If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Under deal to bring Iran before the UN Sec. Council, Israel is going to be forced to give up the nuclear weapons that they don't have   (debka.com) divider line 565
    More: News  
•       •       •

14233 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Feb 2006 at 5:59 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



565 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-02-04 07:42:48 PM  
Heya, ZipBeep - how's the Swastika in the living room.

Your buddy Hitler tried to eradicate Jews in something we like to call THE HOLOCAUST.

Enjoy your ignornace!
 
2006-02-04 07:43:02 PM  
Persepolis: Maybe it's time people used their heads.


Please, look around. Humans tend not to be too forward looking. Hell, we are all cockroaches on this planet.
 
2006-02-04 07:44:31 PM  
triphopping_man

Missile Systems Iran just got from Russians:

3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn)
30 Tor M-1 (SA-15 Gauntlet) surface-to-air missile systems.

These are will get used.

Europe and Japan are in range of theAS-15 cruise missile.

France has warned that if they are attacked , they will respond with nuclear force . Iran will be sealing it's death warrant as a country & millions of iranian people will potentially die if Iran ever uses those cruise missles against Europe .
 
2006-02-04 07:45:21 PM  
scottkin: we do still have ANWR to tap

Good luck with that. Opening up a field like that takes time. You are at least 2 (maybe many more) years away from meaningful production
 
2006-02-04 07:46:19 PM  
TANJIAN: millions of iranian people will potentially die if Iran ever uses those cruise missles against Europe .


No doubt - but France is not the target. Israel is.
 
2006-02-04 07:46:41 PM  
triphopping_man:Please, look around. Humans tend not to be too forward looking. Hell, we are all cockroaches on this planet.

Just because it seems futile, doesn't mean we should abandon all hope. What do you expect me to say? Yeah, you're right. We're not forward looking. Maybe we should keep killing each other.

Obviously there is a problem in the world that while we can technically live with it (we are doing it right now) it's bringing down the quality of life on practiaclly every world citizen.

Just getting mad and calling each other cockroaches just strengthens the rift.
 
2006-02-04 07:47:03 PM  
scottkin: how's the Swastika in the living room.


Godwin'd
 
2006-02-04 07:47:29 PM  
BeowulfSmith: Oh...uhm, my bad. I sincerely apologize for assuming you weren't calling for the deaths of 5 million Jews and 1 million Israeli Arabs. I'll never make that mistake again.
Boy, is my face red.

Are there any other countries you'd like to eradicate, along with their populations? You know, just so I don't make that mistake again?


First, the population of Israel was closer to 2 million during the 1960s, and second, Israel STARTED at least 2 of those wars.

But I suppose you are all for Bush's war in Iraq - only 30,000+ deaths is OK with you???
 
2006-02-04 07:47:59 PM  
zipbeep:
You said "Never again" didn't mean anything with the brown people in the Sudan."?

What are you implying, that Israel should have stepped in to save the Sudanese? WTF are you talking about? I agree that someone should have stepped in because the UN are so lame, but Israel? Come on!
 
2006-02-04 07:48:33 PM  
The only way Israel will get rid of its nukes is when it USES THEM ON ITS ENEMIES!!
 
2006-02-04 07:49:01 PM  
ZipBeep: First, the population of Israel was closer to 2 million during the 1960s, and second, Israel STARTED at least 2 of those wars.

Israel, along with Britain and France, initiated the Suez War in '56. What's the other one you have in mind?
 
2006-02-04 07:49:25 PM  
Persepolis: Just getting mad and calling each other cockroaches just strengthens the rift.


Agreed! But sometimes I despair that we really are redeemable as our priests tell us. What if we are the problem?

Lifestyle choices are an anathema to the hedonists that we have become.
 
2006-02-04 07:51:02 PM  
triphopping_man:

Correct - but we still have the so-called "Strategic Reserves" we can tap to supplant Veneuzela's tap-plug.

Also, there are other oil resources in South America who would be more than happy to increase their sales by taking-over the Venezuelan percentage.

Frankly, I'd love to see Arco take-over all of those gas stations from Venezuela's Oil company in the US. Their gasoline absolutely sucks - I wouldn't be suprised if they water it down.
 
2006-02-04 07:51:11 PM  
trihopping_man: Right you are about the time lag on tapping the ANWR. Plus, It's too small to carry the US for long without the Arab oil.
 
2006-02-04 07:51:15 PM  
Lerxst2k: The only way Israel will get rid of its nukes is when it USES THEM ON ITS ENEMIES!!


Wow - an exchange of Nuclear weapons. Great idea but don't burn your self roasting your marshmallows.
 
2006-02-04 07:51:31 PM  
triphopping_man: "What if we are the problem?"

What if? There is no farking doubt about it.

And we're the solution too, if there is one.
 
