Israel and U.S to take out Iran?

Mickyjaystoned · Dec 16, 2005

Iran has warned Israel it will react "most severely" if Israel uses force to try to destroy its nuclear facilities.
Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi was responding to reports that the United States is to sell Israel hundreds of "bunker-busting" bombs.

Israel urged the United Nations Security Council to take action to stop Iran's nuclear programme.

The US and Israel have accused Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, a charge Iran denies.

Iran recently defied calls by the UN's nuclear watchdog to suspend all enrichment-related activities, insisting its nuclear programme was for peaceful purposes only.

Nuclear 'nightmare'

According to reports, the US is to sell Israel 5,000 hi-tech bombs, including 500 one-ton "bunker-busters", which can penetrate two metre (6.5ft) thick walls.

In 1981, Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor when it believed Saddam Hussein was close to producing a nuclear bomb.

Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said the UN must deal with the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons before it is too late.

"[The Iranians] are trying to buy time, and the time has come to move the Iranian case to the Security Council in order to put an end to this nightmare," he told reporters after meeting UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

"We know that the Europeans are trying now to engage with the Iranians, but we know that the Iranians will never abandon their plans to develop nuclear weapons. They're only trying to hide it."

However, Kamal Kharrazi said Israel, not Iran, was a threat to world peace.

"Israel has always been a threat, not only against Iran, but all countries."

When questioned about Israel's reported purchase of the bombs, Mr Kharrazi said, "be sure that any action by Israel certainly will be reacted by us most severely".

M14 Shooter · Dec 16, 2005

Here's the question you need to ask:

Do you want the US/Israel to take out Iran's nuclear sites before or after Iran nukles Israel?

Calm2Chaos · Dec 16, 2005

Well the obvious choice is before. There a danger, not only for the immediate neighbors but also for the global community as a whole.

Mickyjaystoned · Dec 16, 2005

The question you need to ask is whether Zionism is helping the Global populations working class or is Zionism infact creating a dramatic imbalance and underclass of poor, overworked, overstressed men and women.

You see when you answer this question you see that Zionism and the Jewish state are doing nothing for this world really.

Therefore i would have to conclude that i think Zionist backed U.S, British and Israeli media need to stop portreying Iran as the next Iraq, the media need to accept that George W Bush is NOT a holy crusader, and like wise the Iranian Prime Minister Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not the Devil Incarnate.

Infact the whole reason there is this malice towards Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is infact due to his remarks about the Zionist state that is Israel:

""If the killing of Jews in Europe is true and the Zionists are supported because of this excuse, why should the Palestinian nation pay the price?"

and calling the Jewish state a "tumour" that should be "wiped off the map".

These are fair comments IMO, the fact that Zionist bankers Fritz Thiessen and George W Bushs Grandfather helped fund the rise of Adolf Hitler and his Third Reich proves that Zionists use the plight of the Jewish people as a smokescreen to immediately condemn any opponent as Anti Semitic and a "Threat".

I believe that ZIonism is a cancer on this planet, and needs to be tackled, since there is no real democracy in my zionist run western dictatorship the only opposition to this injustice comes in the form of the Iranian president.

However i also believe no country should be continuing with Nuclear plant building, after the devastating effects of the oil tank explosion in UK this week, we'd all be dead if that was a Nuclear plant, so i do not support Iran there, why shouldn't they be allowed the same things as Western countries though??

teacher · Dec 16, 2005

M14 Shooter said:
Here's the question you need to ask:

Do you want the US/Israel to take out Iran's nuclear sites before or after Iran nukles Israel?

At the risk of sounding serious: before. Because guess who gets the second nuke?

What we really need is a strategic place near Iran from which to launch said attacks. Somewhere that borders Iran would be nice. Even better would be to provide Israel with a nifty corridor to fly through on their way to Iran, maybe giving them some free gas from flying tankers on the way. While we're at it, sell them some F-117's, (enough to get the job done Tashah), and some swell ordinance. In the meantime we encourage the UN to get a handle on this Iranian nuke problem (gah...urk...he he...har-de-har-har... ow...man spewing Bourbon out your nose is quite unpleasant) and hope some sensible people inside Iran get a grip on their nation before their leaders draw them into a situation that leaves that country a smoking ruin.

Or maybe we can just paradrop Gandhi (is greater than) Bush into Iran to talk some sense into them. (he he...Ow).

M14 Shooter · Dec 16, 2005

Mickyjaystoned said:
The question you need to ask is whether Zionism is helping the Global populations working class or is Zionism infact creating a dramatic imbalance and underclass of poor, overworked, overstressed men and women.

