General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOK. I'll say it. Yes, I'd rather risk Iran having nukes than
risk the inevitable mess/war/conflagration that I believe would ensue in the aftermath of an Israeli strike which I don't believe would halt Iran's nuclear program anyway.
fire away.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
leveymg
(36,418 posts)There's no fundamental difference. The Israelis will survive and adapt, as will we. Unless, of course, we do something colossally stupid, like getting into a regional war over this.
malaise
(268,998 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)magical thyme
(14,881 posts)Right. Israel doesn't boast about it. Is just working on it bit by bit.
Missycim
(950 posts)nt
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)genocide is genocide.
And what is being done to the Palestinian people is attempted genocide.
Missycim
(950 posts)doing a bad job at it considering the Palestinian population is growing every year.
randome
(34,845 posts)It may not be deliberate genocide but by refusing to accommodate people in the region -completely unlike the accommodation that was given to Israel in the 40s- they are causing needless suffering.
The other side is equally to blame.
Missycim
(950 posts)that wont stop the overpopulation. So how would accommodation stop that? I don't think they should be a single state, that would destroy the Jewish state.
randome
(34,845 posts)Both groups have population problems, though.
I think the settlers should be vacated and a wall should be erected around the WB and let them them deal with their own problems.
randome
(34,845 posts)
Missycim
(950 posts)doesn't Genocide mean wiping some population out? thats not happening there, now if they can't control their population that Isn't Israels fault.
polly7
(20,582 posts)"The world’s largest Open Air Prison:" Gaza’s Shrinking Borders
Forty-two years of military occupation and sixteen years of the Oslo Process have made Gaza a smaller place. Already one of the most densely-populated strips of land in the world, its population has grown during this period from less than 360,000 in 1967 to 1.5 million today. Meanwhile, its borders have not only become more impermeable, but they have been progressively closing in on what some have called “the world’s largest open air prison.”
In the early years following Israel’s seizure of the Gaza Strip during the Six-Day War in June 1967, Palestinians, Israelis, and internationals routinely crossed the border between Israel and Gaza without much difficulty. Palestinian fishermen routinely sailed as far out to sea as necessary to secure a good day’s catch. International freighters continued to arrive at Gaza Port to unload their goods and take on Palestinian fruits, flowers, and other products. Among the first casualties of the Israeli occupation was the loss of trade and tourism with Egypt, but life went on for most Gaza residents. Over the years, many would eventually find employment in Ashdod, Ashkelon, Be’er Sheva, Tel Aviv, and elsewhere inside Israel, mostly in construction and services – 130,000 workers commuting from Gaza to Israel at its peak.
However, owing to the heightened tensions of occupation of both Gaza and the West Bank, illegal Israeli settlement activity, successive breakdowns in the peace process, and the Palestinian Intifadas, the situation of Gaza residents continued to deteriorate. Employment inside Israel for Gaza residents was largely cut off by Israel during the Second Intifada beginning in September 2000, and completely eliminated with the economic siege imposed on Hamas in Gaza in January 2006.
http://www.blacklistednews.com/?news_id=6820
randome
(34,845 posts)
tavalon
(27,985 posts)You know nothing and it shows.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)"Ethnic cleansing" is more apt, as the goal is not the destruction of the Palestinians, but rather the diminishment of their presence, whether through outright removals / killings, or through what is termed "cultural genocide" (a term I dislike, but that's what it is).
Israel mumbles platitudes about a two-state solution, yet allows its excess immigrants to settle in what the world agrees is the "Palestinian" side of the armistice line; it also interferes in Palestinian elections and strives to negate efforts to have a viable Palestinian state next door. That is... Israel has no actual interest in there ever being a "Palestine" any more than China is interested in there being a state named "Tibet" next door.
cali
(114,904 posts)Hint: The population never fucking grows under genocide.
does the absolute FACT that the Israelis are not committing genocide in the the WB or Gaza mean that they aren't oppressing Palestinians. No, of course not, because that's precisely what they're doing.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Most Americans don't realize what is being done to the Palestinians. Amy Goodman used to have report after report about the fact that many Palestinian children have to live on less than eight hundred calories a day. (She probably still carries reports like this, but I no longer have time to listen to her shows.)
janlyn
(735 posts)Missycim, the name palestine goes back quite a long way..
The first clear use of the term Palestine to refer to the entire area between Phoenicia and Egypt was in 5th century BC Ancient Greece] Herodotus wrote of a 'district of Syria, called Palaistinê"
Missycim
(950 posts)snark aside, there is no Palestine state now.
Well thanks for that,I guess???
Please look up a map of ancient palestine,only a small portion of it sits on land that is now syria.
The palestine in biblical times encompassed all of what is now Israel part of jordan and lebanon.
