[spiky_dog]

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_09_13/article.html

While the United States is keeping an eye on Iran’s nuclear progress, there is another country watching even more closely. Israel, feeling the most threatened by Iran’s march towards nuclear competency, is reportedly preparing a repeat of its 1981 raid on Iraq’s nuclear facility at Osirak. With about 140,000 American troops in neighboring Iraq, chances that the U.S. will intervene militarily are slim, making it all the more probable that Israel will feel it has to act unilaterally.

According to a recent report, Israel has built replicas of Iran’s nuclear facilities in the Negev Desert, where their fighter-bombers have been practicing test runs for months. Israel realizes it has a small window of opportunity if it is to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities before they go “hot” and leakage from an attack causes harmful exposure to tens of thousands of civilians caught by radiation forced into the atmosphere by such a raid.

Israel is unlikely to accept Iran’s word that its nuclear program is meant solely for peaceful purposes and aimed at developing commercial energy. The possibility of decisive military action is, indeed, high.

What follows is the unfolding of a worst-case scenario, an imaginary yet all-too-possible depiction of how events might develop if Israel were to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.

[...]

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_09_13/article.html

read the article! i've had these thoughts for a few years, but now i'm becoming more convinced that an all-out war is the only way the middle east situation will be "resolved" in the near future. if the u.s. somehow would avoid condemnation of israel even if they (in this hypothetical war) struck first and/or used nuclear weapons in battle then widespread public outcry might finally prompt a long-overdue change in policy...

another note: this article is from american conservative magazine. note that some conservatives can and do disagree strongly with the neocon policies of gwb's administration.

my questions to the audience: do you think that such a war is plausible? imminent? if not, why not? what is to be done?

[lil'babykitten]

It's pretty obvious that they are up to something.

But it's not going too well on all fronts.

Israeli Spy Satellite Destroyed

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
It's pretty obvious that they are up to something.

But it's not going too well on all fronts.

Israeli Spy Satellite Destroyed

in all fairness the u.s. has lost quite a few spy satellites (at $1B a pop for the latest!) on launch in its time, too, so it's not like the israelis are in bad company. what had never heard before was this, from the above BBC article:

Unlike other countries, Israel launches its satellites into space westward, against the Earth's spin, so that any failed vehicles cannot fall on to an Arab country.

To do this, Israel requires a stronger rocket than would be the case for a vehicle launching to the east and receiving assistance from the Earth's rotation.

[PacHead]

Israel has my full support in bombing the nuke facilities of Iran. When Israel took out Iraq's reactor decades ago, many condemned them, now most praise them in hindsight. The USA & Israel should take out Iran's reactors in a join operation. It doesn't matter who bombs them, as long as it's done.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Israel has my full support in bombing the nuke facilities of Iran. When Israel took out Iraq's reactor decades ago, many condemned them, now most praise them in hindsight. The USA & Israel should take out Iran's reactors in a join operation. It doesn't matter who bombs them, as long as it's done.

Agreed. I read that article, sounds like a novel. I don't think that Iran would be stupid enough to actually attack Israel though... Israel has a history of beating the snot out of those that attack them.

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Israel has my full support in bombing the nuke facilities of Iran. When Israel took out Iraq's reactor decades ago, many condemned them, now most praise them in hindsight. The USA & Israel should take out Iran's reactors in a join operation. It doesn't matter who bombs them, as long as it's done.

why should israel be the lone nuclear power in the region? i thought mutually assured destruction was what kept the soviets at bay, and that an imbalance of power would lead to instability. is that not what is being played out now?

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Agreed. I read that article, sounds like a novel. I don't think that Iran would be stupid enough to actually attack Israel though... Israel has a history of beating the snot out of those that attack them.

pakistan is a nuclear power. wouldn't a possible nuclear exchange put a slight dent in your "beating the snot out of those that attack [israel]" theory?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by spiky_dog:
why should israel be the lone nuclear power in the region? i thought mutually assured destruction was what kept the soviets at bay, and that an imbalance of power would lead to instability. is that not what is being played out now?

Crazy, islamic, dictatorial run terrorist states should not have nukes. It's a very simple concept.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by spiky_dog:
pakistan is a nuclear power. wouldn't a possible nuclear exchange put a slight dent in your "beating the snot out of those that attack [israel]" theory?