I don't need to ask that question at all, and I dont really care what the answer is.

Mickyjaystoned · Dec 16, 2005

Then you do not have your eyes open to the full picture and your opinion is clearly not yer own.

Why would Iran attack anyone??

Or is it just that the Western media makes it that way??

teacher · Dec 16, 2005

Mickyjaystoned said:
The question you need to ask is whether Zionism is helping the Global populations working class or is Zionism infact creating a dramatic imbalance and underclass of poor, overworked, overstressed men and women.

You see when you answer this question you see that Zionism and the Jewish state are doing nothing for this world really.

Damn Zionists. Making the house of Saud (yea, Gunny, you use "generations" and I'll use "house of Saud") keep all the oil money. Damn Zionists inside Iran working them into a frenzy. When are these friggin Zionists gonna step into the Arab states and start making the Arab rulers treat their people right? Damn Zionists beating their women with sticks. Damn Zionists and their Madrases. Why it took the USA to intervene and kick the oppressive Zionists out of power in Iraq.

Mickyjaystoned · Dec 17, 2005

Fellas here is a reasonable article on Zionism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

The fact is that these Zionists are the Rothschilds and the Rockefeller's of the world, they are the big time money lenders and stock buyers, arms dealers and they are most importantley the people who benefit from war, whether it be in lendind money to rebuild infrastructure, IRAQ, or if it's repossesing business WORLD WAR 2, or if it's putting the population of wealthy countries into debt, Banking.

You pledge allegiance to this whole system but yet you don't understand it, hmmmm smart!

M14 Shooter · Dec 17, 2005

teacher said:
Damn Zionists. Making the house of Saud (yea, Gunny, you use "generations" and I'll use "house of Saud") keep all the oil money. Damn Zionists inside Iran working them into a frenzy. When are these friggin Zionists gonna step into the Arab states and start making the Arab rulers treat their people right? Damn Zionists beating their women with sticks. Damn Zionists and their Madrases. Why it took the USA to intervene and kick the oppressive Zionists out of power in Iraq.

Isnt it amazing how much trouble so few people can cause?
Who would have thought ~1/4 of 1% of the world's population could hold so much sway over what happens across the entire world.

Mickyjaystoned · Dec 17, 2005

mate forget 1/4 of the world causing so much trouble, it is far fewer than that my friend, Zionism is just another Arm of the 13 Families who really hold the power in this world and with media corporations, religious doctrines, political bias, and various other Paradigms it is not hard to believe that a tiny minority are shepherding the flock.

Some_Guy · Dec 17, 2005

Mickyjaystoned, why do you believe that this Iranian president is reasonable and the West is stupid, mean, and cruel? I recall that the Koran states that Muslims have the divine duty to kill all non-believers, and that includes Christians and Jews. I don't think someone who parades his armies around the streets shouting "Death to Israel!", sells oil to communist North Korea in exchange for nukes, and does this solely because of religion, is exactly a reasonable person.

Israel does not want to kill the civilian population of Iran, or they would have bombed them already. Iran cares not who it kills. It wants to kill as many non-believers as possible, and that is perfectly reasonable! (Note the sarcasm in the last bit)

tryreading · Dec 18, 2005

Mickyjaystoned said:
The fact is that these Zionists are the Rothschilds and the Rockefeller's of the world, they are the big time money lenders and stock buyers, arms dealers...

Damn! The Zionists do all this? Where do I sign up?

George_Washington · Dec 18, 2005

Why is Israel allowed to have nukes but Iran isn't? Seems kind of hypcritical if you ask me.

Mickyjaystoned · Dec 18, 2005

Mickyjaystoned, why do you believe that this Iranian president is reasonable and the West is stupid, mean, and cruel?

Look all i know about Iran is the propaganda that is in our news, i do not trust propaganda, but feel respect for the man who condemns ZIONISM, but i have to ask anyone who still supports USA do you have any grasp of American foreign policy over the last half century?

I will use a recent speech from Harold Pinters nobel prize acceptance lecture:
it is long but please read.

As every single person here knows, the justification for the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein possessed a highly dangerous body of weapons of mass destruction, some of which could be fired in 45 minutes, bringing about appalling devastation. We were assured that was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq had a relationship with Al Quaeda and shared responsibility for the atrocity in New York of September 11th 2001. We were assured that this was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq threatened the security of the world. We were assured it was true. It was not true.