And to say there is no palestine now is correct,but the land has changed hands many times over its history.
so for you to make the statement there was no palestine is incorrect and generally only a talking point of people who have never studied the back story.
Missycim
(950 posts)I am looking and i am finding many sites that say that there was never a nation called Palestine or a people called that either.
http://www.newswithviews.com/israel/israel14.htm
http://www.targetofopportunity.com/palestinian_truth.htm
LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)"Philistine, one of a people of Aegean origin who settled on the southern coast of Palestine in the 12th century bc, about the time of the arrival of the Israelites. According to biblical tradition (Deuteronomy 2:23; Jeremiah 47:4), the Philistines came from Caphtor (possibly Crete). They are mentioned in Egyptian records as prst, one of the Sea Peoples that invaded Egypt in about 1190 bc after ravaging Anatolia, Cyprus, and Syria. After being repulsed by the Egyptians, they occupied the coastal plain of Palestine from Joppa (modern Tel Aviv–Yafo) southward to the Gaza Strip. The area contained the five cities (the Pentapolis) of the Philistine confederacy (Gaza, Ashkelon [Ascalon], Ashdod, Gath, and Ekron) and was known as Philistia, or the Land of the Philistines. It was from this designation that the whole of the country was later called Palestine by the Greeks."
Link to more: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/456536/Philistine
(Note: my boldface and italics)
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)tavalon
(27,985 posts)called them Palestinians. Strange, huh?
polly7
(20,582 posts)His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[1]
The initial draft of the declaration, contained in a letter sent by Rothschild to Balfour, referred to the principle "that Palestine should be reconstituted as the National Home of the Jewish people."[19] In the final text, the word that was replaced with in to avoid committing the entirety of Palestine to this purpose. Similarly, an early draft did not include the commitment that nothing should be done which might prejudice the rights of the non-Jewish communities. These changes came about partly as the result of the urgings of Edwin Samuel Montagu, an influential anti-Zionist Jew and secretary of state for India, who was concerned that the declaration without those changes could result in increased anti-Semitic persecution. The draft was circulated and during October the government received replies from various representatives of the Jewish community. Lord Rothschild took exception to the new proviso on the basis that it presupposed the possibility of a danger to non-Zionists, which he denied.[20]"
[edit]Arab opposition
The Arabs expressed disapproval in November 1918 at the parade marking the first anniversary of the Balfour Declaration. The Muslim-Christian Association protested the carrying of new "white and blue banners with two inverted triangles in the middle".
...we always sympathized profoundly with the persecuted Jews and their misfortunes in other countries... but there is wide difference between such sympathy and the acceptance of such a nation...ruling over us and disposing of our affairs.[26]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine
??, Palestína (EY), EY standing for Eretz Yisrael) was a geopolitic entity under British administration, carved out of Ottoman Southern Syria after World War I. British civil administration in Palestine operated from 1920 until 1948. This administration was formalised with the League of Nations' consent in 1923 under the British Mandate for Palestine which covered two administrative areas. The land west of the Jordan River, known as Palestine, was under direct British administration until 1948, while the land east of the Jordan was a semi-autonomous region known as Transjordan, under the rule of the Hashemite family from the Hijaz, and gained independence in 1946.[2]
After WWII – the partition plan
Main articles: 1947 UN Partition Plan and 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine
The UN Partition Plan
These events were the decisive factors that forced Britain to announce their desire to terminate the Palestine Mandate and place the Question of Palestine before the United Nations, the successor to the League of Nations. The UN created UNSCOP (the UN Special Committee on Palestine) on 15 May 1947, with representatives from 11 countries. UNSCOP conducted hearings and made a general survey of the situation in Palestine, and issued its report on 31 August. Seven members (Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, and Uruguay) recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem to be placed under international administration. Three members (India, Iran, and Yugoslavia) supported the creation of a single federal state containing both Jewish and Arab constituent states. Australia abstained.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)gave you the insight - what was the land mass now called Israel on most maps before 1948 (Hint: the country's name began with a "P".)
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)buses, schools, nightclubs, cafes, etc.?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_University_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lod_Airport_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avivim_school_bus_massacre
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/world/middleeast/08gaza.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma'alot_massacre
And so on.
duhneece
(4,112 posts)The 'apartheid-Jim Crow-like' conditions that the Palestinians have to live under can never be right, never be justified.
Response to duhneece (Reply #64)
sherylkaye This message was self-deleted by its author.
