Revealed: Israel plans strike on Iranian nuclear plant

I hope this isn't a dupe. I didn't see it in LBN yet so here it is:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1522978,00.html

ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans for a combined air and ground attack on targets in Iran if diplomacy fails to halt the Iranian nuclear programme.

The inner cabinet of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, gave “initial authorisation” for an attack at a private meeting last month on his ranch in the Negev desert.

Israeli forces have used a mock-up of Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment plant in the desert to practise destroying it. Their tactics include raids by Israel’s elite Shaldag (Kingfisher) commando unit and airstrikes by F-15 jets from 69 Squadron, using bunker-busting bombs to penetrate underground facilities.

The plans have been discussed with American officials who are said to have indicated provisionally that they would not stand in Israel’s way if all international efforts to halt Iranian nuclear projects failed.

aint going to happen

I don't think Pakistan's missiles have that kind of range, among other reasons.

Nukes from India and the US against Pakistan, followed by Russia and WW3. Lovely.

if I remember correctly it's supposed to come down to Israel and us against the world.

as mr bush would call it----a gut feeling ms smith a gut feeling

... for example because it would contravene the UN Charter.

keymaker

They don't give a flying fuck about the UN.

But then they have to accept the consequences.

keymaker

So why not Iran.

Israel is a rogue nation...just like us.

The U.S. marches to the other side of the world for an oil grab; Israel knocks out (and prepares to knock out) the nuclear capabilities of near-neighbours that deny her right to exist.

... since 9/11 in the sense of fighting against native Arabs over their own turf where there was no fight or major conflict, before an unjustified supremacist invasion broke the peace and order without much concern for universal civil rights. This has all carried on with assumptions made that the Arabs are the problem.

It's no longer possible to even imagine how much beter-off this world would be if America had treated everyone with equal concern.

Defending Israel as a victim of aggression seems shallow considering the history of expulsions, land grabs, wars and expansion-by-annexing.

If you cannot relate to how 95% of the region's population has been effected, why should Iranians or Syrians or Lebanese find anything to trust in an attitude that says 'go ahead and attack', instead of thinking maybe there's a non-violent way through this?

You really needn't 'act' surprised when the comparison comes up and you can put your two cents in for Israel's right to expand this into a regional war based on one-sided images of victimization - citing all the terrible things they say in Tehran about rights to exist. The rhetoric hasn't kept Israel from building its own very provocative nuclear arsenal.

It's startlingly clear that this administration makes appointments heavily in favor of Israel interests - to put it mildly - despite the suffering implied (as of lesser importance) to others whom Israel has turned into enemies.

Blind loyalty to Israel has obviously gotten America into a lot of their deep doo doo and has much to do with why we are in a nasty war for no good reasons or purposes.

How do you expect an attack on Iran would benefit you or anyone you care about? How are you so readily unwilling to care about those whom it will cause damage?

Are you at all hip to conflict resolution not involving violence and retaliation?

I hear it from the Brits and the French. Maybe Hitler should have taken care of every last one of them - then we'd have peace in the middle east, right? Forgetting of course that it was the English that competely fucked up the middle east - that was in the 20's, a barren land, filled with nomadic tribes, with the exception of some major urban centers like Baghdad (where, by the way, Jews had lived for 5000 years - but no more, they were expelled in 1947). Jews once owned all of Israel until the Romans evicted them and moved the nomadic tribes in to their abandoned homes to service them. This land was called Palestine, a Roman name for the area. The Romans had many problems with the Jews, one in particular, a rebel who preached revolution and was murdered on a cross by the occupying forces.

It was after that incident that the Jews were expelled completely (the Diaspora) and sent to the far reaches of the world, taking with them their knowledge and their Laws which most of the world has adopted as their own. Against all odds, they survived, while the Romans, and Greeks, and other civilizations disappeared. After the Holocaust the remaining Jews of Europe, having had their homes, possessions and businesses confiscated (and not returned to them even by the victors) had no place to go - and in a true spirit of collective anti-semitism, were denied entry into western nations and the problem was solved by sending them to the Promised Land, their original homeland, Israel. Jerusalem, a city mentioned a hundred times in the Torah (Bible) but never once in the Koran was to be their capital. The United Nations gave the Jews Israel and the Arab inhabitants a place called Palestine. They refused on the council Arabs brothers in Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Egypt. The Arab League persuaded these people to forego a homeland and Jordan became the beneficiary owning and controlling all the land on the West Bank of the Jordan River. Israel fought a number of wars, the first beginning on the first day of their Independence. The lands in question now - Gaza and the West Bank were won in wars with the Arab League nations. Those lands were never "owned" by Palestinians - they were controlled by Egypt and Jordan who "occupied them for 25 years until the Israelis took them over.

