Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya and Syria

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq. "These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve," Sharon said to a visiting delegation of American congressmen.

Sharon told the congressmen that Israel was not involved in the war with Iraq "but the American action is of vital importance."

In a meeting with U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton yesterday, Sharon said that Israel was concerned about the security threat posed by Iran, and stressed that it was important to deal with Iran even while American attention was focused on Iraq.

snip

Sharansky warned Bolton that the Quartet's (U.S., UN, European Union and Russia) plan for the Israelis and Palestinians deviated from President Bush's vision.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=263941

Gimme a minute to get my gun. We'll get right on it.

the rest of Richard Perle's Clean Break Plan and the PNAC agenda. It's amazing how US and Israeli security policy are almost mirror images.

Israel should be stripped of it's WMDs and made to follow the UN mandates that they have ignored; at least 12 of them

After all, that's what many of them wish anyhow.

Never again.

Have the conventional military strength to protect it's own national intrests? IIRC Israel has the largest,best funded, best equipted and best trained military in the aera. Is this not so?

Doesn't seem like "little" Israel would need a few dozen nukes to keep safe.

There is a lot to a military. Israel has to maintain both the economic resources to keep up that military advantage and have the logistics to keep that military running. Many of the Israeli weapons are NOT U.S. made, so boycotts by nations like France could shut down a sizeable chunk of the IDF over time.

But no matter how many troops Israel's enemies can field, if it has nukes, then they can't conquer without sowing the seeds of their own destruction.

is running up against the same problems, muddle. All nations sow the seeds of their own destruction, and that includes the US. Bush has gone against his own campaign rhetoric that the US is not to be the "policemen of the world".

Great post ...simple but straight to the heart of the matter :hi:

I expect the Iranians and the Syrians might be of the same opinion, especially when the prime minister of Israel openly suggests that they be invaded.

Remind me again why we should be morally invested in Israel NOT being invaded at the same time that we should support the invasions of Iran and Syria?

Export terror, support terror, fund terror, etc. ALL nations should stand against terror.

Suggesting the military invasion of Iran and Syria qualify as "supporting and exporting terror" in my view. I think your point of view is craven and unethical, if not murderous.

We live on different planets, and obviously have nothing to talk about. feel free to reply; I will not reply to your nonsenses any more.

Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon. Just in case you have forgotten, Iran is not our friend. Aside from the hostage crisis, we have been at odds with them for decades. If they get nukes, there is no guarantee they won't either use them or simply hand them off to any of the terrorist groups they support.

And has been so through some pretty dark times including the Cold War.

Began when the CIA helped overthrow the first democratic government of Iran and reinstall the Shah.

on them?

Hell, Pakistan gives their stuff to anyone who wants it and we look the other way. Your stance is hypocritical and you know it. If you want to blindly support Israel's one-sided aggression against its neighbors, please do it somewhere else, because we don't buy it.

I don't want anybody like that getting nukes.

That which you call Israli aggression is also known in the real world as self defense.

Funny, how this isn't refuted --- Israel was just too damn clever for it's own good...

Sort of like 1956 and Operation Musketeer
1954 with the Lavon Affair...

But I digress...we mustn't talk of such events...

Like hell!:mad:

Given Arafat's history of terror and sponsoring terror, it is no surprise that Israel sought alternatives.

"Iran and Syria

Export terror, support terror, fund terror, etc."

We sure do live on different planets.

one of the biggest and best terrorist organizations in the world.

What a pantload.

If Israel is allowed to have hundreds of nuclear weapons aimed at her neighbors, then they MUST be allowed a defense against this regime.
Israel has received most of her weaponry for free from the US. We give the country billions every year and then absolve the debt. Israel never pays.

Don't you have anything to say other than to disarm all of Israel's neighbors? It would be no wonder if Israel is hated by its neighbors because it frequently carries out acts of aggression against them. How many fly-overs and bombings of Lebanon and Syria should they be allowed?

If Israel can have nukes and chem/bio weapons, the countries around it have the right to defend themselves. Who's looking after them anyway? Certainly not the U.S. It's no wonder Iran has enlisted the help of Russia, which we've gone out of our way to piss off over the last couple of years.