Missycim
(950 posts)that they didn't sign the NPT but Iran did.
malaise
(268,998 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)"Rabbi Ovadia Yosef: Pray for the destruction of Iran"
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)He has three proteges in the government.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Clinton says U.S. could "totally obliterate" Iran
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/22/us-usa-politics-iran-idUSN2224332720080422
On the day of a crucial vote in her nomination battle against fellow Democrat Barack Obama, the New York senator said she wanted to make clear to Tehran what she was prepared to do as president in hopes that this warning would deter any Iranian nuclear attack against the Jewish state.
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.
"That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic," Clinton said.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)bunkers. Which is why the world is more concerned about Israel's nukes than they are of Iran who does not have any.
This ploy by Netanyahu to get this country into war with Iran is not working. I have no idea why he is here attempting to influence our elections. He has no business trying to do that and will only anger people here who generally are not receptive to foreign leaders trying to get the US into another horrific war in the ME.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)
alfredo
(60,071 posts)other conservative Muslim states.
I'm sure the conservative voters in Iran love Ahmadinejad's bellicosity. Iran's leaders know that using a nuke would be suicide. One bomb hurled at Israel would cause a reaction that would turn Iran into a radioactive waste land.
Nuclear weapons are white elephants. They are expensive to make, maintain, and secure, and are of little use in the real world.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Ownership of nuclear weapons is implied threat enough; you don't stock them unless you see some situation in which you might want to use them, after all.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Of their conquests. That lack of boasting doesn't make their actions morally acceptable.
Enslaving entire nations of people, or killing huge segments of another nation's citizenry is always a morally nasty business, especially if you happen to be living in the enslaved and occupied nation.
Great Britain saw itself as beset by "the white man's burden" of occupying India, and siphoning off that country's wealth to its own island. And it penalized the Indian people with absurd prohibitions -such as making it illegal for the Indian to partake of the salt that was produced right there in India.
We attacked Iraq under the pretense that Iraq had somehow helped the Nine Eleven event to occur. When if you want to accept the "Official Story about Nine Eleven," then we should have attacked Saudi Arabia, as the majority of the hijackers came from there. But hey - we don't boast about killing one million people in Iraq. We deny any and all culpability of it.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)If Iran were to obtain its own bombs, Israel could not as effectively use the threat of use of its own nuclear weapons as leverage to bend US policy and responses, as it has repeatedly during previous wars.
1967 War - Israel launched the 7-Day War right after it developed its first operational devices with nuclear materials stolen from U.S. reactors. Israel assembled two bombs and launched the Seven Day War, confident it held the ultimate trump card. Afterwards, the Johnson Administration reluctantly agreed to provide US fighter bomber delivery systems with some strings attached.
1973 War - Israel was in a desperate situation on the ground. Syrian armor threatened to break through the Golan Heights and the IDF was mauled by the Egyptians in the Sinai, making effective use of Soviet-supplied anti-aircraft systems. The Nixon Administration was at first resisted providing desperately needed replacement aircraft and missile parts and TOW antitank weapons. Israel made repeated threats that it would use its nuclear weapons in the event of Arab armies made a breakthrough into Israel's northern cities. While Nixon was having a nervous breakdown, Alexander Haig delivered the weapons.
See, Seymour Hersh, The Samson Option; also, see, the following paper from the USAF Air War College: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/farr.htm
The Israelis aggressively pursued an aircraft delivery system from the United States. President Johnson was less emphatic about nonproliferation than President Kennedy-or perhaps had more pressing concerns, such as Vietnam. He had a long history of both Jewish friends and pressing political contributors coupled with some first hand experience of the Holocaust, having toured concentration camps at the end of World War II.51 Israel pressed him hard for aircraft (A-4E Skyhawks initially and F-4E Phantoms later) and obtained agreement in 1966 under the condition that the aircraft would not be used to deliver nuclear weapons. The State Department attempted to link the aircraft purchases to continued inspection visits. President Johnson overruled the State Department concerning Dimona inspections.52 Although denied at the time, America delivered the F-4Es, on September 5, 1969, with nuclear capable hardware intact.53
The Samson Option states that Moshe Dayan gave the go-ahead for starting weapon production in early 1968, putting the plutonium separation plant into full operation. Israel began producing three to five bombs a year. The book Critical Mass asserts that Israel had two bombs in 1967, and that Prime Minister Eshkol ordered them armed in Israel's first nuclear alert during the Six-Day War.54 Avner Cohen in his recent book, Israel and the Bomb, agrees that Israel had a deliverable nuclear capability in the 1967 war. He quotes Munya Mardor, leader of Rafael, the Armament Development Authority, and other unnamed sources, that Israel “cobbled together” two deliverable devices.55
Having the bomb meant articulating, even if secretly, a use doctrine. In addition to the “Samson Option” of last resort, other triggers for nuclear use may have included successful Arab penetration of populated areas, destruction of the Israeli Air Force, massive air strikes or chemical/biological strikes on Israeli cities, and Arab use of nuclear weapons.56
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)The Israelis stole the material (and from us) needed for their bombs.
