# On Iran



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 16, 2012)

Many people are unaware of the many issues playing out the in the Middle East right now, particularly those involving Iran.  They tend to lump all Muslims together, and to consider the Middle East a cohesive whole, which it is not.

The most fundamental thing to understand about Islam is that there are two main branches; Sunni and Shiite.  Without going into tedious detail about the differences between them, suffice to say that it's a bigger deal than Protestant or Catholic in the Christian world.  In extreme cases, they try very hard to murder each other for being apostate.

Iran is one of the few majority Shiite Muslim nations (also Iraq, Azerbaijan, and Bahrain).  The rest are predominately Sunni.

Prior to our invasion of Iraq, although Iraq was majority Shiite, it wasn't run that way, as Saddam Hussein was Sunni, and he enforced a peace between warring factions of Sunni, Shiite, and Kurds (yet another sect of Islam).  In fact, he was very much like Tito; the country remained peaceful because he was more brutal than anyone.

With Hussein gone and a shaky Iraq government in, Iran began to move against the Sunni in Iraq to consolidate power and give the Shiite an edge.  They funded and trained a lot of insurgents, and they even sheltered and supplied and trained Sunni insurgents against Iraq, under the 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' theory.  Their goal was to destabilize, run a war of attrition by proxy, and get the US to leave Iraq.  They won, we left (I'm not arguing that we should have stayed or that we should or should not have been there in the first place, just that we were out-maneuvered).

The current Iraqi PM is Shiite.  No sooner did we leave Iraq than he issued an arrest warrant for the VP, who is Sunni. The King of Saudi Arabia has flat-out stated that the Iraqi PM is an agent for Iran.

Given Iran's position in the Middle East as a minority Islamic power, they want very much to consolidate power in Iraq; they have essentially taken it over already, but they want to complete the acquisition.

Iran also wants to not be seen as an enemy by the Sunni Muslim world, and to this end, they have supported the Palastinians, primarily Hamas and not Fatah, and mostly since Arafat's death.  It is reported that most of Palestine's weapons and monetary support come directly from Iran.  As long as eyes are on the Israeli/Palestinian issues, people don't pay attention to Iran, and of course Hamas supports the destruction of Israel.

Now Iran has been building a nuclear program for years, just like North Korea (with whom the cooperate), and they have made it perfectly clear that they intend to build nuclear weapons.  Most of the world's intelligence services believe this and have said so; even in Russia, although the President said no, the PM said yes.  The only people who believe Iran is not engaged in building nuclear weapons are the seriously uninformed and ignorant; it's not a matter of left or right wing politics, it's simple fact.

Given that Iran has repeatedly stated that the nation of Israel must be utterly eradicated and destroyed, it is clear what Iran will do with those weapons the moment it has them.  They will attack Israel with them.  Israel knows this full well and won't let them do this; however, they have stayed their hand overtly (they do work covertly) at the pleading of the US, their strongest ally.

Iran is now moving their enrichment program underground and deep into mountains.  Iran is not like Iraq; it is not a big desert.  It's mountainous, more like Afghanistan in that sense.  They know perfectly well that they can't be invaded in the traditional sense like Iraq was; there are too many places for them to hide.  They do not fear destruction from the USA or Israel.  In fact, they believe that if attacked by either, the rest of the Middle Eastern Muslim would would come to their rescue, even the Sunni nations; especially if Israel attacked them.  Some say they would not risk war, because they are not stupid.  It's stupid to think they won't risk war if they can detonate a nuke in Tel Aviv.  They'll do it the instant they have the capability.

Europe is about to start sanctions against them which will hurt them financially.  In retaliation, they've done various things, like block the Strait of Hormuz and threaten to deny US warships entry, arrest various US nationals inside Iran and sentence them to death, etc.  All sword-rattling.  All diversionary and delaying tactics.  All brinksmanship.

The bottom line is that Iran wants to eradicate Israel, to complete its conquest of Iraq, and to develop nuclear weapons to make it a power in the region so that it no longer faces threat from Sunni Muslim nations or non-Muslim nations.  All other considerations are secondary to completing work on nuclear weapons.