I'm tired of hearing all the crap about poor little Israel. They should start following the UN's rules and maybe they'll make some friends.

You might want to trust them, I sure don't.

As for the situation between Israel and Syria (which includes Lebanon, since they conquered it some time ago and allowed only a proxy government) has been going on for 55 years. Ever since Syria failed to accept Israel's right to exist. So blame Syria, not Israel.

They're more honest than some posters around here. :)

See:

The most powerful in the Middle East

IDF stronger than ever | Strategic Studies report: Gulf between the Arabs grows larger | After Iraq, Israel stronger; her neighbours weakened

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=15302

(quoted from a center-right Hebrew daily - it was front page news in Israel)

And the line given is usually that everyone wants to destroy Israel.

Israel captured territory in one of the many wars it has had to fight against its neighbors. Some of that territory has been returned in peace treaties. Other neighbors of Israel do not wish peace and there has been no treaty.

Israel still occupies the Golan Heights, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Israel occupied Southern Lebanon for approximately 20 years and still occupies land that is in dispute there. Prior to that, Israel occupied parts of Egypt, including the Sinai before that.

These are the facts. To deny them is to be in denial.

First off, only the Golan could arguably be said to belong to another state. And that is contingent on Syria making peace with Israel, something it has been unwilling to do.

The West Bank and Gaza are disputed territories.

If what is meant by disputed territories refers to the legalities stretched by Israel regarding Gaza and the West Bank--then all things in life are up for grabs.

In other words-- the world as a whole does NOT accept Israel's views concerning the West Bank and Gaza as "disputed territories"
Some in the Israeli establishment to argue that they are "disputed"--that's irrelevant--doesn't amount to a hill of beans on the world stage

What state owns them? The previous states that had that territory don't claim it. That includes Turkey (the successor to the Ottoman Empire), Jordan and Great Britain.

Don't mean anything in the face of the reality of the history of the Ottoman Empire, the mandate system, and the aftermath of the creation of the Modern Middle East.

To attempt to use legal methods to support one's cause while playing fast and loose with the legality of actions within the West Bank and Gaza Strip is silly and counter productive for Israel's future.

There is no other state that has any claim to that territory.

Israel's "claim" with regard to the occupied territories deserves no credence whatsoever. These sorts of "claims" are what have helped drive the conflict on through the years.

What a disgusting notion that "no other country has claim"--

As if there *were* other countries in the region prior to its creation after World War I.

Delusional and self-destructive sentiments should not be supported.

Have been under the jurisdiction of several states. None of those other states currently places any claim on them. That leaves Israel.

is irrelevant. Israel has run roughshod over the law concerning the treatment of those living in the Gaza Strip and West Bank--whether they are, as some will put it, "disputed territories," or whether, as the rest of the world puts it, occupied territories.

Sorry--Israel does not have a legal, ethical, or moral leg to stand on, here. They may win in court--but in the end, the rest of the world will see it for what it is. An injustice.

And that is why I used the term fatalistic. As long as there are those who support the claim of "disputed territories"--there is no pragmatic, practical solution available and the horrific deaths of more people will continue from both sides.

It's time for the Israeli electorate and government to get their heads out of the sand--just as much as it is time for the Palestinian leadership to get their heads out of the sand. As for the Palestinian electorate--their heads have been forced in the sand for decades.

Israel has been fighting a war for 55 years. It's a war that's present in everything the small nation has to do to survive. It's not like those clean-cut, nifty movies on TV. It's a real war where the second it turns its back, either armies or terrorists try to kill Israeli citizens.

Part of that war is against the extensive Palestinian terror network -- funded, supported, tolerated, endorsed and even led by the Palestinian leadership. Even more, embraced by the Palestinian people.

Israel has a legal, moral and ethical claim to defend itself in that war. Israel has offered peace repeatedly and been rejected by Arafat. That leaves no option but disengagement. The Palestinians need Israel for jobs and economic development. It's about time they realized that.

The most humorous part of your post is the claim that "As long as there are those who support the claim of "disputed territories"--there is no pragmatic, practical solution available and the horrific deaths of more people will continue from both sides."

You make it sound like there is something Israel can do to end the terror. There isn't. The Palestinian terror network won't stop until Israel is destroyed. Many of them have made that clear. So there is nothing Israel can do to appease that stance.

The only ones who can stop the terror are the Palestinians and they have shown no willingness to do so. Until the terrorist threat is over, there will be no peace.

for decades.

First off, only the Golan could arguably be said to belong to another state.

Correct, only in that occupying territory of "another state" is occupying territory of another country.

The West Bank and Gaza are disputed territories.

Statements like this severely undermine your credibility. In any event, these lands were never part of Israel or granted to Israel in any way, and yet are being occupied (and settled) by Israel. As are the Golan Heights being occupied and settled by Israel.

Nor is there any question raised about the occupations of Egypt and Lebanon.

One neighbor -- Syria and it is Syria's choice, not Israel's.

Sorry you don't like a realistic assessment of the West Bank and Gaza, but no other state claims those territories and the Palestinians have been unwilling to work out a peace treat to permanently settle the issue.

less and less prevalent, but typified by a failure to accept historical facts and reality. Even after admitting that Israel has occupied her neighbors for decades (as if admitting it would somehow harm Israel in some way, but that is for another post), there is an inability to read what has actually been posted just centimeters above.

In the mid 1970s I sat in what was once a Syrian bunker on the Golan Heights. You could see from this bunker an Israeli kibbutz.

Ever hear the expression, "it's like shooting fish in a barrel?"

Then we rode down from the Heights and visited that same kibbutz and saw the building used as the nursery to house the infants and children of the kibbutz members. The side of the building facing the above mentioned bunker was riddled with bullets.

And yet you question why the Golan Heights is not returned without a peace treaty? Maybe it might be a good idea for Syria to get the hell out of Lebanon and demonstrate their willingness to be a peaceful nation in the world. Maybe Syria should refrain from funding terrorists groups and demonstrate their willingness to be a peaceful nation in the world.

These are the facts. Deny them all you want.

To suggest that Israel should just "give back" the Golan Heights is lunacy. I wouldn't call them "disputed", but I sure as hell wouldn't give them back.

The post that was made stated that Israel has been occupying her neighbors for decades. You don't seem to dispute that.

Thank you very much.

"80%+ of hostile events in the Golan area were caused by Israel" (paraphrase).

Those are the facts.

and it was immediately clear just how PNAC is just an extention of the Sharon crowd/agenda, and how the US and it's military is being used to impliment the Sharon agenda.

How convientient -- we get the oil, and Sharon gets his enemies done away with.

What a deal with the devil.

actually work for the Likud government. Their entire foreign policy puts the interests of the Israeli Likud government ahead of US interests. Last time I checked that was considered treason.

You have no idea where their loyalties lie. Many Americans, myself included, see common cause with our ally and friend Israel.

No question the entire world would be a lot better off is Iran, Lybia, Syria and Israel were disarmed.

6 million Israelis, do you?

I'd appreciate if you would not use MLK's picture. Because Israel does the same thing to the Palestinians that was done to the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, and the same thing white people have done to blacks in the United States. It's hypocritical.

Israel has gone out of its way to seek peace with the Palestinians. But still Arafat won't agree to peace. Lacking any other options, Israel is trying to protect its citizens by building a barrier to separate the two groups.

Frankly, it's long overdue.

62% of those Israelis voted for Sharon to keep them safe with his policies--none voted for any American president. None voted for Bush, for instance, and none have a right to expect that we sacrifice our troops to take away the "possible" menace of someone that Israel sees as it's "potential" or "future" enemy.

Israel has consistently used the "pre-emptive" excuse for war to get what it wants and people are not accepting that anymore as a valid reason to wage war on anyone, especially a small , pathetically equipped nation. It is primitive and barbaric and was primitive and barbaric when Bush decided to do the same. I think as members of the human race, we can rise above that sort of nonsense and if not, well then, the alternative to it is to let it go and let the ME burn to the ground with a million nuke fires, because that is what will happen eventually if the barbaric approach to occupation, empire and pre-emptive warfare continues , arbitrarily based on the paranoia of the leaders of the countries involved. It always has since history began in that area and it looks like it will continue until human beings evolve beyond animal like behavior.

Here in the US we have varying degrees of opinions about Sharon and Israel's aggressive occupation and invasion of lands that are not rightfully theirs and do not belong to them by any conceivable means except as the spoils of a pre-emptive, up for grabs, military invasion in which they had the superior military equiptment and nukes, purchased from the US.

We have a right to form an opinion that is against Israel because of it's political policies. We have a right to that opinion and a right to express it without having to run the gauntlet of an imposed guilt over the fate of "six million" Israelis.

That six million people live under that leadership and that a majority choose to live under that leadership is not the responsibility of anyone else, especially here in the US, who cannot approve of the way Israel has handled it's foreign policies re human rights. I would not approve of it for my own country, why should I approve of it for Israel? I am not responsible for the protection of six million Israelis.

Whatever gave you the notion to try to heap guilt upon people whose opinion of Sharon's policies are not identical to yours, by making it appear that if six million Israelis succumb, it will be the fault of those in the US, or Americans? That is an absurd proposition.

The subsequent occupation and the subsequent persecution by Israel of the people who lived on those lands for generations and generations is an abomination to a lot of people who watch, and the destruction of their farms and homes, is unacceptable to a lot of Americans whose focus is upon human justice and fairness and desire only to see people grow up, reach a peaceful arrangement and stop the childish excuse of pre-emptive war when they know they are the ones with the biggest and the best of military equiptment. It should be obvious it does not work for any good for the human race in the end.

Killing pre-emptively leads to more killing--like in Iraq--Who can be proud of it? No way can I--maybe you can, but I cannot. Endless, ceaseless war is not something to be proud of--endless killing/war, even with victory, is not something to be proud of. Peace and the seeking of peace for all peoples is something to be proud of and works to the benefit of all. To expect the US to, in irony of ironies,intervene in the ME in a Hitleresque like conquest on various small countries in the ME, on the pretense they are "threats" to Israel and therefore the world, and to do Israel's invading for it is unacceptable.

approximately a third of the Israelis voted for Sharon. Your figure of 62% is indicative of the rest of your statements.

Sharon Elected Israeli Prime Minister
(February 6, 2001)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Likud Party leader Ariel Sharon defeated Labor Party candidate Ehud Barak in the special election for prime minister. With 99.9% of the votes counted, Sharon had 62.5% of the vote and Ehud Barak 37.5%. The Israeli Central Election Committee will announce the official results February 13.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Politics/sharonwin.html

What on earth are you trying to say here?

That Israeli people do NOT approve of Sharon? Since only one third voted for him? Excuse me, but if we were to take the number who voted for Bush out of the entire population I am sure we could come up with some rediculous number also. It is known that half of Americans do not even bother to vote.

But those whoe did turn out to vote for Sharon, 62% were for him.

Are you ashamed of Sharon to the point where you have to deny he was elected by a majority? What is the schtick here?

I do not understand. How can a one third majority ever give any leader in a supposed democracy, that brags it is the only democracy in the ME, be considered a democracy? And it's leader be considered powerful eneough to recommend to the US where to send it's young men and women to die?

http://cbc.ca/news/features/israel_elections2003.html

The last Israeli election, results and some understanding how democracy works in Israel.

You may also recall that Mitzna and not Barak was Sharon's main opponent in the last general elections.

they forgot?

We back him and we get more terrorist by the year. Bush keeping us safe? Hay until he came in we never had terror so bad.I see it as Bush policies bring us terror. How come others do not see this?

Gosh, I guess we just never saw that. So when bush and sharon are all gone there will be no terror like before?

Baruch Goldstein. So the argument to dis arm Sharon and those that support the likes of Goldstein holds as much water as the argument to disarm Hamas et al.

After all, the US is an "honest broker" is it not?

the sign of wild megolamania that seems to be running rampant among ultra conservative neocons these days.

But then they might be labeled as anti-something, and we couldn't have that.

Because it would be true. Only a select few believe Israel controls U.S. policy.

are convinced that the millions paid to congresscritters by that government have no effect on U.S. policy in the M.E.

And of course you might want to supply a list of those "congesscritters" who have received money from that government.

Seeing how money from a foreign government is considered illegal to begin with, you may have the scoop of the century.

They're going to lose Bush in 2004, and they have no one from the Lieberman branch of the Democratic party running, so now they're getting desparate.

approach to the middle east; have the US do all his dirty work for him. And with a suggestible chimpanzee as pResident, Sharon just might get what he wants.

Sharon will fight to the last drop of American blood to take over the middle east.

Which is why this statement be Sharon is so ridiculous. If he wants to disarm those countries, let his military do it. What possibly logical reason would there be for us to do said bidding? The answer is NONE!

If we have direct strategic interests in disarming everyone, then we should disarm everyone, not just the people our "pals" don't trust.

But, unless there is provable strategic interest in keeping these weapons out of EVERYONE'S hands, then let Israel handle their own strategic interests.

If they invaded Syria and located, and destroyed, WMD's, then i could stand behind their need to defend themselves against a hostile neighbor with big-time destructive power. But, the open question here is, why should the U.S. do it? Nothing in your prior posts provides the logic that would affirmatively answer that question to a convincing degree.
The Professor

Would threaten the U.S. as well. Israel and the U.S. and the rest of the West have common cause to prevent such a development.

Didn't think so. China and the USSR had nuclear weapons for 40+ years. We were told by our own government they were the enemy. We were told they were intractable, and bent on world domination.

And there were how many nuclear attacks from those two superpowers, again?

If that didn't constitute a strategic threat that required confrontation and disarmament, this certainly does not. Not unless your "proof" shows some intent not known to the rest of us.

The Professor

And every day Iran actively supports terror. Maybe you are willing to take that risk with D.C. or New York. I am not.

and an organized "legitimate" government realizes that starting a war with the US will draw retaliation from the US. China and USSR realize that a war with the US ends with no winners.

However, a rogue group would be more than happy to strike the US and know that there is no single point of retaliation. The initial strike is the victory for terrorists.

Israel has acquired land through wars. To the victor go the spoils. Israel has already returned some lands that they conquered after being threatened and attacked.

...Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, while France and Great Britain seized the Suez Canal. That's not exactly what I would call "being threatened and attacked".

In 1967, Israel used a preemptive assault to defeat Egypt, Syria, and Jordan while seizing large areas of land from each. Oddly enough, Israel used the excuse that they were being threatened by "guerrilla and terrorist" organizations. Again, that's not exactly what I would call "being threatened and attacked".

There were actually only two times when Israel was actually attacked and could use the excuse of "being threatened". The first time was 1948 shortly after Israel gained independence, and the second was in 1973. All other clashes between Israel and her neighbors have been initiated by Israel.

but on the other I actually worry more what a desperate bunch of power hungry neons will do to us, more than I worry about Iran hitting the US with a nuke anytime soon.

Through Hollywood or the banks? (shhh, sarcasm alert.)

and you know it.

They are in charge of US foreign policy and they answer directly to Sharon. They are the worst traitors in history.

Jews are more loyal to Israel than the U.S.

What other stereotypes do you have in your pocket?

in Iraq is he talking about?"

I think we have lost enough of our young American men and women and murdered enough innocent Arabs/Muslims and their children by now, don't you think so Mr. Sharon? Can you lay off that pre-emptive rhetoric ? Don't you have a wall to build somewhere?

I think our hospitals are overflowing with tens of thousands of maimed American men and women and we do not want anymore to lose a limb or end up blind at the age of twenty. Don't you think that is a reasonable way for an American patriot to look at human life, Mr. Sharon?

For an American parent to look at their child?

I am sure American action is of "vital Importance" to you, but right now we have a man in office whose foreign policies have messed up the world badly and who is the cause of uncountable slaughter and murder at this point, but estimated to be in the twenty thousands of innocents dead--

please Mr. Sharon, can you see to it that you concentrate upon the "vital action" your country can take and be responsible for? We do not dispense with our young as easily as you would have us do

they all want to kill the Jews, so we have to kill all of them first?

Sharon is only barely in charge in Israel. Sure as hell isn't here.

It's like the first season of the Sopranos. Let the feds think Uncle Junior is the boss.

:eyes:

if Sharon really thinks it needs to be done, i suggest he do it himself and leave our kids (and cash) out of it.

troops? just asking..

Explains why it wasn't vetted better. We just take Israel's word for anything.

I doubt America wants the repurcussions and asked Israel to sit this one out just like Gulf I.

n/t

in power?

Fuck Sharon and fuck Israel.

They have shown nothing but contempt for soverign nations around them, and even less for the Palestinians. No one is innocent over there, hence they should be striving for better relations and learning the art of diplomacy, rather than the art of war.

Israel does not do well for her global image when they say things like this.

It's hard to show much more than contempt when your neighbors constantly try to wipe you out.

Even then, Israel has made peace with both Egypt and Jordan and has established better ties with Turkey. It is the radical Arab and Muslim states that are the problem, not Israel.

If you disarm Israel, you will enable a second Holocaust.

for decades. People don't like being occupied.

It's hard to show much more than contempt when your neighbors constantly try to wipe you out.

Trying to get your neighbor out of your living room (when they don't belong there) is not trying to wipe that person out -- it is trying to get them out of your living room.

Israel has been under attack almost constantly. The Arab nations in the region have done everything they can to destroy Israel.

The Sturn and Irgun Gangs drove out the British, then the Palestinians.

Welcome to the ignore feature that protects me from the likes of you.

At least Sharon is finally putting the cards on the table. This is what Israel wanted from the beginning. To use our American soldiers to help put down their enemies. And as long as they had American might and money behind them, they have no incentive to compromise with their neighbors.

"We'll get right on that" was my first thought. My 2nd one was, "If you want 'em disarmed, go disarm 'em!" Why the heck should our military do their bidding? That's just patently stupid! Which probably means that the Bush Administration agrees with him.
The Professor

"My carpet is in a really disreputable state, and it needs to be replaced. I think the U.S. government needs to shoulder this responsibility. God knows I don't want to!"

at least the people who do the actual fighting and dying don't seem to think it is.

Oho!

Not until you give up your nuclear weapons and open your nuclear facilities to inspections, Ariel!

Who's the bad guy here???

But I don't think that changes your point (correct me if I am wrong).

Here is an interesting link for those who would like to read more:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/index.html

This talks some about where Israel obtained their stockpile and various estimates of the size of that stockpile- good stuff.

This one is at the beginning of 2002 (pub. Sept. 13, 2002) from the Center for Defense Information:
http://www.cdi.org/program/issue/document.cfm?DocumentID=179&IssueID=46&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=DateLastUpdated&ProgramID=32&issueID=46

It's numbers for Israel are about the same (~200).

FUCK OFF.

Hey asswipe, maybe you could try to make a few more friends in the world and get your own international coalition together to do it.
Oh I forgot, Israel's friends are bought and paid for. Just wave a bible around and the American sheeple will fall in line.

:evilgrin:

for, if not their own defense? Israel could also take it to the U.N.

would be 175-2.
Not much of a coalition.

I mean since we are already there and all, at your beck and call, surely there is more slavish activities we can do to make your life easier..

And don't nobody pop off and call me an anti-semite :mad:

Do it yourself, a-hole.

,...we may see world-wide celebrations rather than protests.

I love those words by Rodney King.

What I have a problem with is the way that Sharon and Bush are going about it. It's not what you do but the way that you do it in most matters.

For Sharon to say that we must go after the WMD in other countries makes the bells ring in my head. I instantly think,that is the same thing that Bush said about Iraq and most of us agree that was a massive mess. It, IMO, has not made the world safer.

In other words, it's not the messages but the messengers. IMO Sharon and Bush remind me a lot of each other. I don't trust Bush therefore I don't really trust Sharon.

:headbang:

If he feels so threatened - perhaps he should fight his own "preemptive" wars.

No Americans should die for this asshole.

Obviously humans are far to stupid to learn how to get along peacefully.

Moved into I/P territory. It actually lasted a good while, though.

locking.