Learn something new every day.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Interesting though, the hypocrisy:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/patrick-pexton-what-about-israels-nuclear-weapons/2012/08/31/390e486a-f389-11e1-a612-3cfc842a6d89_story.html
"President John Kennedy vigorously tried to prevent Israel from obtaining the bomb; President Lyndon Johnson did so to a much lesser extent. But once it was a done deal, Nixon and every president since has not pressed Israel to officially disclose its capabilities or to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty . In return, Israel agrees to keep its nuclear weapons unacknowledged and low-profile.
Because Israel has not signed the treaty, it is under no legal obligation to submit its major nuclear facility at Dimona to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections. Iran, in contrast, did sign the treaty and thus agrees to periodic inspections. IAEA inspectors are regularly in Iran, but the core of the current dispute is that Tehran is not letting them have unfettered access to all of the country’s nuclear installations.
Furthermore, although Israel has an aggressive media, it still has military censors that can and do prevent publication of material on Israel’s nuclear forces. Censorship applies to foreign correspondents working there, too.
Another problem, Cohen said, is that relatively few people have overall knowledge of the Israeli program and no one leaks. Those in the program certainly do not leak; it is a crime to do so. The last time an Israeli insider leaked, in 1986, nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu was kidnapped by Israeli agents in Italy, taken home to trial, convicted and served 18 years in jail, much of it in solitary confinement."
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
"The United States first became aware of Dimona's existence after U-2 overflights in 1958 captured the facility's construction, but it was not identified as a nuclear site until two years later. The complex was variously explained as a textile plant, an agricultural station, and a metallurgical research facility, until David Ben-Gurion stated in December 1960 that Dimona complex was a nuclear research center built for "peaceful purposes."
There followed two decades in which the United States, through a combination of benign neglect, erroneous analysis, and successful Israeli deception, failed to discern first the details of Israel's nuclear program. As early as 8 December 1960, the CIA issued a report outlining Dimona's implications for nuclear proliferation, and the CIA station in Tel Aviv had determined by the mid-1960s that the Israeli nuclear weapons program was an established and irreversible fact.
United States inspectors visited Dimona seven times during the 1960s, but they were unable to obtain an accurate picture of the activities carried out there, largely due to tight Israeli control over the timing and agenda of the visits. The Israelis went so far as to install false control room panels and to brick over elevators and hallways that accessed certain areas of the facility. The inspectors were able to report that there was no clear scientific research or civilian nuclear power program justifying such a large reactor - circumstantial evidence of the Israeli bomb program - but found no evidence of "weapons related activities" such as the existence of a plutonium reprocessing plant."
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)sovereign nation "can kearn to live with"?
DID THE UNITED STATES "LEARN TO LIVE WITH" IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN?
cali
(114,904 posts)A justifiable thing?
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Or any other.
Don't like it? Too fucking bad.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)I guess you forgot that you wrote "fire away"?
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)seemed quite hypocritical to me.
If Iran gets nuclear weapons and uses them...it would be almost certainly a suicide move.
Mosby
(16,311 posts)That's the issue, would Iran be able to keep its nukes out of the hands of terrorists? How much of a bribe would it take for hezbollah or some other terrorist org to "purchase" a nuke and then transport it to israel?
former-republican
(2,163 posts)Skidmore
(37,364 posts)issue of nuclear weaponry. First, we developed the weapons. Second, we are the only nation to have actually used them--more than once. Third, even after witnessing the horrible devastation caused by nuclear weapons, we participated in an arms race with another superpower which increased exponentially the number of nuclear weapons in the world. Lastly, some geniuses decided that we could strategically arm others with nukes so that we could hold enemy nations in check. And now we whine? Karma bites hard sometimes.
When I consider our history when it comes to these weapons, I feel physically ill.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)and also means other nations have no right to interfere in *our* elections, any more than we have a right to interfere in theirs.
Missycim
(950 posts)said they are going to wipe another country off the map, but i guess that's ok with you?
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Iran hasn't threatened to wipe Israel off the map: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-ahmadinejad-really-say-israel-should-be-wiped-off-the-map/2011/10/04/gIQABJIKML_blog.html
Mosby
(16,311 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 17, 2012, 12:59 PM - Edit history (1)
Ffs go educate yourself.
here are some posters in Iran:
tavalon
(27,985 posts)Nice of them to put it in English. It reminds me of the old days and baby milk factories.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)By the logic you've posted, Americans have no right to tell Iran they can't possess nuclear weapons. I guess we're done here.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)would have to extend to an American's telling Iran what to do.