I fully suspect that in the near future, Israel will take unilateral action against Iran; we'll be dragged into it of course.  Or, alternatively, we'll barge our way past the Iranian Navy and sink a few of their boats.  I would not even be surprised if a US-flagged vessel were attacked and sunk by the Iranians (even if faked by us) to give us a pretext for bombing the crap out of them.

In any case, Iran must not have nuclear weapons.  I don't particularly care what it takes to keep that from happening.


----------



## Carol (Jan 16, 2012)

Someone has been assassinating Iran's nuclear scientists.  Iran thinks its us and/or Israel.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...tack/2012/01/11/gIQAT1V7pP_story.html?hpid=z2


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 16, 2012)

Carol said:


> Someone has been assassinating Iran's nuclear scientists.  Iran thinks its us and/or Israel.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...tack/2012/01/11/gIQAT1V7pP_story.html?hpid=z2



Well, of course.  Is anyone surprised at all about that?


----------



## Razor (Jan 16, 2012)

It is a case of the big bullies (US, UK, Israel) not wanting another country to challenge their power. There is no solid evidence Iran is building nuclear weapons, but if they were, why are the other countries allowed them but not Iran? I don't really want anyone to have nuclear weapons, but balance is probably preferable to just a few powerful nations having them.

Also, don't presume just because the President said some stuff about destroying Israel about 10 years ago that "Iran" wants to or that even the President wants to. Israel has repeatedly threatened its neighbours in any case, nobody is up in arms about that, even when they follow through with their threats. 

That's my take on it, without even getting in to the ways the West have screwed over Iran in the 20th century, and acts of terrorism against Iran.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 16, 2012)

Razor,

Iran repeatledly threatens to wipe Israel off the map, when has israel done the same?


----------



## Razor (Jan 16, 2012)

To my knowledge, Israel has never "threatened to wipe Iran off the map", but that is not what I said is it? If you want examples of Israeli threats to neighbours, I recommend searching "Israel threatens" into Google. Of course, at the moment that will only show you threats against Iran, but they threatened then bombed Syria, I think Iraq and perhaps somewhere else too, it's been a while since I studied it in detail. Here are a few to get you started:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/israel-threatens-an-attack-on-iran-60413/

http://news.sky.com/home/article/16101407

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3877404,00.html


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 16, 2012)




----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 16, 2012)

There are some major risks that the US needs to consider when it comes to having another war with Iran.

1.  *It will require boots on the ground.*  Once we start dropping bombs, it won't end until Tehran falls.  The religious leaders of Iran will use the war to consolidate opposition and outside forces will have to dig them out.  
2.  *It will spike oil prices and cause everything we need to live our lives to spiral upwards.*  For every one calorie of food we consume, it takes ten calories of oil to produce.  When the first bomb drops, prices will jump by at least 20%.
3.  *It will cost the unborn their livelihood.*  The US government is already mired in war debt from the last ten years.  Adding more will pretty much ensure that our children will live with much more diminished standard of living.
4.  *It will kill the US dollar and the Economy*.  As we struggle to pay for the war and bailout the banks that will fall from the reduced economic activity, the value of our money will plummet.  Thereby forcing the world to come up with a new currency.
5.  *Iran will engage in real terrorism and asymmetrical tactics to fight us*.  It's very possible that we could see cells activating over here, in Europe, and anywhere else that is engaged in violence against them.
6.  *The US will cease to be a free country*.  Right now, we have uber-dictatorial powers on the books.  When this war starts and the casualties start pouring in and the real terrorists attack us, we'll lose all of our freedom and it will never come back.  The Washington Post wrote about this Friday the 13th.
7.  *It might lead to WWIII*.  Russia and China have both pledged to aid Iran should an attack come.  Will they back up there words with an actual nuclear exchange with the US?  I sincerely hope not, but history is full of examples when countries with ties suddenly went insane.  WWI comes to mind.

An attack on Iran has the potential to destabilize the whole world, it's going to kill millions of people and it might very well be the last thing the US does with it's current form of government.  I am very disappointed in the people who support this.  I wonder what happened to their humanity because what they propose is monstrous.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 16, 2012)

Razor said:


> It is a case of the big bullies (US, UK, Israel) not wanting another country to challenge their power.



Yes.  It's also a matter of keeping lunatics away from them.



> There is no solid evidence Iran is building nuclear weapons, but if they were, why are the other countries allowed them but not Iran?