The truth is something entirely different. The truth is to do with how the United States understands its role in the world and how it chooses to embody it.
But before I come back to the present I would like to look at the recent past, by which I mean United States foreign policy since the end of the Second World War. I believe it is obligatory upon us to subject this period to at least some kind of even limited scrutiny, which is all that time will allow here.

Everyone knows what happened in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe during the post-war period: the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought. All this has been fully documented and verified.

But my contention here is that the US crimes in the same period have only been superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged, let alone recognised as crimes at all. I believe this must be addressed and that the truth has considerable bearing on where the world stands now. Although constrained, to a certain extent, by the existence of the Soviet Union, the United States' actions throughout the world made it clear that it had concluded it had carte blanche to do what it liked.

Direct invasion of a sovereign state has never in fact been America's favoured method. In the main, it has preferred what it has described as 'low intensity conflict'. Low intensity conflict means that thousands of people die but slower than if you dropped a bomb on them in one fell swoop. It means that you infect the heart of the country, that you establish a malignant growth and watch the gangrene bloom. When the populace has been subdued – or beaten to death – the same thing – and your own friends, the military and the great corporations, sit comfortably in power, you go before the camera and say that democracy has prevailed. This was a commonplace in US foreign policy in the years to which I refer.

The tragedy of Nicaragua was a highly significant case. I choose to offer it here as a potent example of America's view of its role in the world, both then and now.

In war, innocent people always suffer.'

Innocent people, indeed, always suffer.

The United States supported the brutal Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua for over 40 years. The Nicaraguan people, led by the Sandinistas, overthrew this regime in 1979, a breathtaking popular revolution.

If Nicaragua was allowed to establish basic norms of social and economic justice, if it was allowed to raise the standards of health care and education and achieve social unity and national self respect, neighbouring countries would ask the same questions and do the same things. There was of course at the time fierce resistance to the status quo in El Salvador.

I spoke earlier about 'a tapestry of lies' which surrounds us. President Reagan commonly described Nicaragua as a 'totalitarian dungeon'. This was taken generally by the media, and certainly by the British government, as accurate and fair comment. But there was in fact no record of death squads under the Sandinista government. There was no record of torture. There was no record of systematic or official military brutality. No priests were ever murdered in Nicaragua. There were in fact three priests in the government, two Jesuits and a Maryknoll missionary. The totalitarian dungeons were actually next door, in El Salvador and Guatemala. The United States had brought down the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954 and it is estimated that over 200,000 people had been victims of successive military dictatorships.
Six of the most distinguished Jesuits in the world were viciously murdered at the Central American University in San Salvador in 1989 by a battalion of the Alcatl regiment trained at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. It is estimated that 75,000 people died. Why were they killed? They were killed because they believed a better life was possible and should be achieved. That belief immediately qualified them as communists.

The United States finally brought down the Sandinista government. It took some years and considerable resistance but relentless economic persecution and 30,000 dead finally undermined the spirit of the Nicaraguan people. They were exhausted and poverty stricken once again. The casinos moved back into the country. Free health and free education were over. Big business returned with a vengeance. 'Democracy' had prevailed.

But this 'policy' was by no means restricted to Central America. It was conducted throughout the world. It was never-ending. And it is as if it never happened.

The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven.
Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries. Did they take place? And are they in all cases attributable to US foreign policy? The answer is yes they did take place and they are attributable to American foreign policy. But you wouldn't know it.

The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good.
I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever.
The words 'the American people' provide a truly voluptuous cushion of reassurance. You don't need to think. Just lie back on the cushion. The cushion may be suffocating your intelligence and your critical faculties but it's very comfortable. This does not apply of course to the 40 million people living below the poverty line and the 2 million men and women imprisoned in the vast gulag of prisons, which extends across the US.
The United States no longer bothers about low intensity conflict. It no longer sees any point in being reticent or even devious. It puts its cards on the table without fear or favour. It quite simply doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant..

Mickyjaystoned · Dec 18, 2005

Continued

Look at Guantanamo Bay. Hundreds of people detained without charge for over three years, with no legal representation or due process, technically detained forever. This totally illegitimate structure is maintained in defiance of the Geneva Convention. It is not only tolerated but hardly thought about by what's called the 'international community'. This criminal outrage is being committed by a country, which declares itself to be 'the leader of the free world'. At present many are on hunger strike, being force-fed, including British residents. No niceties in these force-feeding procedures. No sedative or anaesthetic. Just a tube stuck up your nose and into your throat. You vomit blood. This is torture. What has the British Foreign Secretary said about this? Nothing. What has the British Prime Minister said about this? Nothing. Why not? Because the United States has said: to criticise our conduct in Guantanamo Bay constitutes an unfriendly act. You're either with us or against us. So Blair shuts up.