End of history lesson. Current events: The Arab League nations continue to talk about crushing the Jews and taking back Israel. There's no reason to believe they wouldn't if they could. Atom bombs might help their cause. Jews are leery of Western nations coming to their assistance, if needed, especially with attitudes like those I've now seen expressed here. They have every right to protect themselves as any nation would. While Condi Rice can bullshit us about mushroom clouds appearing over Manhattan, the Israelis know that they are deinitely in the crosshairs for a nuke when one is developed.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/bamford.html

An item by Steve Aftergood in the July 17, 2001 issue of Secrecy News concerned my new book on the National Security Agency, Body of Secrets. It related to my chapter on Israel's massive, unprovoked, daylight attack on the NSA spy ship USS Liberty in 1967. Thirty-four Americans were killed and another 171 were wounded when Israeli fighters poured into the ship more than 800 rounds of cannon fire, rockets, heavy bombs, and even burning napalm. That was followed by three Israeli PT boats, which fired five torpedoes at the ship, hitting it with one and virtually destroying the vessel. Israeli gunners then fired at the rubber life rafts thrown into the sea by sailors attempting to flee the burning ship. Machine-gun fire was also targeted against the escaping sailors, leading many of them to believe that it was Israel's intention to sink the ship and kill everyone on board. (The casualty rate was nearly an incredible 80 percent). Israel clamed the attack was a mistake -- the Liberty, they said, was mistaken for an Egyptian ship. But throughout the attack, which lasted more than an hour, the Liberty was flying a large American flag, had its name painted in English in five-foot letters across the stern, never fired a shot, and was virtually unarmed.

that they would nuke the Israel as soon as they had perfected a bomb. I think the Israelis could believe them since they had already been attacked by Iraq (and Egypt and Syria and Jordan and Saudi Arabia and Lebanon) three times with everything they had - and they didn't have nukes then. So...?

Iraq did strike once in 1991 when they hit Israel with some Scuds, but I don't think that qualifies as "three times with everything they had" as you posted above.

Egypt and Syria have both fought three major wars with Israel, but Jordan only two, since Jordan stayed out of the Yom Kippur War. In two of these - 1948 and 1967 - both Egypt and Syria aggressively planned for war. The first time all it took was the founding of Israel, the second time they were preempted during the Six-Day War.

The 1956 War, however, was an Israeli attack coordinated with the French and British attempt to seize the Suez Canal.

There were several countries that did not directly attack Israel. Saudi Arabia has never attacked Israel outright. However, it did supply weapons and troops to Egypt during the Six-Day war. 6 Day War

The Iraqi army attacked Israel in 1948, along with 4 other Arab nations. Interestingly, Iraq attacked Israel in 1991 as you said, eventhough Israel had not attacked Iraq!

...I found this quote from the Turkish Press..."During a military parade last week, Iran showed off its range of ballistic missiles draped in banners vowing to "crush America" and "wipe Israel off the map"." This was from an article dated September 27, 2004 (Iran says being deliberately "ambiguous" over missiles) Seems to be some "saber-rattling" from the other side too.

w/in striking distance. Probably laying in a supply of Star of David decals right this minute so they can slap 'em on our planes so we can pretend we aren't flying missions for them, just like in '67.

Just in case Iran strikes back.

Gyre

<snip>
The U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt is on the move in Atlantic Ocean and is possibly headed towards the Mediterranean Sea. The convergence of three carrier groups in the corridor of the Middle East will send very strong message to the Syrians and Iranians. There are indications that soon US is moving two more aircraft carrier battle groups to the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf. This will spell a formidable strike force for Iran and Syria who are in defiance on issues of Lebanon and Nuclear weapons development.
<snip>

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/1877.asp





:nuke:

And they'll cry victim the whole time, just like the religously insane right who uses our military like blessed flyswatter.

"but the one's dropping the bombs are the good guys" goes the belief.

blow me down and call me shorty---you don't mean it----victim---israel a victim---im fainting someone dash a bit of cold water in face as i lay on the floor---thanking some nice person in advance for things that could be

I can name several they finshed however. They kept out of the Gulf War 1 if your recall, even after having 25 scud missiles land in their cities and villages. And they weren't even involved. Just think if they contained nukes? Or even biological weapons...

I had a feeling that something like this was going to happen soon

For what purpose?

Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war. (approx. Shakespeare quote)

but not because of the nuclear program.

The Anglo-American financial system is headed for another implosion just as it was before 9-11. They need an event such as this to divert attention from the economic crash. Indeed, they will blame the crash on this event.

And the sheep will eat it up. The hens will all be in the house watching Fox.

Remember that the stock market was about where it is right now in the summer of 2001. After 9-11, NYSE was closed for several days. Within a few months, the Dow was down in the 8,500 range. The S&P went from an all-time high of 1,520 or so in the year 2000 to a low point of about 776. It lost nearly half its value.

The other thing the Iranians are thinking about doing is opening their own oil futures trading market in competition with the New York Mercantile Exchange. That also is more threatening to the A-A-I axis of global domination than a few stray nukes.

every damn time. They NEVER do crap like this in election years. Go back over the years since 1994 and see which years the right wing pulled the most shit. Even the Iraq fiasco was in '03.

Other current examples include Social Security, Bankruptcy bill, and its only March. However, by the fall they will clean their act up going into next year's elections.

I realize that many here are always against any military action by either the US or Isreal, but if it stops the Irans nuke program, is that a bad thing? I think not.

A voice of reason!

It seems the only way one can be a world power and free from invasion is to have nukes. i heard Brasil is re-examining their position Why does Iran not deserve nukes but Pakistan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Russian mafia, etc get to have them? India could nuke America tomorrow. but no one talks about that. Those evil French could destroy the world in hours and China is getting close to being able to.

They built 6 Little Boy-type uranium gun bombs in the 70's and 80's (with Israeli help).

They were later dismantled by the post-Apartheid government.