Pakistan has never been in conflict with Israel. They haven't participated in any of the past wars against Israel. Pakistan has enough to worry about with India.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by spiky_dog:
pakistan is a nuclear power. wouldn't a possible nuclear exchange put a slight dent in your "beating the snot out of those that attack [israel]" theory?

When was the last time you heard Pakistan speak out against Israel?

[djohnson]

Originally posted by spiky_dog:
why should israel be the lone nuclear power in the region? i thought mutually assured destruction was what kept the soviets at bay, and that an imbalance of power would lead to instability. is that not what is being played out now?

Ok so lets look at it your way. You want all Islamic nations to have nukes since Israel has nukes. There is a small problem with this... 1 Israel and many Islamic nations. You dont think that they would launch an attack against Israel if they thought they could win? By the way, read up about a war that was started against Israel in the past...

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...ry/67_War.html - 1st google hit

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by djohnson:
When was the last time you heard Pakistan speak out against Israel?

general musharraf might be under the u.s. thumb at the moment, but pakistan is a muslim nation. as such there is much pressure from within to go with the al qaeda party line:

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/jul20...3/metro/k5.htm

Prof N D Khan said that whatever agreement General Pervez had made with US should be put before parliament and maintained that Pakistan should also adopt the same stance as that of OIC and Arab countries about Israel.

"Anti-Pakistan demonstrations in Afghanistan have exposed results of the unsuccessful foreign policy adopted by the current rulers. It is the need of the hour that Muslim states adopt a common stance on issues of Kashmir and Palestine," Prof N D Khan said.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EG17Df01.html

A key factor propelling the present leadership in Pakistan is the growing strategic relationship between the Jewish state and India. Israel has become a major arms supplier to India. In late May, it was reported that the US had lifted its objection to Israel selling its Phalcon airborne radar system to India in a billion-dollar deal. The radar, which is mounted on a cargo plane, will significantly extend the range of the Indian air force.

India is also said to have expressed interest in the Arrow, a defense system developed by Israel against ballistic missiles. "Israel does not view its relationship with India as a step against Pakistan, and proceeds very cautiously in this sphere," Ze'ev Schiff, defense editor of the daily Haaretz newspaper said in a recent comment.

But Israel is aware that Pakistan is concerned over its strategic ties with India. "What worries leaders in Pakistan is that India's relationship with Israel has given it a type of strategic edge," says Vertzberger. "There have even been press reports [in Pakistan] that Israel is going to help India undermine Pakistan's nuclear capability. These are baseless."

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Crazy, islamic, dictatorial run terrorist states should not have nukes. It's a very simple concept.

discounting "terrorist" since accepted use seems to be that "anti-u.s." equates to "terrorist", your statement is equally applicable to north korea. except they're not islamic...

[djohnson]

Alright! Israel is selling military hardware to India. What about all of those arms that the USSR sold to Arab nations?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by spiky_dog:
general musharraf might be under the u.s. thumb at the moment, but pakistan is a muslim nation. as such there is much pressure from within to go with the al qaeda party line:

That is very much true. Pakistan is the place which basically founded-supported the Taliban goons, and there's a huge Al-Qaeda support in Pakistan. Hell, that's where most people think Bin Laden is hiding out.

The day the radical goons take over in Pakistan is the day the USA would spring into action. Israel would be the least of Pakistans problems then.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by spiky_dog:
discounting "terrorist" since accepted use seems to be that "anti-u.s." equates to "terrorist", your statement is equally applicable to north korea. except they're not islamic...

No, terrorist does not mean "anti-USA". If that were the case, France would be a terrorist state, and Germany too for that matter.

Terrorist = Financing, supporting terrorists, something which Iran does.

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Alright! Israel is selling military hardware to India. What about all of those arms that the USSR sold to Arab nations?

what about them? i was just establishing that it would make sense for pakistan to jump to iran's defense should israel pre-emptively strike at iran's nuclear program as per the article.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by spiky_dog:
what about them? i was just establishing that it would make sense for pakistan to jump to iran's defense should israel pre-emptively strike at iran's nuclear program as per the article.

History and facts, seem to contradict your statement. They have never jumped to anybodys defense before, regarding Israel.

[dcolton]

What a great situation! Israel attacks Iran. Russia retakes Chechyna. Iran and a handfull of other nations responds to Israel while the US comes in from behind and ends the terrorist threat from the middle east.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by dcolton:
What a great situation! Israel attacks Iran. Russia retakes Chechyna. Iran and a handfull of other nations responds to Israel while the US comes in from behind and ends the terrorist threat from the middle east.