The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was an arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading – as a last resort – all other justifications having failed to justify themselves – as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent people.
We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East'.

How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal?
At least 100,000 Iraqis were killed by American bombs and missiles before the Iraq insurgency began.

The 2,000 American dead are an embarrassment. They are transported to their graves in the dark. Funerals are unobtrusive, out of harm's way. The mutilated rot in their beds, some for the rest of their lives. So the dead and the mutilated both rot, in different kinds of graves.

(My emphasis)

That might give you an idea of real life and how America have conducted affairs at home and away, but please don't stop with this snippet of American Foreign Policy, read in the South americas Chile and Nicaragua, Vietnam and Afghanistan, realise that there is no justification for what the U.S does.[/quote]

This has been shortened to help out the moderators but i will include a link so you can watch the speech on yer moniter if ya can't read.

http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture.html

Kandahar · Dec 18, 2005

George_Washington said:
Why is Israel allowed to have nukes but Iran isn't? Seems kind of hypcritical if you ask me.

It's not a matter of being "allowed" to have nukes. If it was that simple, the ideal solution would be for every nation to give up all its nukes.

The reality is that Israel already has nuclear weapons and is a democracy (and therefore rational enough not to use them irresponsibly). Getting them to give up weapons they already have would not be an easy task, and the world needs to choose its diplomatic battles wisely. Iran, on the other hand, does not yet have nuclear weapons and is governed by irrational fanatics.

Calm2Chaos · Dec 19, 2005

George_Washington said:
Why is Israel allowed to have nukes but Iran isn't? Seems kind of hypcritical if you ask me.

Because I think the world trust the usage and the security of Isreal having nukes as opposed to the Garage sale that I ran would be ...:rofl

observer · Dec 20, 2005

You are anti-semitic morons. One of you said that the Jews controled Iraq, another said that they control America, the world, and the economy. This is ridiculous. Israel is not a threat to the world as you seem to believe. Israel has never declared war on any country that did not start the aggression. All of Israel's wars have been defensive. Israel would never use nukes. Iran, on the other hand, will certainly make a nuclear attack on Israel and probably America if they can make the wepaons. Israel or America will surely destroy the Iranian facilities if diplomacy fails.

Mickyjaystoned, you are an idiot. Did you read your own link?

"The fact is that these Zionists are the Rothschilds and the Rockefeller's of the world, they are the big time money lenders and stock buyers, arms dealers and they are most importantley the people who benefit from war, whether it be in lendind money to rebuild infrastructure, IRAQ, or if it's repossesing business WORLD WAR 2, or if it's putting the population of wealthy countries into debt, Banking."

You are using the "Jews are rich and control the world and media" stereotype which is absolutely ridiculous.

"You pledge allegiance to this whole system but yet you don't understand it, hmmmm smart!"

Take your own advice! You are an anti-semitic, racist, idiot! Read your own ****ing link!

Other than that, I agree with you that America has done a lot of horrible things, especially under Bush. I've heard estimates for total Iraqi dead as high as one million since the war began.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

Touchmaster · Dec 20, 2005

apart from the war of its founding, involving the forced expulsion of hundreds of thousands of people from their homes for ever, but then again thats another story for another time of course...

Not that Im defending the Iranian government as the idea of any kind of theocracy (including, I fear, a future US) is an anathema to the values of 21st Century Civilisation - a pluralism of beliefs and the search for empirical truths as the path to a fair, just and open society - but I must ask - when has the Iranian Republic ever attacked anyone? The only war it has been involved in is the Iran-Iraq war which was instigated by Iraq with the explicit encouragement of the US, costing millions of lives... if it is trying to arm itself it is likely to be for self-defence more than anything else, due to the constant threats that have been made against its revolutionary government since the horrendously repressive shah regime was toppled (Despite being a despicable tyrant, at least he was our tyrant, eh..)... you really think Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel, which has hundreds of warheads already, or the US, which has thousands? they might be zealots, but they arent stupid... by the way, if the US hadnt fought the revolution, it is quite likely a secular state with democratic tendencies would have evolved in place of the blind theocrats...who used the outside threat as an excuse to take power (sound familiar?)