(BTW Israel got away with IT too...)

And what is your source for this information?

Rather than jacketing a sphere of plutonium or uranium with high explosives, and creating an implosion that makes the mass go critical, two sub-critical masses are fired down a gun chamber, so that when they collide the resulting mass will be critical. I believe this was the "little boy" design, whereas the implosion device was the "fat man". One was used on Hiroshima by the U.S., the other on Nagasaki. The gun design is technologically simpler, but less efficient, as far as I recall.

There have been various accounts that Israel and South Africa collaborated on atomic weaponry in the 1970's, and that a device was tested over the Indian Ocean. There is some dispute about what actually occurred, although I am inclined to believe from my reading that there was such a test. As to how it was determined who did the test, I suppose that would be a matter of intelligence agencies and the like making those determinations. Naturally that part is murkier.

Here:

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ja94albright

South Africa and the affordable bomb

By David Albright
July/August 1994 pp. 37-47 (vol. 50, no. 04) © 1994 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

<snip>

It was not until March 24, 1993--four years after ordering their destruction--that de Klerk publicly acknowledged South Africa's nuclear weapons. According to Waldo Stumpf, chief executive officer of the state-controlled Atomic Energy Corporation (AEC), the government feared that revealing the fact of its nuclear arsenal earlier could have led to confrontational inspections similar to those occurring in Iraq. Stumpf also believes that South Africa's political strife made it difficult to acknowledge the program.

I assume that you think that the actual use of nuclear weapons would be a bad thing. If you don't believe that, then the rest of this post will be meaningless to you.

So proceeding from that assumption, each time a new nation joins the nuclear club, the entire world becomes a bit more dangerous. The probability of their use increases. So it is in the interest of the ENTIRE WORLD, the we try to keep new countries out.

Further, some countries are less stable than others. And Iran is one very unstable country, and more likely to use one if they get one.

Maybe it might appeal to some silly ivory tower idea of fairness if every country on earth had nukes, but in the real world that would be a disaster.

and is now being threatened by rogue nuclear power Israel. Who are Americans and israelis to be saying Iran is unstable. They ain't Sweden, but we aren't either.

The Israelis haven't attacked Iran and they haven't publically threatened Iran except to respond to Iran's public threats which they have been making for dozens of years )you may be deaf to it, but they have called for the destruction of Israel - you may even agree with that notion) but Israel has responded by saying, if you try to destroy us, we will destroy you. They take the development of a nuclear bomb quite seriously over there, consdiering the years of biligerence and threats eminating of the Ayatollahs.

Some peoples are deemed sort of trustworthy, and others aren't. Even at that, a few of the untrustworthy ones slip through. The allegation that Iran is any more unstable than some of the other countries that possess nukes is unsubstantiated. It seems like an appeal to prejudice to me.

Israel is not ruled by just one autonomous madman, The cabinet and parliment get more involved in their affairs than ours do in our government. In fact, Israel is more democratic than the USA - certainly has fairer elections than we do, or Iraq for that matter.

.
.
.

Last I read was that the USA's OWN intel says they have no proof .

AND

Where exactly do ya think Israel's bunker buster bombs came from?

I see that the Iraq/911 mentality is still alive and well

Buy the WH innuendos with no real proof

Terra Terra Terra!

How many innocent Iranians will the Bush Cabal kill for this imaginary "nuke" programme?

oh sorry, no innocent victims -

it's "Collateral Damage"

Silly me

I guess you missed that in the news.

Bark, Bark, Bark

Iran claims they want nuclear power, they've been claiming this since I was a small girl. Claims which make sense since they have also been adding wind power as another way to try and meet growing energy needs. The US tried to dispute this claim by saying they could use natural gas to meet their energy needs. That's not correct because a large part of the natural gas which is flared off in Iran is not suitable for use.

Before 1979 we (the US) supported them in building 23 nuclear reactors. Since then their population has almost tripled. Currently Iraq uses 40% of the oil they produce domestically.

The reason that the US and Israel are now getting their panties in a wad is because Iran wants to produce their own fuel for their reactors. It would make sense for Iran to want to do this, however, it also would make them able to create nuclear weapons. Considering they live in a region where their neighbors have nuclear weapons pointed at them, this would seem advantageous to their future.

In other words it's still assumptions without proof (Iraq?). Who's telling the truth and who's not? Who's right and who's wrong? Are there other ways to deal with this without jumping to violent measures? The world may never know.

.
.
.

Gonna bomb Iran cuz of News?

oh right

I missed the part about Iraq too


What IS that all about again? :shrug:

...about Iraq, you STILL want to believe the exact SAME lies that the Buschies are telling us about Iran???

Are you really that gullible?

And speaking of news, why don't you post a link that proves that Iran has "bragged about having a nuclear program"? And please try to find a source not controlled by the Busch Junta.

Good luck.

Israel puts Iran in its sights
Wednesday, 11 August, 2004, 20:25 GMT 21:25 UK

The Jewish state wants the world to act. If diplomacy fails, Israel warns that it knows how to work alone
In public, most Israeli politicians choose to speak delicately about Iran and nuclear weapons, taking care to avoid talking directly of Israel's own never-discussed nuclear capabilities.

"Of course we have to develop our defensive capacities - passive, active, reactive," says Ephraim Sneh, who is a Labour member of parliament and a former deputy defence minister.
"We have to strengthen all our defence shields against possible Iranian attack. But we don't have plans to attack Iran. I can tell you this for sure. It's not on the agenda."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3556504.stm

Most people are stupid enough to buy it.

Geeze this pisses me off.

We supplied the aircraft and the munitions.

We may even provide mid-air refueling, AWACS support and pilot rescue services.

If the US allows Israeli aircraft to overfly Iraq - how would ordinary Iraqis react?????

What would be the Iranian reaction???? Would they declare that an attack by Israel would be considered an attack by the US????

Anyway it shakes out, there will be huge repercussions for the US if this goes down.

Fuck Bush and Fuck Sharon and Fuck the Mullahs too...

What? It made page one of the London Times? No problem.

Does anyone really believe this stuff?

eom

...from Russia and dropped one on Tel Aviv after being attacked? There certainly would be no winners. There also would be no Israel.

Don

And do these feelings interfere with your normal sleep patterns or do they effect your normal daily life in any way? Ever hear voices that you are unable to account for? I am concerned for you.

Don

unbalanced presumptions of conspiracies are inflammatory and offensive.

They do NOTHING to add to our knowledge of the world or of what is going on.

Did you READ the statement from the Israeli minister, that attack is NOT on the agenda? On the other hand, a soldier in a small region has to be prepared for any eventuality. That is NORMAL, it is not sinister.

By the way, I'm surprised that any American would be happy for a nation which paints "Death to America" on its aircraft, to have nuclear weapons. Hopefully they do not have them.

In any case, the latest information from the REAL WORLD indicates that the US and Europe are working diplomatically with Iran. This is as it should be.

I'm shocked and saddened by the incredible hatred people on this discussion board seem to have for a nation whose people mean them absolutely no harm. As far as digging up some obscure incident that happened in 1967 go prove that Israel is actually an enemy of the US, that is absurd. Besides which it is totally contradictory. The other rumours have it that Israel is RUNNING the US. So which is it?

Gimme a break. PLEASE. And please, try to use some REASON.

We've been through this time and time again. There is a pattern and this fits with history of our foreign policies.

The writing is on the wall.

what you are talking about. But the assumption that I am somehow unaware of what I am saying is silly.

The foreign policy you mention - I assume you mean Bush? Don't blame the Israelis for Bush. He's OURS.

The reference to Kool-Aid represents the gullibility of believing the government propaganda and the media. I am very cynical sometimes.

We've had disastrous foreign policies for decades, if not longer.
Bush seems to have taken us to a new low.

I read it twice and I am still scratching my head. Due to the absence of clarity I think I will just go to bed now.

Don

against
1)Japan
2)Iraq
3)Kosovo
4)Afghanistan
5)Iraq (ongoing)

Let us all look in the mirror. The rest of the world does not forget or overlook who might be likely to use nukes based on evidence of who has used them.

By nuclear, most people mean either a fission or fission/fusion explosion. Japan does meet that test.

By the other countries on the list, is assume that you are talking about depleted uranium. That is what is left over of uranium after the fissile uranium is removed. DU has so little radioactivity that it takes ages for even half of it decay.

Here is the way half lives really work. Imagine a bucket full of water. It has a hole in it, such that half the water will leak out in one minute. That is a big hole, and compares to highly radioactive. A lot of water is pouring out. As the hole is smaller, it takes longer for the water to leave, which compares to less radioactivity. At the half life of DU, 4.5 BILLION years is so long, the stuff is basically non radioactive.

However, you have already decided on a political stance, and since the physics do not agree with your politics, then you will reject the physics. But you will not be able to change the physics as the Laws of Physics have no politics - they just are. And they will be the same many years after all of us are gone, in fact they will be the same after the sun has swollen to a red giant and engulfed the earth.

I think the people in above mentioned countries who are witnessing extraordinary rates of birth defects would be less inclined to have a lengthy physics lesson and assume based on their reality that eveything is not so peachy with Dep. Uranium.

War crimes. Depleted Uranium is a scourge don't you think.

Half-life has nothing to do with an element's level of radioactivity. It has to do with how long it takes for its radioactive emissions to drop by 50% of its current value.

There are high-level storage sites that contain material with a half-life of 10,000 years, yet they are so radioactive now that they have to be sealed in a concrete sarcophagus. In other words, it will be 50,000 years before you can handle the stuff bare handed.

a radioactive element with a small half-life means that the damaged body will possess it, and be affected by it, for much longer. When the half life is of any length, the body NEVER excretes it, so once it's in your body, it's there and doing harm for the rest of your life.

It is applied to many substances, usually medications, but also toxins. The half-life being discussed here is radiological half-life, an entirly different phenomenon.

Wiping out a reactor and wiping out a highly-populated don't seem to have much comparison to me. I really hope that Israel doesn't make a strike, because it will just be fuel to the "Hate Israel" group and the anti-Semites will just eat it up. You know, I can understand why some people dislike the Israeli government, much like their is disdain for our government, but it seems the hate for Israel is festering like a boil.

I have always wondered if 9-11 had happened to Tel-Aviv or Haifa, would the world condemned the attacks, or called them justified? I often think the latter would be more likely. Very sad, really.

if you haven't noticed, albeit on a smaller scale. Know many people/governments in the world that call it justified? I don't.