What is between Israel and Iran is between Israel and Iran.
BTW: "An American" is linguistically understood here to mean our leaders, not mere posters on the Internet.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)No more fucking war. Not for this. Not for anything.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)I make a good living with my imagination thanks.
spanone
(135,831 posts)
Bucky
(54,013 posts)I have Iranian friends and they use the adjective "Persian" all the time.
get the red out
(13,466 posts)The idea of bombing Iran is insane, IMO.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Israel is well known to have many nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver them to Iran. If Iran does get the bomb, why are they more likely than, say Pakistan, to use them, knowing that if they did they country of Iran would be reduced to a glowing cinder by both Israel and likely the US?
Don't give the the crap about what Iran has said. The USSR said similar things about wiping the USA off the map, but it never attacked because they knew they would be annihilated as well.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)was Kruschev's saying that the USSR would "bury" both colonialism and capitalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_will_bury_you
But yes, it would be suicide for the Iranians should they attack Israel.
Now, the question is: If you were Israeli, virtually surrounded by those who LITERALLY want to bury you, would you take the risk?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Israel would be FOOLISH to watch people who've pledged to destroy them, accumulating nuclear weapons.
Darwin just flat out disapproves.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)In any case, if Israel continues down this road, eventually somebody from a country they have attacked is going to get a nuclear bomb. And they will use it. If they attack Iran and kill lots of Iranians, that just adds to the pool of people who will be willing to die to get back at them. Israel's policy of "at least make them fear us" has been a dismal failure.
Missycim
(950 posts)when did the USSR or China surround us?
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)global1
(25,247 posts)Wouldn't it be suicide for the Israeli's if they attack Iran?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)As do we. It's not clear that Iran's leaders are focused on this world or the next one, and if they are focused on the next world, their value system may allow using nukes, knowing they will be nuked as well.
There is also the possibility that they won't use a missile delivery system, preferring something a bit more lowtech.
Not that I'm arguing in favor of invading Iran (I think that is a bad idea and premature, as I believe them to be a way away from actually building a Nuke).
Bryant
I've been wondering why no one in the media says this.
The people of Iran, not the government, are educated and moderate by comparison to some other ME countries. They do not generally support the radical desire to eliminate the state of Israel that seems to be on Ahmadinejad's wishlist. However, if attacked, they will fight for their country. An attack would serve to harden the Iranians against the West, not to move them toward a more moderate government.
I do not blame Israel for being nervous, even scared, of a nuclear-armed Iran. However, I do not think that we are ready to commit ground troops in Iran. Don't kid yourself that surgical bombing will take care of this problem. Such a tactic would radicalize the populace and could lead to a groundswell of support to attack Israel. This could spread to other ME countries, giving them a rallying cry. We could be drawn into a war of huge proportions. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars lack the one thing that would make this conflict with Iran more dangerous - the involvement of Israel.
I may very well be naive, but many countries have nuclear weapons, but none has been used since 1945. I doubt that Iran would actually use them unless they want to start a world war. Even North Korea hasn't been that stupid.
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)And to attempt such a thing would be tremendously insane.
Missycim
(950 posts)aside, we could do it with little problems. They use old Soviet junk tanks, equipmen. and tactics. Their Airforce is a joke along with their navy. Now I dont want to see a war at all but if we knocked off Iraq at the height of its power (1991)Iran wouldn't be much of a threat.
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)But I doubt an occupation would go over well. And that is what it would take.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Missycim
(950 posts)shotgun.
All I did was correct someone who thought we couldn't win a war with Iran. We couldn't afford it but if money wasn't an issue, we'd win pretty easily. Not that I am for that to happen, just taking about abilities here.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Missycim
(950 posts)we'd win pretty handley, occupation on the other hand.....
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Us should we attempt it? Those nations that count are China And Russia.
And back in 1991, the USA was still producing items like conduit material, and computer circuits. Nowadays, a lot of needed materials come from China. i don't know if we could actually go against China's wishes. We rely on them these days, not just for plastic toys and knickknacks at Walmart, but even for essential items like food.
Missycim
(950 posts)and since we owe them a lot of money the old adage "if you owe the bank a 100 dollars the bank owns you but if you owe the bank a million dollars you own the bank"
Not too worried about what russia has to say.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Whether you are aware of it or not,m that statement is a meme. A form of thought control. Don't think about things, don't bother our pretty little heads, USA Number One.
Another meme that comes to mind when I think of the one you present is that one from 2003 to mid-2006 was this one: "It's not a housing bubble -it's a new economy. The housing market can only go up. Housing prices can only increase." And blah blah blah.