George_Washington · Dec 22, 2005

Calm2Chaos said:
Because I think the world trust the usage and the security of Isreal having nukes as opposed to the Garage sale that I ran would be ...:rofl

We can support Israel, that's ok. But we can't favor them to the point where every other country in the middle east is subservient or severely underprivileged compared to them. Israel can keep the nukes they have but I don't see why we should arm them with more.

I do agree we should work on changing the current government of Iran. It's just I don't think the answer is to scare them to death with the threat of attack from Israel. But if we the US were going to invade Iran, than I might support that, depending on the circumstances. I just don't want to see the people of Iran get poorer while Israel and other middle eastern countries get richer.

Kandahar · Dec 22, 2005

George_Washington said:
We can support Israel, that's ok. But we can't favor them to the point where every other country in the middle east is subservient or severely underprivileged compared to them. Israel can keep the nukes they have but I don't see why we should arm them with more.

I agree that we shouldn't provide them with more...but I don't think we are. Israel hasn't actually admitted to possessing any nuclear weapons, although most knowledgeable nuclear experts believe that they do. While I suppose it's possible that the United States could've provided the materials and/or the know-how, I just don't see any motive for the US to do so. It's been the policy of the United States (both officially and unofficially) since the dawn of the nuclear age to oppose nuclear proliferation. There's really no reason for us to help another country (of ANY ideology) gain access to nuclear weapons; if they are allies, our own nuclear arsenal would provide the same deterrent while helping us maintain our diplomatic advantage, and if they are enemies or neutrals, we don't really want them having nukes anyway.

George_Washington said:
I do agree we should work on changing the current government of Iran. It's just I don't think the answer is to scare them to death with the threat of attack from Israel.

Why not? If Israel is willing to get their hands dirty instead of America, I'm all for it. The only exception would be if an Israeli attack would destabilize the entire region whereas an American attack wouldn't. But I just don't see that happening. I would expect some heavy condemnation of an Israeli attack on Iran from other Muslim countries, but no military action.

George_Washington said:
But if we the US were going to invade Iran, than I might support that, depending on the circumstances. I just don't want to see the people of Iran get poorer while Israel and other middle eastern countries get richer.

The best way to help ensure that the Iranians don't get poorer, is to destabilize or remove their horrendously unpopular government from power. Iran ranks 148/155 among countries in terms of economic freedom, right alongside such nations as Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and North Korea.

Touchmaster · Dec 22, 2005

that is a publication of the extreme right-wing organisation the heritage foundation, however... so is worthless unless you equate 'economic freedom' with 'open to doing whatever US/European multinationals want' which is why venezuela is in there - iran is of course a repressive country in terms of civil rights dont get me wrong

George_Washington · Dec 22, 2005

Kandahar said:
Why not? If Israel is willing to get their hands dirty instead of America, I'm all for it. The only exception would be if an Israeli attack would destabilize the entire region whereas an American attack wouldn't. But I just don't see that happening. I would expect some heavy condemnation of an Israeli attack on Iran from other Muslim countries, but no military action.

If we want to invade Iran, that's one thing. But if we arm Israel with nukes, I don't see how that's going to help us. I don't think Iran really thinks we're going to allow Israel to launch them. It's just going to **** off the other middle eastern countries against us and Israel. They are already upset at us enough for giving Israel millions of dollars per year and yet we don't do that for other countries, which can look kind of hypocritical if you look at it from that point of view.

It was true that nuclear arms build up worked against the Soviets but this case is different. We had practically of western Europe on our side. But in this particular battle, we don't have nearly that much support from the rest of the world. We need to fight terrorism and Islamic extremism, yes, but we also have to show tolerance for the Muslim world, at least to a certain extent.

Kandahar · Dec 22, 2005

Touchmaster said:
that is a publication of the extreme right-wing organisation the heritage foundation, however... so is worthless unless you equate 'economic freedom' with 'open to doing whatever US/European multinationals want' which is why venezuela is in there - iran is of course a repressive country in terms of civil rights dont get me wrong

You don't have to agree with the Heritage Foundation on everything or even most things (I certainly don't). But they used clearly defined criteria to rank the nations according to economic freedom (and if you think they're letting ideology interfere, note the high ranking of Scandanavian nations). The fact that you don't like the results doesn't mean that they're worthless. Iran has one of the most repressive governments in the world and its lack of economic freedom is the main reason that Iranians are so poor.

Israel and U.S to take out Iran?

Member

Member

Member

Attachments

Member

Member

New member

Steve

Member

Member

Enemy Combatant

observer

Member

Enemy Combatant

Member

Enemy Combatant

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency