Thursday, May 07, 2009
INDIA SHOULD STAY AWAY FROM US/PAK’S TALIBAN TRAP - By Ghulam Muhammed
It is no secret that Taliban is the creation of the
Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai
www.ghulammuhammed.wordpress.com
Labels: Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, India, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Pakistan, Pakistani President Zardari, Senator John Kerry, Senator Richard Lugar, Taliban, US-Pak AFPAK war on Taliban
Israel's Nuke - By Joe Klien
WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2009 AT 4:37 PM
Israel's Nukes
Andrew Sullivan has been having a back-and-forth with the neos over at the Commentary blog about Israel's nukes. Israel has them, obviously. Sullivan believes, rightly, that if Israel has them, its rivals in the region--Iran, for example--might want some nukes of their own as a deterrent. In one of the sillier bits of prose I've read in some time, Noah Pollack argues:
But Israel isn't Iran's rival — Iran is Israel's. Can Andrew name any acts of unprovoked bellicosity Israel has committed against Iran?
How about Israel's constant threats of military action against Iran's nuclear program? How about the disproportionate bellicosity Israel visited upon Iran's Hizballah surrogate in 2006? Which is not to say that Hizballah is anything other than a group of extremist thugs--but southern Lebanon and, more recently, Gaza are the battlefields where Israel's rivalry with Iran has been playing out.(Add: Indeed, given the state of hostilities--for which Iran is almost totally responsible--the very existence of Israel's nuclear arsenal can be seen as an existential threat to Iran.)
For the record, I think 60 years of history make it reasonable for Israel to have a nuclear deterrent. But the reality of Israel's nuclear arsenal does make it difficult to argue against Iran's right to have the same. And the constant plumping for war against Iran by Likudniks in Israel and the U.S. makes the case for a nuclear capability dire and immediate from Iran's point of view. It is time we stopped kidding ourselves about this--and stopped making arguments that the rules should be different, somehow, for Israel than for other countries.
50 Comments to “Israel's Nukes”
Labels: Iran, Israel, Israel scoffs at non-proliferation push, Israel's nukes
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 4:42 pm
One of the more interesting bits to come out of this from Andrew via another reader.
"There is a very simple reason why we have to pretend that Israel does not possess nuclear weapons- the Non Proliferation Treaty. Under the treaty and US law, a non-signatory to the treaty (such as Israel) who acquires nuclear weapons is prohibited from receiving any foreign aid or military aid . . ."
Source:
The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as amended by the Symington Amendment of 1976 and the Glenn Amendment of 1977 prohibit US military assistance to countries that acquire or transfer nuclear reprocessing technology outside of international nonproliferation regimes.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 4:47 pm
But Israel isn't Iran's rival — Iran is Israel's. Can Andrew name any acts of unprovoked bellicosity Israel has committed against Iran?
.
Talk about parsing . . .
.
Didn't Israel take out an Iraqi nuclear reactor in an air strike some time in the not-to-distant past - with OUR blessing? Seem to remember that was some sort of "message" to others.
.
When you send "messages", sometimes you send them to others, with the clear understanding who is supposed to hear it.
.
Just exactly which cheap drugs does Pollack think we are all taking?
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 4:53 pm
There is a very simple reason why we have to pretend that Israel does not possess nuclear weapons- the Non Proliferation Treaty.
.
All of this "winking" and "nodding" on the part of our government regarding Israel and its nuclear program is giving me a headache.
.
That program has got to be one of the worst-kept secrets on the planet.
.
Look at Pakistan and India - our recent deals with them regarding nuclear technology have served as a stellar example to others and have made the region safer - NOT!
.
Why would ANYONE believe a word we say on this?
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 4:56 pm
I think I'd rather be in the situation we are now, as in, the nation's leader that has talked about wiping another nation off the map and is openly racist NOT having nuclear weapons.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Come on, Joe, you're not hinting that Iran has a right to have nukes, are you? Kind of seems like you are.
-
Oh, and by the way, I wonder what the United States would have done if faced with a terrorist element on our border that:
-
A: Had kidnapped and murdered US soldiers before, only surrendering their bodies after long and tortured negotiations
-
B: Kidnapped more troops
-
C: Started launching rockets into cities along the border to complain that the US hadn't surrendered a particular territory to them, even though we had
-
"Disproportionate bellicosity"? Your grandiose prose fails you again.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Joe:
.
Is there any information at all, (reality-based information!) that attempts to make an assessment of just what might happen economically should these two come to blows?
.
The NNPT interpretation is very interesting...
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 5:00 pm
apollyon07,
.
One more example of where our past policy in that area of the world comes back to "bite us in the arse".
.
We set what we think are minor fires for one supposedly benign reason, then have to come back later and start others to stop the flames from the first one WE set.
.
It's been going on for years over there.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Oh, by the way, if Iran has a right to have nukes because Israel does...wouldn't that mean NK has a similar privilege? I think we're forgetting exactly which states are in the business of kidnapping US citizens for trial in kangaroo courts.
-
Seriously, the bad guys are the bad guys. Talk with them if you must, but don't legitimize their mangled logic.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Joe, quit being so anti-semitic.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Is there any information at all, (reality-based information!) that attempts to make an assessment of just what might happen economically should these two come to blows?
.
53_3,
.
This is just my opinion, mind you, but use your imagination.
.
Disrupted oil supplies, major conflict, fragile world economy. Put those together and stir briskly.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Any debate of who should and who should not have nuclear weapons is over the cliff to begin with. Nobody should have them. Nada. And the U.S. and Russia should begin a process to insure that, and then begin to deal with their own massive stockpiles.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 5:07 pm
afguy, I agree with you partially, but there are some situations where it just simply was not predictable. For example, was helping the Afghanis fight off the Soviets (by far our biggest, and arguably the world's, greatest threat at the time) in the 80s a bad thing to do at that moment? To say it was a bad thing to do because of what may or may not have happened later is kind of like saying to a football team that ends up losing 7-8 (and scored first) that they should have gone for two after scoring because they ended up losing.
.
And 53_3, could you provide the link for that NNPT interpretation? Sounds interesting indeed.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 5:09 pm
formerlyjames, the thing is that nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent. Does anyone really think the US and Soviets would not have gone to (real) war had they not both had nukes?
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 5:10 pm
James,
-
Actually, there's a pretty good case for all the really big strong countries to have nukes. Major power wars virtually disappeared after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Prior to that, Major power vs. Major power wars were almost a continuous state of affairs. It was only after the cost of war finally hit guaranteed annihilation that people stopped fighting each other.
-
It's somewhat accurate to compare the U.S./Soviet bi-polar world of the late twentieth century to the Britain/France bi-polar world of the dark ages. Or the Europe/Middle East world of the crusades. Those were times of literally unending warfare. Nukes are bad news yes, but there's a pretty solid argument to be made for their presence keeping any two countries that possess them from fighting each other.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 5:11 pm
apollyon, your nuance is right given the fractious nature of the Middle East. Unfortunately, Iran's current situation can be most directly attributed to our meddling. Tragic.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 5:12 pm
And the U.S. and Russia should begin a process to insure that, and then begin to deal with their own massive stockpiles.
.
formerlyjames,
.
They do (or did). Program started the last couple of years I was active duty. We both destroy missiles in a verifiable manner and then we buy up their surplus nuclear material (supposedly so it wouldn't fall into the wrong hands.)
.
I know that our nuclear industry complained so that program MAY not be as active and prolific as it once was. Seems they thought that buying the USSR's material was undercutting the profits of our own.
.
And since Bush has had his fingers in the pie in the intervening time...who knows?
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 5:12 pm
I think we're forgetting exactly which states are in the business of kidnapping US citizens for trial in kangaroo courts
.
Yoshi
I'm not sure I recognize the incident you're referring to. Was it this one?
.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE53L4V520090422?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Yoshi, on Iran, I'm assuming you're referring to our installation of the Shah which eventually led to the Ayatollah, and I agree. However, it seems like we could've done more to keep the Shah in power, because while he was a bad guy, it was pretty obvious what kind of leader Iran would end up with if he was deposed. Surprise!
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Joe-
.
Thank you so much. Nothing brightens my day more than seeing unbelievably poor logic.
.
In order to justify why Iran wants nuclear weapons, you cite as examples of "acts of unprovoked bellicosity Israel has committed against Iran" (1) "Israel's constant threats of military action against Iran's nuclear program"; and (2) "the disproportionate bellicosity Israel visited upon Iran's Hizballah surrogate in 2006".
.
So, for (1), your logic is that Iran needs nuclear weapons to combat Israel's threats against its nuclear weapons? Brilliant! Of course, Iran could escape those threats by not having nuclear weapons, but that's another matter.
.
And, as for (2), I don't think you know what "unprovoked" means, do you?
.
Again, thanks for cheering me up with your "logic." I haven't laughed that hard in a while.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Sean Coursey,
.
No, but we reverted to almost a constant state of "proxy" warfare at various places.
.
How much of our current ME problem started out with a "Cold War" theme to it? I wonder if the rationale for the fighting hasn't just mutated over time.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 5:17 pm
I recognize the deterrent effect to an extent. That extent stops when there are sectarian crazies hoping to meet virgins in another world.
.
afguy, I know of the nonproliferation treaties and efforts, but they have just scratched the surface. People think of nuclear capability only in terms of long range rockets and missles, and that is what the new players to the game aspire for. But the U.S. and Russian capabilities run from those missles to artillery shells.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Also, as you should know, it's not just "Likudniks in Israel" who are preparing for war against Iran. It's a broad swath of the population, including Labor figures such as Peres and Barak.
.
Considering they're under no illusion about the pain of war and they're willing to put their sons and daughters in harm's way, I think they recognize the threat of a nuclear Iran.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Keep on trying for equivalency, PD. It'll get you, and the US, nowhere.
-
apollyon:
-
Gee, I don't know. That's an interesting dilemma to consider. Maybe so.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 5:25 pm
However, it seems like we could've done more to keep the Shah in power, because while he was a bad guy, it was pretty obvious what kind of leader Iran would end up with if he was deposed. Surprise!
.
apollyon07,
.
The Shah was a walking "human rights violation". I'm pretty sure we had opportunities to affect his behavior and gain some good will in that country but, at the time, we were worried about the Soviet Union. We needed the bases he let us have.
.
His illness caught us by surprise but, by that time, we just weren't very popular within that country.
.
I'm afraid we were going to "bite it" in Inran no matter what because of our support for him.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 5:26 pm
But the U.S. and Russian capabilities run from those missles to artillery shells.
.
formerlyjames,
.
And smaller than that, I'm sure. Technology doesn't stand still.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 5:28 pm
it seems like we could've done more to keep the Shah in power
.
apollyon07, google "SAVAK"
.
It's a good thing we didn't do more to keep the Shah in power, because he was A Very Bad Person. We got rid of Saddam because he was A Very Bad Person.
.
Of course, both events are textbook illustrations for the fact that after you remove the pin, Mr. Hand Grenade is no longer your friend.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Damme, afguy, you're telepathic!
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 5:30 pm
afguy, I agree we probably would've "bit it" either way but it seems like we just gave up, and the end result was much worse than what we in the US and the people in Iran had to begin with.
.
Yoshi, which dilemma do you mean?
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 6:10 pm
As someone who usually cringes at your world view, Joe, you strike a very balanced, common-sense position vis a vis Israel. Not to mention being an MSM figure who GASP mentions Israeli nOOks! I'd like to see this degree of skepticism re: our own military ambitions, but I'll take what I can get.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 6:23 pm
apollyon: whether to continue enabling a dictator to keep the lid on the jar or to let his oppressed people take rightful charge...and screw things up once more.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Most of the current ME problems stem from the Brits and French and the complete mess they made of Africa and Asia's geography (the problems don't exist to the same degree in South America because disease wiped out the vast majority of the indigenous populations).
-
I mean seriously, you think it's not destabilizing to Afghanistan, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria that notable to significant portions of their populations want to split off and form Kurdistan with each other?
-
The maps were drawn to intentionally mix cultures into minority/majority groupings so the colonial powers could put the minority ethnic group in charge and make them dependent on the colonialists.
-
As far as the Shah goes, we should never have put him in power in the first place. Iran was about to have democratic elections when we (the CIA) decided to accede to a request from BP and install a government that wouldn't make them pay more for oil rights.
-
Installing the Shah is one of the blackest marks in American history in the post WWII redividing of countries. (Truman's refusal to meet with Ho Chi Minh in Paris to avoid offending the French also comes to mind). In both cases, the U.S. has paid a tremendous long term price for supporting imperialistic policies. Now we're getting to see better the results of trying those policies again. (Appointing Karzai head of Afghanistan in Bonn isn't looking so hot anymore. Neither is forcing Musharraf to let Bhutto back into Pakistan.)
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 6:34 pm
apollyon07:
.
I was referring to jsfox's leading commentary. I don't have sources, but it's interesting nonetheless and does make sense.
.
mrein:
.
You know, as small a country Israel is, convinction won't add up to victory, in any sense of the word.
.
Why?
.
Real estate. Pure and simple.
.
It's not that I want Iran to win, but even Joe misses the point when he completely ignores the Palestinians that are also involved with Hamas and Hizb Allah. Hizb Allah is born of Palestinian refugees and is not solely "Iranian". Hamas, of course, was elected by a certifiable election* and is indicative of the fact that democracy doesn't always cut our way. In current form, they are a product of the collective punishment being inflicted on the 1.4 million Gazans, in contravention of the Geneva Agreement.
.
I'm not saying that Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself, but there are two sides to this story and the one most overlooked is the fact that it isn't Palestinians taking Israeli land, it's the other way around.
.
I can see that nukes might be an "existential" threat to Israel, but then again, there's always the example of Pakistan and India, who have fought just as many wars, and had already gone nose to nose. Add in the fact that Iranian president is only a figurehead and talk is cheap.
.
There is absolutely no way that it can be said that any existential threat exists from Hizb Allah or Hamas. Even without Iran, these two groups will still be around.
.
Keep in mind that the Palestinian perceptions of Israel's occupation were not minted in Tehran!
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Here are more points against mreins' and yoshis' misconceptions:
.
The deveolopement of cheap missile technology is well underway. Regardless of Israels overt military might, because the technology can be grounded in low tech surroundings (simple metal shops can fabricate parts of increasingly sophisticated quality), and the ability of both on-the-ground intelligence and remote sensing is limited, Isreal does not have the capability of preventing these groups from lobbing rockets, Iran or no. That cat is out of the bag.
.
Though Isreal posesses an extremely sophisticated armed forces, it's capabilities are limited when confronted with the task of having to hold large swaths of real estate (because of the above) in order to keep Isreal out of range.
.
As the ranges of missiles gets steadily greater, the ability of Israel to maintain a deterrance diminishes. Witness the fact that they have not been able to supresss either Gaza's fire or the fire from Lebanon.
.
Granted, if Israel were to reoccupy Gaza, they would probably be successful in surpressing mostrocket fire, but not all. In the north? They have no chance whatsoever.
.
What does this mean for Israel?
.
In my opinion, Israelis have to abondon the schizoid approach to peace in which they believe that "settlements" can continue indefinitely, or that they can simply rule over these people forever while ignoring relentlessly the suffering they are subjecting the Palestinians to. They need to quit being the elephant on the chair, screaming mouse! every time Hamas says it's for Isreal's distruction. That, after all, is what enemies do. Threaten each others destruction.
.
Israel is at a crossroads, it's strategies are untenable, and, eventually, it will have to understand that meaningful, eye-to-eye peace will be needed, not just the "peace" they offer, heavily wrapped in Israeli superiority.
.
They will have to learn how to be freinds. And don't tell me they have!
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Sean, I agree with the mess the colonial powers UK and France have made of the world from with we still suffer. On the problem of Isreal created back in the early 20th century, I agree not that it should be destroyed 50 years after it was created, but I do agree that it should never have been created. It should never have come into existence. It did, because of the zealot zionists, who drew great press from the horrors of the Germans. Cold hard fact. And the arabs became victims of the holocaust, and the new crazy zealots. What to do, what to do. Get real is what. Isreal better develope a consciousness beyond the holocaust to after that, and apololize. Then, hope for forgiveness and move on in a cooperative spirit.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 7:19 pm
"It is time we stopped kidding ourselves about this--and stopped making arguments that the rules should be different, somehow, for Israel than for other countries."
.
Wow, that is so rational he may soon be suggesting that torturers ought to be subject to the rule of law, like the rest of us, as well.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Correction, in my haste I mentioned the Germans, who went over the top, and I mentioned the colonial powers, but let me add Russia, Poland as well, and the US for everything after the war.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 11:41 pm
And as for "I think we're forgetting exactly which states are in the business of kidnapping US citizens for trial in kangaroo courts"
i would kindly add Guantamo to that theory
Thursday, May 7, 2009 at 2:15 am
But Israel isn't Iran's rival — Iran is Israel's. Can Andrew name any acts of unprovoked bellicosity Israel has committed against Iran?
The thing is that we have to understand the nature of the Iranian regime before we ask such a question. Iran is really called the Islamic Republic of Iran. The whole regime is based on Islam as its fundamental value. Iran takes any Israeli act against Muslims in Palestine and Lebanon as an act against it.
However, you don't have to be a historian to know that Israel had invaded Lebanon, killed and of Muslim civilians in it, and occupied its southern part for 22 years. Israel also occupies the West Bank in Palestine, destroy Palestinians' houses, and builds walls of separation that make the West Banks' Palestinian cities more like islands. Israel also refuses to talk with Hamas' elected government, and to give the Palestinian a state based on the West Bank and the Gaza strip.
All these violations are taken "personally" by the Islamic Iranian regime that thinks Israel hates all Muslims equally, and might spread its violence to reach the Muslims of Persia.
However, intentions are only intentions, and can never be known for sure, but the physical world is governed by a logical law that was carved in cuneiforms thousands of years ago in Mesopotamia: an eye for an eye. If Israel has nukes, which it does, Iran would want to have their own nukes, and we cannot stop them until we stop our blind support to Israel, and ask them to give up their nuclear weapons.
Thursday, May 7, 2009 at 2:19 am
But Israel isn't Iran's rival — Iran is Israel's. Can Andrew name any acts of unprovoked bellicosity Israel has committed against Iran?
The thing is that we have to understand the nature of the Iranian regime before we ask such a question. Iran is really called the Islamic Republic of Iran. The whole regime is based on Islam as its fundamental value. Iran takes any Israeli act against Muslims in Palestine and Lebanon as an act against it.
However, you don't have to be a historian to know that Israel had invaded Lebanon, and killed thousands of Muslim civilians in it, and occupied its southern part for 22 years. Israel also occupies the West Bank in Palestine, destroy Palestinians' houses, and builds walls of separation that make the West Banks' Palestinian cities more like islands. Israel also refuses to talk with Hamas' elected government, and to give the Palestinian a state based on the West Bank and the Gaza strip.
All these violations are taken "personally" by the Islamic Iranian regime that thinks Israel hates all Muslims equally, and might spread its violence to reach the Muslims of Persia.
However, intentions are only intentions, and can never be known for sure, but the physical world is governed by a logical law that was carved in cuneiforms thousands of years ago in Mesopotamia: an eye for an eye. If Israel has nukes, which it does, Iran would want to have their own nukes, and we cannot stop them until we stop our blind support to Israel, and ask them to give up their nuclear weapons.
Thursday, May 7, 2009 at 2:39 am
Iran, committing no acts of war against Israel? Why do they arm Israel's enemies, who have sworn to destroy them, with weapons, which they use to launch jihad? Then, Ahmadinejad talks of wiping Israel off the face of the map, which is the same objective Arabs have had for years, sans Egypt and Jordan as of recently, after Israel gave back land it won in a legal defensive war, something unprecedented in history. Israel must have nukes, because Iran embodies a suicidal jihadist tendency, unlike the USSR and America, so given their actions supporting Palestinian jihad, why should Israel not be on its toes?
Israel was created out of Jews who not only settled in land no one was actually in besides a few small tribes who built nothing inside an underpopulated colonial mass, but many fought with the British to defeat both Ottoman and Nazi forces, for whom the Palestinians, under Mufti Husseini, served as "Nazi Scouts" in Eastern Europe, and actively took part in the Holocaust. To the victor belongs the spoils.
Thursday, May 7, 2009 at 2:44 am
Really Joe I don't see the logic in saying "Israel has threatened to attack Iran's nuke sites, therefore, Iran has a right to have nukes". You didn't outright say that, but that's the implication.
Thursday, May 7, 2009 at 3:18 am
I kind feel Israel don't want peace because peace means that they have to apply the international law and end the illegal occupation of west bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem and allow the refugees to return to their homes. IN SHORT: "No more great Israel".
The Israelis from 60 years genocide Palestinians"Muslims & Christians" even before Hamas is created by decades by making massacres like the last one we all see On-Air at gaza and of course Israel says like "usual": No massacre only militants "like the Nazi".
Israel started the massacre series from the year of 1948 by "Deir yassin massacre" which was the cause of the 1948 war.
and to take more lands and genocide more people they made the 1956 war the six days war at 1967 but after they lost at 1973 at yom kippur war(defeat) by Egypt. They forced by US to accept the same peace deal that they refused before the war.
I am sure the people at middle east feel Israel is a great threat on their existance because the Nazi way that Israel use to treat Palestinians while the Palestinians try to defend their existance and their lands,homes and Childrens and defeand them selves against the illegal occupation.Iran in opposite didn't make a SINGLE war in the past while Israel made 6 wars in 60 years without mentioning the influence of Israel on US policy which lead to Iraq war and their campain now against Muslims.
Thursday, May 7, 2009 at 6:26 am
[...] to our Superman, Tupac to our Biggie — I’m of course talking about Joe Klein — needs help understanding the concept of cause and effect. Andrew Sullivan’s new argument is that Israel [...]
Thursday, May 7, 2009 at 7:15 am
[...] Source: swampland.blogs.time.com [...]
Thursday, May 7, 2009 at 8:16 am
"But Israel isn't Iran's rival — Iran is Israel's. Can Andrew name any acts of unprovoked bellicosity Israel has committed against Iran?"
.
If Andrew can't I surely will. Two words; Hamas and Hezbollah. Ring a bell anyone. Who backs these two factions with support, money and encourages car / bus bombs? Not to mention rockets with red glare over the Israeli skies at about 100 per day for awhile before Israel went into Gaza.
.
Can any one remember a time of recent past when Israel said they would "blow Iran off the face of the map"?
.
The two state "solution" is simply not going to work. Islamic extremists are hell bent on destroying what they see as a jewish state, and are still pi$$ed about the land grab that took place in 1946. It has been so for thousands of years, and will continue until either side is totally annilhilated, unless Obama quits with the quid-pro-quo diplomacy he is putting into place and demands each side to just stop the non-sense.
.
Placating extremists is not diplomacy, it is simply lunacy.
Thursday, May 7, 2009 at 8:38 am
I'm trying to think of a day recently when Israel did not threaten Iran but I can't.
Thursday, May 7, 2009 at 9:08 am
Out of the mouths of the moslem nations, daily, words of hatred and threats towards Israel are made, the only basis being their demented ideology. Israel does not reciprocate, but should their people not take seriously what these suiciders, fanatics threaten? Wouldn't you, if your home was? Only a Republican or a turn the other cheek do gooder would say no, including the Amish, whose school's inhabitants were murdered. NEVER AGAIN, my friends, NEVER AGAIN.
Thursday, May 7, 2009 at 9:10 am
For example, was helping the Afghanis fight off the Soviets (by far our biggest, and arguably the world's, greatest threat at the time) in the 80s a bad thing to do at that moment?
.
apollyon07,
.
You used the key words - "at the time". We were so worried about them that we didn't see that religion ties a great deal of that world together and religious extremism might be as great a threat in the future as the Soviets were then. We should have seen the potential for that (see Northern Ireland) but didn't.
.
Now, we (and, by extension, ALL western powers and religions) are seen as their enemy. Isn't a fair way to portray us, but you can't say we didn't write the script for them.
.
Thinking long-term hasn't been our strong suit in that part of the world. Learning from history and the past is for weeners.
Thursday, May 7, 2009 at 9:35 am
As worried as everyone seems to be about Iran (and others) gaining the technology to produce enriched uranium, they should be scared to death of the security of the warheads in a group of countries that have thousands of them (the former Soviet Union).
.
For a while, after the collapse of the USSR, that was a much poorer group, in need of cash for all sorts of things. Portions of their military went unpaid for great periods of time while we celebrated.
.
There is a story floating around of a Russian military base whose power was cut off in the middle of winter because they couldn't pay the bills. The base commander took one of their main battle tanks down to the power station and stuck the main gun into the window of the manager's office. He got the massage and turned the power back on.
.
There was a period of time that, whether we knew it or not, our safety relied on the professionalism of their (at the time) poorly-paid officer corps in the Soviet missile forces (yes, they are professionals). Most lived up to the role- others may not have, as they were trying to feed their families like we do when times are bad. I'm not sure THEY even know if everything is accounted for from that period.
.
We better hope that, during that time, some of those warheads didn't end up on the black market. Or won't in the future. THAT scares me more than the status of Iran's enrichment program.
Thursday, May 7, 2009 at 10:43 am
53, you are refuting "misconceptions" that weren't really the point of what we were saying. This was about a nuclear Iran and Joe's reasoning in regards to that.
-
As far as your posts, I will attempt to address them thoroughly.
-
In current form, they are a product of the collective punishment being inflicted on the 1.4 million Gazans, in contravention of the Geneva Agreement.
-
If you think Hamas is remaining in power through a free and democratic process, your head's in the sand.
-
I'm not saying that Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself, but there are two sides to this story and the one most overlooked is the fact that it isn't Palestinians taking Israeli land, it's the other way around.
-
Except when Israelis evict their own citizens from occupied land, and a Palestinian mob moves in, trashes the place, uses it as their new launchpad for rockets? If Palestinians are going to sue for peace, then they'd do well to shed their juvenile behavior.
-
Your example regarding Pakistan and India is hardly reassuring (who knows how many close calls there were). Keep looking for the sunny side to nuclear ambitions - there is none. Look at the situation in Pakistan now with respect to securing their nukes.
-
The deveolopement of cheap missile technology is well underway. Regardless of Israels overt military might, because the technology can be grounded in low tech surroundings
-
Some sources might be needed here, since a) it's well known that rockets were being smuggled through border tunnels to Hamas and b) as far as I know, there's no rocket fire from Lebanon now.
-
hey need to quit being the elephant on the chair, screaming mouse! every time Hamas says it's for Isreal's distruction. That, after all, is what enemies do. Threaten each others destruction.
-
I will say this bluntly: this statement is staggeringly ignorant of history. The only people in history who have wished the utter destruction of entire nations are madmen. Do you think any civilized country would utter such a platitude? What wishful thinking.