What is going on behind the scenes, as it were, is that China is increasingly worried. The top Chinese officials understand that right now, those who might be relied on to repay the debt, that is the group between 16 and 26, are now facing 52% plus unemployment. They understand that almost 25% of the value of buildings and homes in the USA was wiped out when the housing market tanked. (It turns out it was a bubble after all.)
The fact that China is nervous was reflected by the remarks of one Southern Senator to another about ten months ago,. Neither Senator realized the C Span microphone near them was still on. One Senator remarks to another, that he feels his first priority is, as a Senator, to make sure that China remains happy with us. (I find that scarey myself - that a Senator feels that his primary job is to make friggin' China happy, but maybe you don't care. You seem like you may be more than middle class, economically speaking.)
So how will China be made happy with us? I direct you to google important discussions of what the rather secret Trans Pacific Plan is, and could become, while it is formulated by people like this Senator. The Trans Pacific Plan will direct the economic engine of this country. Will US Prisons be privatized and owned by the Chinese? Will the local WalMart be replaced by a PandaMart? And on and on.
People who are reliant on memes usually can afford the downside of reality, when the meme blows apart. If you are above middle class, maybe you don't need to even think about what I am typing at you. But if you are making less than 100K, and/or your granma isn't about to die and leave you a million, you might consider the things I am saying.
JHB
(37,160 posts)Missycim
(950 posts)occupation part.
BarackTheVote
(938 posts)Because there's a distinct lack of respect between the two sides. Victory depends on some definitive benchmark established by the leadership of the warring nations--once that benchmark is reached, the losing nation surrenders its rights and titles to the victor. We clearly don't respect them, their right to self-determination. And Iran certainly doesn't respect us because we wag our stick around and think we can take anything anywhere and it's a pride thing, standing up to the big man on the block and outlasting. So, no, there will be no victory in Iran. Just another quagmire. Unless, of course, you glass the country and wipe out every single person capable of fighting or who will EVER be capable of fighting. And I don't want to see the US lose its soul that way.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)I could alert on almost every post you've written here, but I think I prefer to give you a bit of unsolicited advice.
This place has so much education to offer someone like you, but if you've written 661 entries in less than 2 months, it strikes me that you're too busy telling us your point of view to even notice how much insightful, intelligent, cogent, historical and just downright interesting information Democratic Underground has for you.
I don't think you're a troll (goodness knows, these days, trolls rarely make it to double digits around here) but I do think you're a bit too strident and sure of yourself.
It might just benefit you to sit back and read a while, without comment, unless that comment is a request for further information.
You have time enough to make your 1000 posts after the election.
Missycim
(950 posts)sometimes when I see certain things and I must rein in my temper.
But I agree with what you have to say though.
frylock
(34,825 posts)magical thyme
(14,881 posts)
TBF
(32,060 posts)so far the only power to actually use weapons of mass destruction is our own country. Ironic huh? And we sit around worrying about everyone else getting them ..
madokie
(51,076 posts)So I guess I agree with you.
Everybody would leave them alone if they did and thats pretty much a fact.
moriah
(8,311 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)I think you are stating what is the majority DU opinion, probably by quite a large margin.
jsr
(7,712 posts)
dionysus
(26,467 posts)called "not getting invaded or attacked insurance"
Missycim
(950 posts)if that country hadn't said to the effect that the Israelis are going to get wiped off the map.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)That is the line Ahmadinejad used, not "Israel must be wiped off the map", and he was quoting a cleric when he said it. Editorials have appeared in major publications all over the world, including the Guardian and the New York Times, by respected analysts who agree to this.
Missycim
(950 posts)nt
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)You don't need me to post links. If you have a genuine interest in accurate information, you will find it yourself.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)They are the ones who originated the "wiped off the map" translation for what that is worth.
Also the Supreme Leader is the one calling the shots, not Ahmadinejad - and he's also said that "The Zionist Reigme" is a cancer that needs to be removed.
Incidentally, the Iranian leadership only ever refers to Israel as "The Zionist Regime" (or other similar euphemisms) as they don't acknowledge the existence of Israel.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)immediately challenged and clarified the translation in 2006. Juan Cole said there is no such idiom as 'wiped off the map' in the Persian language. I can't possibly say why the Iranian news agency would translate it that way, but the original speech, which I have read in its entirety, is available online, and it also translates the line as "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". I don't have the time to search for it right now (I'm doing other things between postings).
As for not acknowledging the existence of Israel, that statement makes no sense to me at all. Israel's existence is a reality that the Iranian leadership has no choice but to accept. They just don't like it. As long as they're not engaging in aggressive militarism (like some other states we know of), I see no particular reason to be concerned.