Yeah, just imagine the bloodshed that would result from all that too! Fantastic!

[dcolton]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Yeah, just imagine the bloodshed that would result from all that too! Fantastic!

Like the bloodshed in Russia? It is time for the nonsense to come to an end. We have learned that we cannot treat terrorists with respect. We have learned that we cannot appease terrorists. We have learned that a terrorist and their supporters want nothing more than to wash their hands with the blood of anything western. If the muslims won't be a catylist for peace, what other option is there?

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by PacHead:
History and facts, seem to contradict your statement. They have never jumped to anybodys defense before, regarding Israel.

on the other hand, having nuclear weapons changes the balance of power significantly, and they've never been in the position they're currently in...

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by dcolton:
If the muslims won't be a catylist for peace, what other option is there?

how about the u.s. changing its policies that osama bin laden has made so abundantly clear that he will not tolerate?

if you re-read my first post, this is why i morbidly think that the article's scenario might be the only way to achieve peace: israel strikes iran, other muslim nations respond, israel goes nuclear. the u.s. could not quell public condemnation for israel, and that might be the impetus for the u.s. to change its policy of unconditional support of israel, and, as such, give us at last a viable exit strategy from this endless and unwinnable "war on terror".

[PacHead]

Originally posted by spiky_dog:
how about the u.s. changing its policies that osama bin laden has made so abundantly clear that he will not tolerate?

NO

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Like the bloodshed in Russia? It is time for the nonsense to come to an end. We have learned that we cannot treat terrorists with respect. We have learned that we cannot appease terrorists. We have learned that a terrorist and their supporters want nothing more than to wash their hands with the blood of anything western. If the muslims won't be a catylist for peace, what other option is there?

Don't take this as an attempt to play down the recent atrocity that took place in Russia, BUT, the Russian army is also responsible for some horrific incidents that have occurred in Chechnya. Both sides have done some pretty disgusting things even if the recent hostage taking topped it all off.

For every action there is a reaction and it just gets bloodier and bloodier each time. To be perfectly honest I don't know what other alternative there is. But all out war doesn't necessarily resolve the problems either. It would more than likely serve to create more. Not to mention the extensive loss of human life that would occur. And I find that to be too high a price.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by spiky_dog:
how about the u.s. changing its policies that osama bin laden has made so abundantly clear that he will not tolerate?

if you re-read my first post, this is why i morbidly think that the article's scenario might be the only way to achieve peace: israel strikes iran, other muslim nations respond, israel goes nuclear. the u.s. could not quell public condemnation for israel, and that might be the impetus for the u.s. to change its policy of unconditional support of israel, and, as such, give us at last a viable exit strategy from this endless and unwinnable "war on terror".

Israel is our ally. It is that simple. We will never have an ally as strong as Israel in the region.

Why would we change our policies because of a madman? Doesn't make much sense to me. It is called appeasement. Appeasement has proven to be quite ineffective.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Don't take this as an attempt to play down the recent atrocity that took place in Russia, BUT, the Russian army is also responsible for some horrific incidents that have occurred in Chechnya. Both sides have done some pretty disgusting things even if the recent hostage taking topped it all off.

For every action there is a reaction and it just gets bloodier and bloodier each time. To be perfectly honest I don't know what other alternative there is. But all out war doesn't necessarily resolve the problems either. It would more than likely serve to create more. Not to mention the extensive loss of human life that would occur. And I find that to be too high a price.

For every action, there is a reaction. You are absolutely correct! To avoid an all out war, I think it is time for the muslims to learn that peace can be an action as well. Don't get me wrong...war is the last effort for peace. Regretfully, when one side tries to achieve peace by killing CHILDREN...war is the only alternative.

It is time for all of the Islamic nations and muslim people to get off their asses and lobby for peace.

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Israel is our ally. It is that simple. We will never have an ally as strong as Israel in the region.

Why would we change our policies because of a madman? Doesn't make much sense to me. It is called appeasement. Appeasement has proven to be quite ineffective.

osama bin laden hasn't shown any indication of madness. he advocates acts of terrorism and al qaeda supplies training and assistance to many local insurrections, yes. that doesn't make him a madman. that makes him dangerous.

i hope you're right about israel's worth as an ally, because i tend to agree with "imperial hubris" and its assessment that this war (as evidenced by wtc 1, 2, uss cole, embassy bombings, iraq, afghanistan uprisings) will be very long, very messy, and very costly to the u.s.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by spiky_dog:
osama bin laden hasn't shown any indication of madness.

Come visit NYC, and I will show you evidence of his madness.

Seriously, are you an Al-Qaeda member ?

You are actively promoting his policies on here, and saying he is not a madman ? I ask a reasonable question.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by spiky_dog:
osama bin laden hasn't shown any indication of madness. he advocates acts of terrorism and al qaeda supplies training and assistance to many local insurrections, yes. that doesn't make him a madman. that makes him dangerous.

i hope you're right about israel's worth as an ally, because i tend to agree with "imperial hubris" and its assessment that this war (as evidenced by wtc 1, 2, uss cole, embassy bombings, iraq, afghanistan uprisings) will be very long, very messy, and very costly to the u.s.

Not a real war. In a real war, nonesense isn't tolerated. If rebels wanted to start an insurrection in Fallujah...in a real war, Fallujah would slowly get bombed, increasing the buffer until it was no more. In a real war, people die. It is horrific, but it is war.

Because of people like osama, his terrorist scum, and Islamic nations, millions upon millions face death. If the terrorists would simply quit killing, then peace has a chance. But, as we see muslims constantly defending the terrorists and justifying their cause...peace doesn't seem to be an option.

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by dcolton:
For every action, there is a reaction. You are absolutely correct! To avoid an all out war, I think it is time for the muslims to learn that peace can be an action as well. Don't get me wrong...war is the last effort for peace. Regretfully, when one side tries to achieve peace by killing CHILDREN...war is the only alternative.

indeed. however, the muslim world seems to feel that the u.s. has taken actions against them. u.s. support of israel ==> u.s. condoning israeli missile attacks that DO kill innocents. u.s. invasion of iraq, afghanistan ==> u.s. feels justified in invading muslim lands. u.s. propping up of saudi and other govts ==> u.s. is in favor of tyrants as long as they provide oil.

i'm not saying that their interpretation is true -- there are confounding issues for each of the points i bring up (suicide bombers, al qaeda being in afghanistan/no excuse for iraq tho , not wanting fundamentalist govts in place of the al saud family). however, the muslim world is not comprised of petulent children who are awaiting the u.s. to teach them a lesson about peace. it is comprised of angry, rational beings, who feel they have ample evidence at their disposal of u.s. intent to harm them, thanks to u.s. stupidity, inaction and tacit support for regimes that do nasty things.

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Come visit NYC, and I will show you evidence of his madness.

Seriously, are you an Al-Qaeda member ?

You are actively promoting his policies on here, and saying he is not a madman ? I ask a reasonable question.

you want me to buy an american flag and paste it on my car, now? questioning current u.s. foreign policy does NOT make me an al qaeda member. furthermore, the view that osama bin laden is not a madman is not confined just to me. read "imperial hubris", really. no, it's not an al qaeda sympathizer text.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by spiky_dog:
indeed. however, the muslim world seems to feel that the u.s. has taken actions against them. u.s. support of israel ==> u.s. condoning israeli missile attacks that DO kill innocents. u.s. invasion of iraq, afghanistan ==> u.s. feels justified in invading muslim lands. u.s. propping up of saudi and other govts ==> u.s. is in favor of tyrants as long as they provide oil.

i'm not saying that their interpretation is true -- there are confounding issues for each of the points i bring up (suicide bombers, al qaeda being in afghanistan/no excuse for iraq tho , not wanting fundamentalist govts in place of the al saud family). however, the muslim world is not comprised of petulent children who are awaiting the u.s. to teach them a lesson about peace. it is comprised of angry, rational beings, who feel they have ample evidence at their disposal of u.s. intent to harm them, thanks to u.s. stupidity, inaction and tacit support for regimes that do nasty things.

When I was three, I got mad at my mom because she bought my sister something and not me. Who should I have been mad at. My mom? My sister?

The answer is neither. The answer was maturity.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by spiky_dog:
why should israel be the lone nuclear power in the region? i thought mutually assured destruction was what kept the soviets at bay, and that an imbalance of power would lead to instability. is that not what is being played out now?

Do we really want two religious states near each other with nuclear weapons? One is bad enough. I would argue that if Iran has to give them up then so too must Israel.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by spiky_dog:
you want me to buy an american flag and paste it on my car, now? questioning current u.s. foreign policy does NOT make me an al qaeda member. furthermore, the view that osama bin laden is not a madman is not confined just to me. read "imperial hubris", really. no, it's not an al qaeda sympathizer text.

You are the one who wants to base USA foreign policy based on the decisions and wishes of Osama bin Laden.

I suggest you read up on some history, and look at what appeasement gets you. You are advocating genocide.

[itai195]

TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran�s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.

...

In a lengthy speech to mark the so-called "International Qods (Jerusalem) Day" celebrated in Iran only, Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani, who, as the Chairman of the Assembly to Discern the Interests of the State, is the Islamic Republic�s number two man after Ayatollah Ali Khameneh�i, said since Israel was an emanation of Western colonialism therefore "in future it will be the interests of colonialism that will determine existence or non-existence of Israel".

Link

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Do we really want two religious states near each other with nuclear weapons? One is bad enough. I would argue that if Iran has to give them up then so too must Israel.

i would argue the same. we must face up to our (the u.s.) own desire to not see any powerful islamic states, and in turn must deal with the consequences of such a stance (see current history).

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by dcolton:
.....war is the last effort for peace....

Yes, WAR IS PEACE.

And Iraq is SUCH a good example of how war creates peace. Not mayem. No siree bob.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Like the bloodshed in Russia? It is time for the nonsense to come to an end. We have learned that we cannot treat terrorists with respect. We have learned that we cannot appease terrorists. We have learned that a terrorist and their supporters want nothing more than to wash their hands with the blood of anything western. If the muslims won't be a catylist for peace, what other option is there?

You are using the same justification for war as your enemy:

"Like the bloodshed in Chechnya/Palestine/arabic world? It is time for the nonesense (Russia oppressing Chechnya, Israel oppressing Palestine,USA oppressing arabic world) to come to an end. We have learned that we cannot treat oppressors with respect. We have learned that we cannot appease oppressors. We have learned that an oppressor and their supporters want nothing more than to wash their hands with the blood of anything islamic. If the christians, jews, atheists won't be a catalyst for peace, what other option is there?"

Taliesin

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by spiky_dog:
why should israel be the lone nuclear power in the region? i thought mutually assured destruction was what kept the soviets at bay, and that an imbalance of power would lead to instability. is that not what is being played out now?

Because the Israelis have shown restraint in their use.

Your idea comes from an interest in being fair and equitable?

In reality, "letting" anyone else have nukes is a dangerous tip of the scales.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Come visit NYC, and I will show you evidence of his madness.

Seriously, are you an Al-Qaeda member ?

You are actively promoting his policies on here, and saying he is not a madman ? I ask a reasonable question.

BTW spikey, in reference to your sig, Pachead didn't ask you if you were an Al-Qaeda member because you disagreed with U.S. foreign policy. But because of your denial that Osama isn't a madman.

Obviously he is. This has nothing to do with US foreign policy.

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
BTW spikey, in reference to your sig, Pachead didn't ask you if you were an Al-Qaeda member because you disagreed with U.S. foreign policy. But because of your denial that Osama isn't a madman.

Obviously he is. This has nothing to do with US foreign policy.

actually, no. it is u.s. foreign policy to portray OBL as a madman. i think this policy is wrong, and will ultimately weaken the u.s. this viewpoint is also espoused in "Imperial Hubris". whatever happened to "know thy enemy"?

[Splinter]

back OT there is one problem... Israel striking the reactor. Iran knows what we did in Iraq. they know what we did to the other airforces in the wars. and they are very aware of the possibility of us stirking thier reactor... I heavily doubt they havnt erected a ton of defenses for that place. How would the strike go? would it even be a sucess at all?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by spiky_dog:
actually, no. it is u.s. foreign policy to portray OBL as a madman.

No, anyone that would plan and hurrah such a event as 9/11 was is a madman. Plain and simple. The guy is a megalomanic loon.

i think this policy is wrong, and will ultimately weaken the u.s.

Funny, it has only made us stronger.

[DBursey]

How would the strike go? would it even be a sucess at all?

how about a liberal application of ballistic or space-based bunker-busting megatonnage?

/future shock devilian advocacy

[3gg3]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Israel has my full support in bombing the nuke facilities of Iran...

Well, that certainly bolsters their case, now.