I am very well aware of the terrorist attacks in Israel. I also notice very few governments condemn such attacks the way the world did with 9-11 and the Madrid bombings. I certainly don't see the UN issuing edicts. Perhaps, I have overlooked them?

She's raring her ugly head!!

reason or sense.

What is going on here? Are we on a Democratic website or a Nazi website? LISTEN TO YOURSELVES. Please.

This is the ugliest kind of mob consciousness, blind and stupid. I am utterly, deeply disappointed in my fellow "Americans". This is NOT the kind of discourse our country or our party stands for. This reminds me of the ugly, ignorant, uneducated kind of crap the worst kind of right-winger spews.

Informed, conscious OPINION or ARGUMENT or DEBATE is one thing. This is hate-filled rumour-mongering and I do not understand where it came from. Were people really raised this way in 20th century America? Tell me you're KIDDING, please!

..instead of judging as some sort of moral superior. It's only verbal exchange.

BTW: Please state your position on the article. I assume you support this attack plan as a 'good' move.

charge of the defense of a tiny nation, he should plan.

they are express anger at Israel's behavior, not Israel???


Sooooo, because I hate what Bush is doing, does that mean I "hate America"???

:shrug:

:eyes:

suggesting any such kind of balanced criticism. They are suggesting hatred for the entire nation of Israel.

By the way, has it occurred to anyone that the US is calling the shots here? Let's face it, who's the REAL heavy - America, with 250 million people and a warlike administration, or a Middle Eastern nation of 5 million, who has to live with Iran and everybody else in that volatile neighborhood? You have NO IDEA what that is like. But the sheer hysteria that erupted over here after ONE terrorist attack should give you some idea.

Meanwhile, I do not understand why a soldier's preparation is grounds for hysteria. Especially since the preposition 'IF' is writ loud and clear. It's words, that's ALL.

America has luxuries in the defense arena that other nations do not. Even so, do you believe WE don't have such plans? During the cold war our bombers flew 24/7, our nuclear subs patrol the oceans constantly, we have satellites everywhere. Until people learn to disarm completely and peace erupts like flowers, that is just normal.

would amount to dozens of 9/11s each month. And for those who speak of Iran minding their own business, let us not forget the arms smuggling business and the finianical support to the Palestinian terrorists to continue blowing up school children and pregnant mothers...

I'm always surprised how many people feel that Israel can do no wrong. Israel, love it or leave it.

Israel has had its share of terrorists in charge, just like we have now. Remember Begin and his little trick at the King David Hotel?

When you Dis Sharon, or the Israei policy, you dis Israel, think about language, pal.

So, just to be clear, Sharon is a War Criminal.

Israel is doing typical sabre-rattling. We dislike their foreign policy, and suddenly everyone's "nazi," "hate-filled," "rumour mongering?!?"

I don't support killing Jews.
I also don't support killing Arabs.
I disagree with Israel occupying terratories and developing one hell of a lot of nuclear weapons and performing countless covert espionage missions. I disagree with them developing plans to attack ANY country, especially one that has not invaded or attacked them.
I disagree with pre-emptive strikes, the idea of which Israel is the godfather for the past 50 years.

I hate the Israeli government. I have no problem with its people.
I suppose now that's anti-semitic.
I figure it's intelligent, free political analysis. There is a difference.

Yom Kippur war and didn't. I can't imagine they would ever use them unless attacked, as has always been the case EXCEPT at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which wasn't Israel's fault. Although, I'm sure we could probably find somebody on DU to say it was:)

The US, on the other hand, is actually looking at battlefield nukes. With this president and Rumsfeld, who knows. I think we're scared of the wrong bogeyman.

Regarding Iran: Iran has funded radical Islamist terrorists who have vowed the destruction of Israel and also Death to The Great Satan, which would be us and the western world in general. The idea that nuclear material could wind up in terrorist hands is very frightening. Hopefully this will never occur. I believe that liberal voices, more moderate and even secular voices, will eventually prevail in the Middle East. But there are reactionary voices as well, whose opinions must be considered and cannot be ignored as merely quaint. They say they want to kill people and one must give them some credence.

As far as espionage missions, etc: why shouldn't the Israelis know what is going on? The country is tiny, surrounded by hostile territory. Those missions have probably saved lives and the nukes may well have had a deterrent effect. You may hate their government but they've managed to keep the people alive, which is no small feat under the circumstances. Perhaps a kinder, gentler Israeli government would have created kinder, gentler enemies? It's POSSIBLE. But given the near total annihilation of WWII the Israeli people weren't up for taking chances.

As for preemption: when the army is massed at your borders, is it OK to take out the planes? Or should you wait until the tanks are in downtown Tel Aviv? The country was only 6 miles wide in places. That was in 1967. In 1973, on Yom Kippur, the enemy struck and damn near destroyed the whole shebang. The proportional loss of life in these wars was devastating. If the US were to suffer a 1% loss, as occurred in at least two of the wars, it would be in the 250,000 range.

I am glad that formal treaties are in place with several nations. Egypt is now helping to work within the Palestinian community and Hamas has agreed to vote in their elections. Sharon is asking Peace Now to help with the withdrawal process. There is every reason to hope that the Palestinians will have a state - which they could have had years ago. I hope that people will sheath their swords and soften their words.

I appreciate the reasoned tone of your analysis. I disagree that it is similar at all to the comments and to the tone thereof, of the ones to which I and others have objected. I hope that you will take MY analysis into consideration. There is plenty more information on the I/P forum, and I will am in the process of brushing up on the history of the several wars and incidents of terrorism - which have been legion - so I might be of more assistance in these discussions.

Thank you.

in the terrorost activities attacking Israeli citizens is not considered an attack? You don't like that Israelis are now occupying what was once Jordanian-occupied lands - taken after defeating Jordan after Jordan attacked Israel in 1967 (it was a bad move on Hussein's part, but he trusted Nasser when Nasser said he still had his air farce intac)?

I've heard all the stories about Israel attacking the four or five Arab nations that surrounded them without provocation - pure Arab League bullshit. When Nasser's troops told the UN to clear out of the Sinai or be killed (they left) and massed 10 divisions on the Sinai Gaza front - this was not preventative measure. They were waiting for the lazy Syrians to get their act together and begin attacking from the Golan Heights. It was Moshe Dayan who encouraged the Israelis (who were outnumbered 10 to 1) to fight on their own terms and not wait for the attack. So they wiped out Nassers air force on the ground, then Syrias, and then Jordan's. They drove the Egyptian forces back to the Nile. Their movements were being monitered by an American spy ship, representing a country that had close ties with Nasser and their faithfulness was in question. Who knows how many Israeli soldiers' lives were saved by the horrible attack on our spy ship. It was a spy ship! Spies take chances. We even arrest and would kill the spies from friendly nations (Pollack)._

is your condescending remark.

Right now, it's anyone's guess.

Thank you George Fucking Bush.

a very small nuke, a dirty bomb goes off in an Israeli city carried by a suicide bomber and no one knows where it came from. I don't think Iran would launch a nuke at Israel, but I think they might find a way for one to get there.

I heard Bush answer a question about Iran over a year ago. He just shook his head and said "oh, Iran's not going to get nucular weapons," and at that moment, I knew it was already decided. Bush would attack or would use Israel to attack. I still think that decision has long been made.

.

The destruction of ANY nation is a tragedy! Although, it doesn't sound as if you think it would be. Or were you just asking for clarification?

Not such a well kept secret I guess.

now comes the sabre rattling.

I am 100 percent convinced that if Israel doesn't attack Iran soon, America will.

I heard something this weekend, possibly on Air America, that Bush has plans drawn up for invading Iran in June, "should he need to follow through."

If this is true, they leaked it on purpose to posture.

They simply cannot effectively bomb even one of Iran's *known* nuclear sites. Air strikes from them will do nothing.

Iran's protectors - which include RUSSIA.

Do you really think the Israelis are that DUMB? Do you think Israel is some enormous nation of 500 million people that can go around starting wars in her own backyard?

Israel has about FIVE MILLION CITIZENS. For heaven's sake. That means PEOPLE, you guys. Human beings - and to hear you that seems to mean absolutely nothing.

None of us likes war. Let us pray the REAL problem in the world, our president and his warlike advisors and the oil industry they serve - who in turn provide YOU with your gasoline and your fuel oil and the oil that makes electricity so you can turn on your goddam computer and write hate speeches - do not start another war.

Shalom. That means PEACE, which I sincerely wish even to people who need to do some serious thinking. I suggest, instead of spewing hatred, you focus on the very positive changes that seem to underway in the Middle East. If you don't know what those are, find out. They're very interesting and very promising.

On the other hand, given the emotional climate on this board lately, it will probably just upset people to hear that good things might actually happen one of these days.

No wonder people laugh at liberals, and Democrats can't get into office.

Sheese.

He is a very unbiased, measured man. His track record is pretty good-very good in fact. I hope he is wrong. It is a very cogent piece. Here are a few snips. Link below.

Peace


Why Would the US Attack Iran?

At first thought, it seems a US attack on Iran would seem foolish, given that the American military is already bogged down in neighboring Iraq. However, there are three important reasons why the Administration might be more than willing take up the immense risks involved.

The first, which is the one most widely discussed, is that Iran is reputedly seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Most Western intelligence agencies estimate that Iran is three to five years away from being able to produce bombs from scratch. However, missile delivery systems are already in place that could loft warheads to cities in Israel, or to American bases throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. America is willing to countenance Pakistan's and Israel's nuclear capability, but these nations work with the US; Iran, in contrast, is independent and is making its own security deals with China, Russia, and Venezuela, and would be considered a threat to Israel. From the Iranian perspective, though, the development of a nuclear deterrent makes perfect sense in view of the recent US invasion of neighboring Iraq.

<snip>

The second reason has to do with the challenge that Tehran presents to the US economy. According to recent news articles emanating from Iran, that country is planning to establish a regional oil exchange stock. A December 28 2004 article in the London-based online publication IranMania.com notes that:-
Iran will move a step closer to establishing its much-publicized oil exchange next week, when the Oil Ministry and the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Finance are set to sign a memorandum of understanding (MoU), which will set the ground for the high-profile initiative. Hossein Talebi, the National Iranian Oil Company's director for information technology affairs, told Fars news agency that the project would enter the executive phase immediately after the MoU is signed. The official further said that petrochemicals, crude oil and oil and gas products will be traded at the petroleum exchange. "The oil exchange would strive to make Iran the main hub for oil deals in the region", he said, adding that most deals will be conducted through the Internet ... Iran announced in September its petroleum exchange will become operational by March 2006 ...

<snip>

A third reason for the US to invade Iran arises from long-term American geopolitical strategy: Iran is one of the few important oil exporters without a US military presence (others include Russia and Venezuela). Further, Iran is strategically located between Afghanistan and Iraq, bridging the Middle East and Central Asia, and its control is thus essential for US domination of those oil-rich regions

<snip>

Because the likely outcomes are unpalatable, and because the ongoing occupation of neighboring Iraq is not going well, American officials would find it nearly impossible to launch an attack on Iran without an adequate immediate pretext. Therefore Iran must be enticed to attack the US, or must be made to appear to do so. The most likely scenario would be for Israel to take the lead in bombing Iranian nuclear facilities. To Tehran, this would signify US involvement, as Israeli planes would likely fly over US-controlled Iraqi air space. Iran would then predictably retaliate against both Israel and the US, perhaps by launching Scud missiles toward Israel and Sunburn cruise missiles against one or more American warships stationed in the Persian Gulf. The loss of an aircraft carrier or battleship with hundreds or thousands of American sailors on board could then summon a sufficient emotional response from the American people so that the full resources of the nation (including an immediate re-institution of the draft) could be mustered behind a three-pronged invasion of Iran from Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Gulf.

http://www.energybulletin.net/4634.html

diplomatic efforts will work and nothing will EVER happen.

I hope the Iranians listen up. I do understand why they are nervous, plus they are sitting on WAY too much oil. It's dangerous, makes the people so vulnerable because of what they've got, and where they are located.

But it would be most helpful if the Iranian government would try and modify their anti-American, anti-western stance a bit. The people are certainly not hateful of America, and I've read a great deal that suggests they are interested in a more open government.

It's a gorgeous country. I hope, I hope! - nothing bad happens to the people or the land there.

This is the deepest source for hatred of US Gov't. Can't blame them. There are other reasons that are very deep. Their distrust of the West is valid. Could I persuade you to consider the possibility that the Saber rattlers need to listen up and allow the Iranian people to resolve their internal struggles on their own? We know how imperious how gov't has been for years and sees the Arab world in a rather racist framework.

More from same article:



After the war, Iran's Prime Minister, a land-owning aristocrat named Mohammad Mosaddeq, nationalized BP's exclusive concession in order to satisfy the country's growing need for revenue to pay for modernization. With this nationalization of its oil fields Iran would come to serve as an example for other resource-rich Third-World countries. Mosaddeq, a flamboyant populist leader, spoke prominently at the United Nations and was the 1951 Time Magazine Man of the Year. Britain, furious, blockaded Iran and took its case against Mosaddeq to the World Courtwhich ruled in Iran's favor.

In 1953 British intelligence and the CIA colluded to overthrow Mosaddeq, with General Norman Schwartzkopf - father of the leader of the American forces during the Desert Storm operation in 1990 - playing a key role in the plot. Once Mosaddeq was gone (he spent his declining years under house arrest and died in 1967), the shah assumed dictatorial powers, granted oil rights to a consortium of British and American companies, and established close ties with the US.

<snip>

In his book A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Geopolitics and the New World Order, William Engdahl sets forth the view that the fall of the Pahlavi dynasty and the installation of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979 were engineered by British intelligence and the CIA as part of a Washington strategy, proudly masterminded by Zbigniev Brzezinski, to stoke the fires of radical Islam throughout the Middle East in order to undermine efforts at Arab nationalism. The thought was that countries like Iran and Iraq could be played off against one another, then later the US could sweep in and pick up the pieces. The radical Islamists would also serve to undermine Soviet ties in the region: they were at the center of the Afghanistan war against the USSR and assisted in the later Balkans campaigns. They also would later provide a convenient new enemy to replace the Soviet Union after the end of the Cold War.

Covert connections between the new Iranian theocratic leadership and the incoming Reagan administration in the US were demonstrated by the so-called October Surprise, which spelled the end of Jimmy Carter's presidency, and the guns-for-hostages deal, also known as the Iran-Contra scandal.

The Iran-Iraq war (1980-88) appears to have been covertly fomented by the US (which encouraged Saddam Hussein to attack) in order to weaken both countries - Iran being supported by Syria and Libya and receiving weaponry from North Korea and China (as well as the US), Iraq enjoying wider support among both Arab and Western nations with the Soviet Union its largest arms supplier. War deaths were estimated at up to 1.5 million.


http://www.energybulletin.net/4634.html

people there are truly interested in progress and in communicating - I have a lot of Iranian friends and this whole situation scares me to death.

We have a terrible history, following the British, playing games in the Middle East. Nobody seems to think of the people there as PEOPLE. Just, pawns on a chessboard.

You know, if nothing else this dreadful war has made people really SEE each other - Americans will never be the same, we'll never look at a newspaper headline about Afghanistan or Syria or Iraq or Iran or Lebanon or Israel or the Palestinians, and not see PEOPLE, human beings.

I wish our government would CALM DOWN already. Our bad luck to get an activist president who wants to be remembered like Abe Lincoln.

Oi.

:eyes:

a history lesson? If so, I'll be glad to explain the history of the
State of Israel, starting in the days of the Roman Empire. Or maybe we should just start with the War of Independence in 1948?

Got a while?

Hopefully that won't be necessary. Let's just say that the efforts of the last 50 plus years have been to secure PEACE.

I don't personally believe you should be able to come back to a place centuries later and expect the current residents to bend over, no matter what happened in Europe.

It would be like suggesting all North Americans had to get the hell out because the Natives were here first.
Yeah, it's not fair... ain't gonna happen.

Israel was established based on shakey documents (the Balfour Declaration and the Palestinian Mandate) and a shitload of hand-wringing over WWII, so quickly that there was very little effort made to pacify the area beforehand.
It was a rash action, very similar to the rash actions happening with foreign policy today.

I have no doubt that Israel will yet again become rash, especially under someone such as Sharon, if it suits them. They have, no less, committed espionage against their own arms suppliers and the world, using WWII as a blank ticket out. They are not posing; they have nuclear weapons, and they will use it if they feel it will consolidate their strength on the area.

I just doubt they're stupid enough to attack Iran when it could start WW3.

for the people actually involved.

As for nuclear weapons - how on earth would that help matters? The fallout alone would kill everybody in the region, or at least severely damage land, animals, water and people. The incident at Chernoybl, not a bomb but an accident, is causing cancer rates to increase as far away as Sweden.

I don't understand the statement, using WWII as a "blank ticket out"? Who got a blank ticket, really - perhaps you mean the hundreds of thousands of Sephardic Jews who were expelled from Arab lands? Or the people who fled the pogroms in Eastern Europe, or the tragic remnants of WWII? My grandfather WALKED from Russia to Vienna to Trieste to Liverpool, then he took a boat to New York, where they sent him back to Liverpool because he had pinkeye. He FINALLY made it to Cleveland. All he wanted was a safe place to live, away from the cossacks and the Czar and the hatred. He came here; a different path might have taken him to Palestine, where he could have fought in more wars.

Tell me - was he a demon?

It is interesting you mention the Native Americans, since they were pretty much utterly destroyed by settlers from foreign lands - people who formed our country. Yet, we sit here, enjoying the fruits of that land, having built this house on the blood of dead Native Americans and the destruction of land and animals, and criticize Israeli people for wanting a homeland free from bigotry, pogrom, genocide and war.

The wars could have ended decades ago. There wasn't really any need for war in the first place! People have so much to offer each other - different skills, different outlooks - it's all good. But hatred and fear must die first.

There are so many hopeful signs right now in the Middle East, it would be an utter and absolute shame if more violence were to occur. I think we should be sending good vibes their direction, and see what, if anything, we can do to develope some new fuels for our industry and our cars. And hopefully, regain our country from the clutches of Big Oil, and from the fear and divisiveness this administration is fostering.

I liked one analyst's simile in which he said that if the Israelis' hair was on fire, they would put it out with a hammer.

Someone made a dumb joke. It does not represent the majority, and probably not even the minority on here.

I think most of us find nothing funny about it. I don't want anyone to bomb anyone or anything. I want it to STOP already. We have a madman in the WH surrounded by madman advisors. It's hard to know what to believe anymore, or who or when or if we're going to attack, but I think we're all more than a little on edge BECAUSE of the madman in the WH. And if Israel does do anything (and I truly hope they don't), I will believe that it is at the urging of the madmen running this country. They don't want peace, they don't see people as people (not even in their own country), and they are doing their best to destroy the whole damn world.

I want my country back.

I think that was reported in a story by Seymour Hersh, quoting a CIA agent.

Really have your right-wing talking points down, don't you.

Indite the whole based on the comments of a few.

"... PEACE, which I sincerely wish even to people who need to do some serious thinking."

Will you as well? You seem very loyal, even supportive of a government with apartheid domagraphic policies and whose leader has been called a war criminal. If you can't accept others' independent opinions, why should they trust in yours?


"I suggest, instead of spewing hatred, you focus on the very positive changes that seem to underway in the Middle East. If you don't know what those are, find out. They're very interesting and very promising."


Would you please give some references that involve things like living standards and accounting for costs incurred?

Posing as an 'authority' on what should be assumed a shared domain here doesn't make you (or the country you are so loyal to) right. Israel has some serious outstanding infractions in the chain of human trust. This is obvious to all but loyalists who make demands but rarley concessions, and the dangers of the power involved effect us all.

How can you pretend Israel's monumental human rights violations aren't a serious factor in fomenting resentment for the mess out there - or just turn to moral judgements against those who might care about treating the rest of the regional population as "human beings" not just assumed lessers?

Salam

plan to attack.

...why should Iran be any different, and why would anyone think that the Israelis just thought recently about attacking Iran?

This plan has been on the books since Israel developed the ability to reach Iran militarily, and since Israel developed nuclear weapons.

on going to WWIII!!!

I'm sure this is all just a coincidence ...?

Israel has drawn up secret plans for a combined air and ground attack on targets in Iran if diplomacy fails to halt the Iranian nuclear programme. Sounds if the Israeli government is preparing for a variety of outcomes. I haven't seen any pronouncements from the Israelis to oust "inspectors" or say that the diplomatic route is failing. I also haven't seen any official of the Israeli government approaching the UN and presenting "facts" that state Iran has this technology. Sounds like Israel is waiting to see how diplomacy works out, instead of charging in "guns a-blazin'!"

nothing new or late breaking in the discussion.