Frankly, I consider the belief that Iran will begin attacking others with nuclear weapons as soon as it develops them, racist at it roots. What the political leadership of the U.S. and Israel really fear, is a deterrent to their aggressive intentions in the Middle East.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Maybe - while the idiom itself does not exist in Persian - the translator thought it was the best way in English to capture the sentiment being expressed in Persian.
Also "the regime occupying Jerusalem" means Israel. They don't say Israel over there. They say "The Zionist Regime" or "The regime occupying Jerusalem (or Al Quds)". You will note that Iranian news media will often put "Israel" in brackets next to such phrases.
They don't recognize Israel's existence. It is not a reality that the Iranian leadership has no choice but to accept. They don't accept it. They believe there is an "occupying regime" operating illegally and that the world community should take action to address this "crime". This is something that Israel ought to be concerned with, especially considering the fact that Iran gives funding and weapons to entities that actually do act against Israelis violently.
Anyway, it's clear that we are not going to agree with respect to Iran and Israel, so I'll leave it there.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Engaging in a major military assault against another country is something else entirely. If Israel attacks Iran, it is the aggressor.
Missycim
(950 posts)nt
polly7
(20,582 posts)You're correct, it was translated immediately after, and that is just what was said.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)and then Pakistan etc etc
WWIII
former-republican
(2,163 posts)People say that if they get a weapon they would use it to destroy Israel.
Iran had and has chemical and biological weapons .
When people state Iran is so crazy they don't care about mutual destruction .
I think that's a false premise.
They do care and the mullahs don't want their country destroyed.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)This will preempt possible Israeli strikes, save time and money by avoiding the need for the Ayatollahs to develop nukes by themselves (a long and possibly dangerous process) and result in a peaceful, mutually-assured-destruction type of world where no country dares to attack another one.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)There is no reason to start what would become a larger war.
zellie
(437 posts)but it's really not very brave for someone to say how the Israelis should learn to accept a country with a nuke who has called for it's destruction.
I wonder if you a nuke were pointed at you would you be so brave.
ret5hd
(20,491 posts)Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)and had several near launches, yet we some how managed. Israel? Sorry, you're not so special, deal with it.
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)that was quite provocative.
liberallibral
(272 posts)I'd rather see Israel (and the United States) use military force against Iran, than have Iran obtaining nukes.....
Pakistan having them is bad enough, but if Iran gets them, I have little doubt they'll use them against Israel.
The leaders of Iran WANT total destruction and Armageddon, because then their "12th Imam:" can return...
(Note: I'm a deist, and neither a Christian or a Muslim - and have no love for organized religion)
randome
(34,845 posts)The radiation and fallout would not be contained, thereby poisoning a good deal of the surrounding region.
There are methods of delivering precision nuclear strikes but since Iran just barely has nuclear capacity now, it would likely take them decades to formulate such delivery systems.
If the Iranians are rational and scientific enough to develop nuclear weapons in the first place, they surely realize this.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Aren't there other possibilities for what they could do to Israel if they chose to do so?
randome
(34,845 posts)I'm no expert but even if Iran gets the bomb, they would not have any delivery system in place for a long time. And smaller scale delivery systems would probably take even longer.
Initech
(100,075 posts)And of course the only ones who would really benefit would be the military industrial complex - who would see handsome profits from this bullshit. 
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)The problem is that, in our infinite wisdom, the U.S. and the U.K. decided to create a Jewish state in the middle of a huge sea of Muslims.
If Israel attacks Iran, Israel wins (thanks to the fact that they have a lot of cool toys that we've given them). However, they're STILL in the middle of that huge sea of people who detest them and we'd have to become militarily involved to save them.
I've always believed that Israel's security value was vastly overstated.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)At least not for the Jews.
nanabugg
(2,198 posts)That is not even smart by Israeli standards. Why would Iran bomb Israel with nukes when they can keep Israel busy with ground warfare is they wanted to? This is all more of Israeli warmongering to divert the worlds attention from illegal settlements and genocidal occupation. That is all.
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)There's virtually no situation where the use of nukes is the rational thing to do, but Iran's leadership doesn't seem to be burdened with an excess of rationality.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)
RKP5637
(67,108 posts)Iggo
(47,552 posts)Eventually, they'll be successful.
Just like Israel.
CRH
(1,553 posts)than any one else that has the bomb. It is just another wedge issue, though admittedly, a global wedge issue.
triplepoint
(431 posts)and supports the current Syrian Regime. Pakistan just successfully demonstrated a missile that can deliver a nuclear warhead. Looks like all the requirements to be a nuclear nation will soon be Iran's. The nuclear club grows ever still as Doomday's clock hands move all the more closer to midnight.
Mosby
(16,311 posts)Stay classy, cali.
progressoid
(49,990 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)There was nothing in the tiniest bit anti-semitic about my OP. And yes, dear, you certainly did infer that with your gratuitous mention of Rosh Hashanah. This has zip to do with it.
