against Israel without their own nukes. They would prefer to dishonor NPT than taking such a risk.
      There never was any war posturing between Israel and Iran until the Mullahs took over and started shouting at every pulpit threatening anti-Israeli mantra. This animosity that now exists between Israel and Iran is the making of Iran. Israel holds no interests in the affairs Iran whatsoever but is forced now to be vigilant against Iran not because Iran executes teenagers & homosexuals, nor because they stiffle freedom of speach & religion, Israel cares nothing to that. But they are vigilant because of direct physical threatenings made by Iran against Israel. Iran lambasts the West for meddling in the affairs of the middle east yet Iran takes it upon itself to chair and directly meddle in the affairs between countries sharing boarders. Israel does not share a boarder with Iran why should it be taking it upon itself to chair affairs that that are divorced from its boarders? Are Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon who are directly affected by the Israeli domestic issues incompetant to deal with these issues to warrant Iran's involvement? Is Iran saying it knows what is best for Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan & Lebanon and the said countries don't?

      It is Iran that is looking for trouble with Israel, not the other way round.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by TTL View Post
        They would prefer to dishonor NPT than taking such a risk.
        They could withdraw from the NPT but they haven't which makes them a legal target.

        Comment


        • #34
          There never was any war posturing between Israel and Iran until the Mullahs took over and......................issues to warrant Iran's involvement? Is Iran saying it knows what is best for Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan & Lebanon and the said countries don't?

          It is Iran that is looking for trouble with Israel, not the other way round.
          The problems between Iran and Israel and their causes are deep and complex. Each side blames the other and each has their own allies. What is revalant to the regional power balance is that there is open hostility between those powers and if one of them has a critical advantage, the other cannot simply do nothing.

          I think they are not withdrawing from the NPT to sway the world's public opinion to their side (claiming they are not building a bomb). Usual political games to hide the real agenda.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by TTL View Post
            The problems between Iran and Israel and their causes are deep and complex.
            They are not. They are only deep and complex between Israel and Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. Iran has no case whatsover with Israel.

            Originally posted by TTL View Post
            What is revalant to the regional power balance is that there is open hostility ...
            Yeah, there are hostilities between the countries named above because they have an unfavorable history between them. There is no history whatsoever between Israel and Iran, and Iran must simply ship out of the issue altogether. They were never invited by the parties to broker their quarrels.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Zinja View Post

              It is Iran that is looking for trouble with Israel, not the other way round.
              Thats why several years after that right winger said anything about wiping israel off the map (nothing was ever mentioned about force) You have Yahoo demanding the U.S do something about Iran, or 'it' WILL. Right at the moment when dialougue is opening up.

              Israels leadership needs to realise its place whilst the big boys sort the situation out. One says the timing of the incident, is more of a wish of the current Israeli leaderships' wish to keep hostilities going, than peacefull resolution. At least that is the word comming out of the diplomatic services of several countries well versed in the issue, and that includes the U.S state dept.

              Too bad for yahoo, comming to power based on talking tough. He's going to collide head on with some very concerted individuals who won't have the time of day for that attitude.

              Tzipi Livni might have the numbers in 8 or so months time after yahoo fails on his current tact, and then a collective sigh of relief will be heard as sanity returns.

              You have to look it from a reality point of view. Screaming WMD's was something some people undertook in 2003, and it failed miserably. The ME is a hostile place for Israel, and the "wiping Israel off the map" comment doesn't really raise the Ire of many people that are used to it... at all, it's nothing new. The goal is to extend an open hand of diplomacy to Iran, if it becomes increasingly clear that Iran is only interested in taking and not giving, it will only be painting itself into the corner, much like NK has. Iranians arn't stupid people, and arn't likely to tolerate that, however if it does, like NK, it will be nearly hard, if not nie impossible for it to extract itself from that situation, with the only option being capitulation, turning reclusive, or all out war.

              Israel stirring shit, goes straight to the last option If that isn't looking for trouble, then what is? Clearly Israel is under about ZERO risk from being attacked by Iran militarily, let alone successfully, just about every first class intel agency in the world knows it. All Israel has done is discredited it's own agencies with hyped up nuke capability threats, that have subsequently been shot down by the CIA, MI6, IAEA, the Germans, etc, etc.
              Ego Numquam

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by TTL View Post
                I think they are not withdrawing from the NPT to sway the world's public opinion to their side (claiming they are not building a bomb). Usual political games to hide the real agenda.
                Which makes them a legal military target.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Which makes them a legal military target.
                  Only if that hypothesis is proven to be true and accepted by international community. Though I don't see legal or moral issues relevant to solution of this conflict. I believe to establish peace the right approach is to solve the underlying causes rather than arguing endlessly over who is right or who is the criminal.
                  Last edited by TTL; 04 Apr 09,, 12:59.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    AQ Khan is that proof.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by TTL View Post
                      That doesn't change the security problem Iran faces. Sould there be a war Iran would be defenceless against Israel without their own nukes. They would prefer to dishonor NPT than taking such a risk.
                      1. Iran does not face a security problem from Israel. Israel has never once fired a shot in anger at Iran. Iran however does support, fund, train and arm groups that have taken thousands of shots at Israel.

                      2. No nation has ever been attacked by nukes unless it first used WMD's itself.

                      3. Iran claims its program is for peaceful power generation, not a nuclear arsenal. The evidence so far supports this. Th reactor at Bushehr is a VER-1000 light water pressurized design with a fuel cycle to short to allow much in the way of military grade plutonium generation. It would also require Iran to find a way to siphon off a considerable amount of LEU for enrichment into HEU for a bomb while under the nose of constant IAEA supervision.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by zraver View Post
                        3. Iran claims its program is for peaceful power generation, not a nuclear arsenal. The evidence so far supports this. Th reactor at Bushehr is a VER-1000 light water pressurized design with a fuel cycle to short to allow much in the way of military grade plutonium generation. It would also require Iran to find a way to siphon off a considerable amount of LEU for enrichment into HEU for a bomb while under the nose of constant IAEA supervision.
                        I have made the same mistake myself. All Pu is weapons grade

                        http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.h...469-470/2.html

                        However, the AQ Khan evidence do strongly suggest that they're going the Uranium method. However, until they can get the cascades working, the demand for LEU just is not there.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by chakos View Post
                          Call me Darwinian but i would rather see them wipe each other out rather than drag the rest of us into a massive regional war over who has the bigger d**k in the Mideast.

                          I look at it subjectivelly, i dont see either of them as any better or worse than the other. They both have goals that really dont agree with those of the rest of the Western world and i also see that they are slowly but surelly looking at clashing with each other over those goals. So be it, do it, just dont drag the rest of us down with you.
                          You clearly have no idea of what the “Western world” is, nor do you understand the nature of the conflict of Israel with its neighbors.

                          I suspect the study of History and the history and genealogy of ideas would take you very long. As a shortcut, why don’t you do yourself a favor and study the body of jurisprudence of Israel’s Supreme Court or the figure of Aharon Barak?


                          On top of that, keep in mind that in essence, there is nothing “western” in the values that inform open societies, either. They are the universal values of the human spirit. No actual political system can hope to translate them perfectly into its legislation, but it is certainly possible to compare and adjudicate judgment in terms of quality. I mention it because I think Iranian society is a lot more "western" than the Iranian regime, and also more than other societies in the region which apparently you regard friendlier to the “Western world”.


                          You will then realize why is it that Israeli Law should be regarded as exemplary if we are to judge the question by open society’s standards. Israel is of an Scandinavian quality; and the fact that it occurs in the Middle East is a measure of its enormous merit. It also demonstrates that democracies can be very resilient, even under siege.
                          L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by chakos View Post
                            Whats with you and your holding of Israel on a pedestal??? Iran has no real issue with Europe yet you expect Europe to shoot itself in the foot economically to support Israel. If i owned a company in any European country and an Iranian company put in an order for precision goods why the hell would i reject the order? Will the Israeli government subsidize my lost income? Will i be able to go to the Israeli embassy and say ' I rejected a contract worth $X million Euros, can you please deposit that lost income into XYZ bank account?'

                            Free trade is just that... different story if i was an Israeli business but why should European (or any other non-Israeli) business suffer?

                            Iran has no real issue with Europe, eh?

                            Well, the Iranian regime disagrees with you. For example, they have appointed themselves as censors of what it is acceptable for publishing, not in Iran but in Britain. A direct assault on free speech, which I'm sure you know, is the cornerstone of open societies. They are the largest sponsors of terrorism. Should they get their hands on nukes, not only terrorist activity is guaranteed to surge; that would almost certainly trigger a nuclear weapons race in the Middle East. I cannot think of any foreseeable event more contrary to European (and Middle East) interests, than freelance nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

                            So, can we pass the bill of the costs associated to your greedy "entrepreneur" pricks?

                            As an example, the Iranians already have missiles that can reach most of Europe, and a defensive system is in order. How much is that going to cost? And that would only be the beginning.

                            But the point is that you don't understand the nature and implications of the menace.
                            L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by GraniteForge View Post
                              As we have discussed in other threads, Israel certainly doesn't balk at "attacking civilians, woman and children," either. Both sides have dirty hands here, and neither side holds any moral high ground.
                              That is not true. Israel clearly holds, and has always held the moral high ground in its wars with its neighbors.

                              First of all, the wars were ALWAYS initiated by their neighbors. That alone defines who is the aggressor from the get go. And Israel NEVER attacks civilians.

                              I have hundreds of examples from the other belligerents if you want. It has always impressed me what the Jordanians did in 67. Prime minister Eskhol sent a message to King Hussein assuring him Israel would not attack Jordan unless Jordan initiated hostilities. In diplomatic terms this is begging not to have a War. Jordan's answer was to shell Jerusalem with 1600 pieces of heavy artillery to open the War. Imagine the brutality involved in that action, shelling a city in cold blood...

                              I challenge you to come up with examples of the Israeli Army deliberately attacking civilians in the numerous wars forced on them by their jealous and supremacist neighbors.

                              I utterly reject the line of reasoning that argues: "Look at Gaza last winter, civilians were killed"

                              Because we should ask ourselves why is it that civilians were killed in Gaza as a result of the Israeli Army actions. And the apparently paradoxical answer is:

                              Because the Israeli Army doesn't attack civilians, that's why.

                              The enemies of Israel know this. They know very well that Israel's Army has a doctrine of "Purity of Arms". They know that if Israel resorts to targeted killings first they have to filter out the mission through a judiciary independent from the Army. And they know that if they surround themselves with civilians the mission would be aborted. And so the guy who has masterminded a suicide bombing in a pizzeria that has ended the life of a dozen teenagers walks around Gaza embedded in a group of civilians who provide for his defense.

                              It is a war crime to use civilians as shields, and Israel not only is legitimized to target the aggressors who go after its civilians, it has the duty to do so.
                              L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                That is not true. Israel clearly holds, and has always held the moral high ground in its wars with its neighbors.

                                First of all, the wars were ALWAYS initiated by their neighbors. That alone defines who is the aggressor from the get go. And Israel NEVER attacks civilians.
                                Your first claim is very abstract. Arabs clearly see them as usurpers of their land and while it is arguable that both Jews and Arabs had a right to live there there is some historic facts about how Israel was founded after WWII with western support against wishes of the Arabs.

                                And Israelis are only as moral as any other country. Mossad is not feared because of its principled and honorable operatives. Assasinating people with hellfires is not the most precise way to reduce collateral damage.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X