2006-02-04 07:53:00 PM  
Dead enemies can't exchange anything.
 
2006-02-04 07:53:13 PM  
scottkin: "Also, there are other oil resources in South America who would be more than happy to increase their sales by taking-over the Venezuelan percentage."

The world's oil production is pretty much at capacity right now. There's very little slack left.
 
2006-02-04 07:53:14 PM  
triphopping_man:I despair that we really are redeemable as our priests tell us. What if we are the problem?

Lifestyle choices are an anathema to the hedonists that we have become


While I believe it is very noble to live our lives as rightously as we can, I think it is backward to force such actions on others.

And I think that is the root of all of these problems. Well, part of it. But I don't think the problem arises from having gay people in the country or bastard kids running around... if thats what you mean in your post.

If I got your point wrong, then please tell me. But thats What I think you were getting at.
 
2006-02-04 07:53:22 PM  
zekebullseye: long without the Arab oil.


Kicking the oil addiction will be a nasty cold turkey event. Tech will help but really only the rich will have the same level of personal mobility in the future.

They need to work on the teleporter closet. Larry Niven was bang-on with that.
 
2006-02-04 07:53:49 PM  
triphopping_man (and ArbitraryConstant)

No, you see - all they have to do is knock out VLCC ships and then the price per barrel spikes to $300. You try that one on for long.

Iran will avoid the US military and all it needs is just some of those missiles to work and a few carriers get sunk and then lets see how John Q. likes that.


Gotcha. I thought you were referring solely to attacks against incoming invasion fleets.

While both of you are absolutely correct that Iran can use these to devastating effect to shipping, I would counter again with the size and complexity of these weapons. These aren't RPG-7's you know. They require a rather large launcher, and are launched either by ship, truck, submarine, or plane.

Now, once Iran does this once or twice, I don't think they'll have much left in the way of ships, planes, and submarines, as they are very susceptible to our air power, with very little in the way of retalitory ability against it. In fact, they'll be basically making their launch platforms bees, sting once and then die. Iran's air and sea forces can't really afford that type of conflict.

However, I'll grant the truck launchers will be a much greater threat, as they can be more easily disguised and the trucks themselves are not very expensive or valuable to Iran's military (not sure about the launchers themselves though)

Do we have any concrete intelligence to how Iran is deploying these weapons? I'm curious, since while the above mentioned launch options are usable (as developed by the Russians and the Chinese), Iran has definitely much lower level of cability than either of the other powers.
 
2006-02-04 07:55:30 PM  
Israel never signed the non-proliferation treaty, developed nuclear weapons, and now sits on them without threatening anyone.

Israel is a democratic state with a mostly secular population. It has a thriving technology business sector. It has been a major US ally since the 70s and is dependent on the US in many ways.

Iran signed the non-proliferation treaty, and is calling for the destruction of israel while enriching uranium, all even before it has developed them (we can hope).

It is a mock democracy ruled over by religious theocracy. The great majority of their population are exremely religious. Their main export is oil and their tech development is nil. They have never been a US ally and are not dependent on the US at all.

Which of these two countries is the more stable? Which is more likely to have radical extremist holding the keys to nuclear missile launch codes? Which would you trust to be the more responsible?
 
2006-02-04 07:55:32 PM  
Lerxst2k: Dead enemies can't exchange anything.


Dream on soldier. You better have **lots** of firepower to take on Iran. They do have the weapons and the numbers and the money and the oil to crush Israel utterly.
 
2006-02-04 07:56:24 PM  
triphopping_man: They need to work on the teleporter closet. Larry Niven was bang-on with that.

I'd be more interested in building SPS.
 
2006-02-04 07:57:01 PM  
If you're going to take away Israel's nuclear capacity, you might as well take away their right to exist and enslave them.
Sadly, this move frightens me. Israel is stable, regardless of the "peace process", however Iran is a whole different story.
 
2006-02-04 07:57:17 PM  
BeowulfSmith: "While both of you are absolutely correct that Iran can use these to devastating effect to shipping, I would counter again with the size and complexity of these weapons. These aren't RPG-7's you know."

I think it's also fair to say they'll do better against civilian ship than a military one.

They don't need to be able to win, just make the victory for the US prohibitively expensive. Even if all they have left to fall back on is cutting their oil production (which will happen whether they want it to or not if they get extensively bombed), they can still do that.
 
2006-02-04 07:57:41 PM  
www.sfgate.com
 
2006-02-04 07:58:14 PM  
scottkin: Heya, ZipBeep - how's the Swastika in the living room.

Your buddy Hitler tried to eradicate Jews in something we like to call THE HOLOCAUST.

Enjoy your ignornace!



Hey, asshat! Don't try to play the "Nazi" card with me! Who are you, the Jewish Johnny Cochrane???

The whole world would be better if the Jews were relocated to Arizona, as was planned before the British got into it.

And, if you start wars, you have to have an expectation of getting beaten.

The Israelis are NOT "holy".

/Geez, it's no wonder there's so much trouble over there, with asshats like you defending them no matter what they do.
 
2006-02-04 07:58:17 PM  
BeowulfSmith: Do we have any concrete intelligence to how Iran is deploying these weapons?

My point is simply that Iran will be no pushover. And the effects of a war on shipping will (more than two ships per day carry oil from SA / Kuwait and Iraq) be devastating.
 
2006-02-04 07:58:58 PM  
trihopping_man: It sounds like we are on the same wavelength about the eventual oil disaster. People need to read "the End of Oil" and "The Long Emergency" and get a glimpse of what's to come after the oil's gone. They'd pee their pants. But, no. People have their heads in the sand right now and are perfectly happy living in their little fantasy world.
 
2006-02-04 08:00:17 PM  
corywest04: Let me ask you...if Israel shouldn't be where it is, then where is the real holy land and the place of the Jews?

Where is the real holy land and the place of the Cherokees?

Times change.
 
2006-02-04 08:01:32 PM  
Sloth_DC: Israel, along with Britain and France, initiated the Suez War in '56. What's the other one you have in mind?


The 6 Day war in 1967.
 
2006-02-04 08:02:22 PM  
Playinodds: "while enriching uranium"

They aren't enriching Uranium yet. They might be preparing the facilities, but they're not in use yet.

"Which of these two countries is the more stable? Which is more likely to have radical extremist holding the keys to nuclear missile launch codes? Which would you trust to be the more responsible?"

It's not a question of trust. It's a matter of what it's acceptable to do about it. I don't trust Iran, I don't trust Israel, I don't trust the US. I wouldn't trust Canada, and that's where I live.

It's a question of what can be done about it. I don't think it's acceptable to have different rules for different countries depending on how much I trust them. Someone out there doesn't trust Canada, and they shouldn't be able to dictate what we do. If we are a sovereign nation, we have to accept that others are also sovereign.
 
2006-02-04 08:02:38 PM  
ZipBeep: The 6 Day war in 1967.

Ah, not big on RTFT, I see.

Sloth_DC: Because Egypt blockaded their port, which is an act of war. Egypt also mobilized their forces on the border prior to the attack, fyi.
 
2006-02-04 08:03:43 PM  
Deacon Blue
The REAL Pat Sajak would agree with Gahbrone, I think. Take away Israel's nukes and you just might get one hell of a conventional war. One of the things stopping another general arabian gangbang on Israel is the fact that everyone knows she can take the rest of the region down with her.

Take it down with her? Back in '48 she fought 5 other countries attacking her at the same time, and she WON.
 
2006-02-04 08:05:27 PM  
VideoVader: Take it down with her? Back in '48 she fought 5 other countries attacking her at the same time, and she WON.

Aside from losing Gaza and the West Bank. Not exactly a total victory.
 
2006-02-04 08:05:29 PM  
knobmaker: place of the Cherokees?


The name "Cherokee" might even be a derisive name used by a neighboring Indian nation.
 
2006-02-04 08:06:36 PM  
knobmaker said
and the place of the Cherokees?
----
Jews are the Cherokees of the Middle East.

So let Jews have their land back or kill them? Funny how 1. the left, 2. self hating Jews and 3. the neocon hating Waco-McVeigh right, all agree.
 
2006-02-04 08:08:11 PM  
My overall policy on the Middle East is this:

Leave 'em all alone except when someone lets the violence spill over into other parts of the world. Simple as that. You will never, ever, EVER stop violence in the Middle East, no matter who you side with, who you exterminate, who you nuke. Won't stop. It's been going on since the beginning of recorded history. So at this point, just let them fight if that's what they really want to do.

In the case where a Middle Eastern state decides to take the show outside of the region, intervene with them and them only, push them back into their own region, and then that's all you do.

So:
*Israel airstriking Iran and knocking out their nuclear capability. That works; it's within the region.
*Palestinians carbombing Israelis. Tragic, sorry to hear about it, but what do you want me to do about it? Not like we can stop 'em.
*9/11, that was a Middle Eastern state spilling things outside of the region. Go in, kick the asses of who caused it (Osama), leave everyone else alone. After the Taliban has been sufficiently ousted and Osama killed or captured, declare victory and go home.
*Saddam, as evil as he was/is, did not spill outside of the region. So the Iraqi invasion never would have happened.

Yes, bad people remain in power this way. But it ensures we don't piss people off as much. (Which, contrary to popular belief, is very desirable. If you're not pissing anyone off, you are much less likely to be attacked in the first place. Safety and national security by default.)
 
2006-02-04 08:09:23 PM  
oren0:

That article was a real eye opener. It helped to explain alot of questions I had about the whole Israel-Arab thing.
 
2006-02-04 08:09:27 PM  
ArbitraryConstant: If we are a sovereign nation, we have to accept that others are also sovereign.


yes but there are limits to sovereignity. And nuclear non-proliferation might be one of them. Just saying.
 
2006-02-04 08:11:25 PM  
What the Jew really wants and expects to achieve through the instrumentality of the Hebrew school is to cultivate in his son the sharp awareness that he is a Jew and that as a racial Jew-apart from all the other races-he is waging an old war against his neighbors.
 
2006-02-04 08:11:28 PM  
Sloth_DC: Ah, not big on RTFT, I see.


Sorry, but you butted in on my part of the thread. I didn't butt in on yours. Someone has said that Israel DIDN'T start the 6 Day War. There's some revisionist history, right there.
 
2006-02-04 08:11:46 PM  
Sloth_DC
VideoVader: Take it down with her? Back in '48 she fought 5 other countries attacking her at the same time, and she WON.


Aside from losing Gaza and the West Bank. Not exactly a total victory.

In 1948 Israel was woefully unsupplied and prepared. Their weapons were all black market purchases and not considered state of the art even 15 years before that.

Currently israel has a military that is one the best trained, best supplied, and best organized in teh world. Their weapons (both self-developed and bought) are cutting edge.

Should they go to war now, even if Egypt took part and employed some of their US given weapons, it would be a slaughter to be remembered.

No comparing the israel of 48 and today.
 
2006-02-04 08:11:53 PM  
I put Americans first. If Iran agrees to stop nuclear production and allow monitoring in return for Israel getting rid of its own nukes. I am for that. It will probably save the lives of US soldiers. Israels conventional forces seem plenty strong deter attacks. I get a sick feeling in my stomach after reading all the comments by you Israel firsters/America seconders.
 
2006-02-04 08:12:47 PM  
If you're going to take away Israel's nuclear capacity, you might as well take away their right to exist and enslave them.


Of course we can replace the word "Israel" in the above statement with any country and have the policy of said country.
 
2006-02-04 08:12:50 PM  
If you want peace in the Middle East between Jews and Muslims (Muslims will never make peace with each other) the first step is the 2.01 state solution. Israel west of the Jordan , Palestine East of the Jordan and the 0.01 part is that 'palestinians' can keep aza only if they do it themselves with no outside aid, except a couple bic lighters and a ten ton bag of rice. (kind of like a Survivor thing).



http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_maps.php
 
2006-02-04 08:13:56 PM  
ZipBeep: Sorry, but you butted in on my part of the thread. I didn't butt in on yours. Someone has said that Israel DIDN'T start the 6 Day War. There's some revisionist history, right there.

They didn't - the first acts of war were committed by Egypt, though it seems likely at this point that this was because of Russian misinformation. In any event, Israel did not start the war.
 
2006-02-04 08:14:00 PM  
ZipBeep
First, the population of Israel was closer to 2 million during the 1960s, and second, Israel STARTED at least 2 of those wars.

But I suppose you are all for Bush's war in Iraq - only 30,000+ deaths is OK with you???


First of all, WTF are you even talking about. You just called for the destruction of Israel. I commented on it, and then you repeated yourself. What does that have to do with Israel's population in the 60's (at least 12 years after it's inception) and the idea that it start 2 wars?

Second of all, you still make no sense. What does me supporting or not supporting the Iraq invasion have to do with you calling for the deaths of the population of Israel? Oh yeah, nothing.

Further, I could argue, that if the invasion of Iraq resulted in its liberation from Saddam and the Baath party, and it's transition into a more tolerant democracy, particularly given the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died at the hands of the Baath party during it's rule of Iraq, because they were not Sunni, I would say it was worth it. Of course, that's just my opinion, and I'm not sure it looks like Iraq is going anywhere near becoming a tolerant democracy. But then again, none of that matters, since it had nothing to do with the topic at hand. It's a red herring.

Also, can you explain to me how the eradication of Israel and it's population would somehow be a positive in the balance? If you include all the casaulties from the wars Israel was involved in, whether or not they started them, you'll still come up with a total much much less than a 100,000 deaths (and of course, you have to remember that they didn't start all of them or even close to all of them).

So, because of that, you want to kill 6 million people?

Golly gee, that makes sense to me.
 
2006-02-04 08:14:01 PM  
triphopping_man: The name "Cherokee" might even be a derisive name used by a neighboring Indian nation.

Irrelevant to the point. My grandmother was an enrolled member of the Western Band. I want my piece of the Carolinas-- as long as ancient history has something to do with property rights.

Or does it?
 
Displayed 50 of 565 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report