I found your comment disgusting.
Mosby
(16,311 posts)just that you made a flame-bait kind of post about Israel and Iran when most Jews are unavailable to respond- seems a little to convenient for me.
Enjoy your day.
polly7
(20,582 posts)been expressed here in the past. There are plenty. Not everyone agrees with the hypocrisy of nuclear-armed and aggressive nations posturing to attack those with none and I personally don't believe it has anything at all to do with having nukes. Iran has been in the PNAC cross-hairs all along. But it does seem the only way not to be attacked or invaded in the ME is to have a strong defense. Although:
Iran's Khamenei Calls for 'Nuclear Free Middle East'
Published on Thursday, August 30, 2012 by Common Dreams
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/08/30-4
Supreme leader of Iran says nuclear weapons are "great sin" as Israel's Netanyahu calls meeting of Non-Alligned Movement a "disgrace"
- Common Dreams staff
Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Thursday reiterated the country's position that it has no desire for nuclear weapons, calling atomic weapons a "great sin" and renewing the call for a nuclear-free Middle East.
Iran's motto is "Nuclear energy for all and nuclear weapons for none," Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Thursday. (Photo credit: AP)
Speaking to leaders at the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Tehran, Khamenei said that Iran, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), would continue to defend its right to develop a peaceful nuclear program.
"I stress that the Islamic Republic has never been after nuclear weapons and that it will never give up the right of its people to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes,” Khamenei said.
“Iran considers the use of nuclear, chemical and similar weapons as a great and unforgivable sin," he continued. "We proposed the idea of ‘Middle East free of nuclear weapons’ and we are committed to it.”
progressoid
(49,990 posts)
I don't always agree with Cali but you're way off here.
Response to progressoid (Reply #120)
Mosby This message was self-deleted by its author.
progressoid
(49,990 posts)I also have a classmate in Iran. However, I don't have any relatives in Afghanistan or Germany or Brazil or Texas. Does that help?
Response to progressoid (Reply #128)
Mosby This message was self-deleted by its author.
Alduin
(501 posts)I mock Christianity on Christmas. No big deal for me.
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)In fact, I am so sick of Netanyahu constantly trying to bully the U.S. into doing his bidding. Just how many times over the years have we heard from him that Iran is "six months away" from having a viable bomb?
He has just as much a hard-on for war as Shrub did. But if he starts it, he should be on his own.
The United States needs to stand up to Israel. Period.
chknltl
(10,558 posts)Iran would want nuke to keep Western powers out of it's oil. (imho).
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)This is a rather classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)years since the bomb was developed.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)How does that figure?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)If we hadn't shown the world, someone else would have. It's as simple as that.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Sadly, I agree with you. Indeed, it was for show.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)And so they decided to drop another one. . . ?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)And they wanted to test & compare them.
The Japanese had not had an opportunity to fully appreciate what hit Hiroshima before we hit them again.
barbtries
(28,794 posts)even if they had them, they have to know, just as every other country that has them knows, that if they USED them their country would soon be totally wiped out. the USA will still and (certainly for a long time to come) always have the most nukes. and after WWII, nobody should be pretending that we would not use them.
RandiFan1290
(6,232 posts)
eridani
(51,907 posts)That would be a good thing, IMO. Neither Iran nor any of the entities previously occupying that part of the earth has invaded anyone since 1826, when Russia handed their asses to them. The same thing cannot be said of the countries that surround Iran, particularly Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Iran
BarackTheVote
(938 posts)How could Iran nuke Israel without, you know, destroying the holiest place in the religion of Islam? Okay, so Iran's a "mad dog" that doesn't care about MAD. Not sure I buy that, but, given. How can Iran justify destroying Jerusalem?
Behind the Aegis
(53,956 posts)BarackTheVote
(938 posts)It might not be Mecca, but Jerusalem's still pretty important, isn't it? What with the Dome of the Rock and all.
Behind the Aegis
(53,956 posts)
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)Hint...it's Jerusalem.
Behind the Aegis
(53,956 posts)Further hint, he said "the holiest."
Alduin
(501 posts)But yeah, I agree with you that Israel is a big trouble maker, but I don't want to see Iran with nukes either.
Bucky
(54,013 posts)Response to cali (Original post)
darkangel218 This message was self-deleted by its author.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)If they had the missile technology that the Soviets had in the 1960's, would you be more concerned?
Volaris
(10,271 posts)I don't care if Iran builds a bomb. I care that they DON'T drop it on Jerusalem or Tel Aviv.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)I dont expect this or any president to lessen the presure on Iran at this stage by taking the possibility of a military strike completely off the table.