Because Iran would use them.  And there is a huge difference between _"not going to do it"_ and _"not having evidence."_  If you wait for evidence, the evidence will the the big mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv.



> I don't really want anyone to have nuclear weapons, but balance is probably preferable to just a few powerful nations having them.



Nonsense.  With Pakistan teetering on the brink of anarchy or another military coup, the world runs the risk of their nuclear weapons 'wandering' out of the country.  Note that when Libya fell, their armories were invaded toot sweet by the rebels, and the various high-power weaponry and weapons of mass destruction that they had have been scattered to the winds and to various terrorist organizations.  Imagine if they had nuclear weapons for the rebels to steal.  One shudders at the thought.



> Also, don't presume just because the President said some stuff about destroying Israel about 10 years ago that "Iran" wants to or that even the President wants to. Israel has repeatedly threatened its neighbours in any case, nobody is up in arms about that, even when they follow through with their threats.



I'm sorry when?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/zionist-entity-3.htm


> In April 2006 President Ahmadinejad again made a speech in which he depicted Israel as a permanent threat to the Middle East *that will soon be eliminated*, while also again calling into question the truth of the Nazi Holocaust. Relations became especially tense following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in July 2006, in which it accused Iran of helping the militant group Hezbollah, and otherwise being involved in the crisis. Iran responded denying support for Hezbollah as nothing but Israeli propoganda.



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


> 2008 statements on Israel's 60th birthday
> 
> On Israel's 60th birthday, Ahmadinejad said:
> 
> ...



Iran denies that the present day state of Israel has the right to exist.  In what way is that unclear?



> That's my take on it, without even getting in to the ways the West have screwed over Iran in the 20th century, and acts of terrorism against Iran.



The West, and the US in particular, have much to answer for; in many ways, we have sowed the seeds of the problem we now face.

None of that matters if Iran gets The Bomb.  We cannot let that happen; in fact, we won't.  If they get it, they will use it on Israel.  PERIOD.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 16, 2012)

Razor said:


> To my knowledge, Israel has never "threatened to wipe Iran off the map", but that is not what I said is it?



Your knowledge is woefully lacking, intentionally or otherwise.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> An attack on Iran has the potential to destabilize the whole world, it's going to kill millions of people and it might very well be the last thing the US does with it's current form of government.  I am very disappointed in the people who support this.  I wonder what happened to their humanity because what they propose is monstrous.



If Iran gets The Bomb, they will use it on Israel immediately.  That will set everything off anyway.  So there's really no getting around it.  Iran wants to delay an attack by Israel until they can disperse and move more of their production facilities deep underground, Israel has commented on this in the past few days.  In a matter of months, it will no longer be possible to end Iran's nuclear ambitions by bombing from the air.  So Iran wants that stand-off to last just a few more months.  Israel of course is not going to let this occur, no matter what the USA says.

There is very little anyone can do to stop this, except for Iran to renounce nuclear weaponry and open themselves to inspection by the international agencies they have been keeping out to prove it.  It's Iran's move.

But again, if they make a bomb, they will use it on Israel on day 1.  I have no doubt of this, I can't believe any sane person doubts it.  And then the **** hits the fan for real.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 16, 2012)

Four hours ago today:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48819



> The crux of the Iranian dilemma is that every string has been pulled to the point of breaking.  Tighter U.S. sanctions could threaten our already weakened economy.  Whether or not the Israeli vice prime minister is correct that such considerations have already factored into the Administrations thinking, it seems highly unlike that the President wants to roll into the election with five-dollar gasoline at the pumps.  Further economic pressure might also change Irans calculation about whether or not it wants to call the Wests bluff and shut down the Straits of Hormuz.
> 
> It sounds to me as if the Israelis were hoping sanctions would destabilize the Iranian government, rather than merely persuading them to give up on their nuclear weapons program.  Evidently Netanyahu has seen some intelligence that the Iranian regime is not as wobbly as he hoped.
> 
> A serious Iranian retaliation against Israel or the United States for the death of its nuclear scientist could also escalate the situation into a military confrontation, particularly if its the kind of messy assassination that decorates the streets with civilian corpses.  And while everyone tries to figure out exactly where the red line into armed conflict is located, the nuclear clock is ticking: *U.N. authorities believe Iran is now less than one year away from having enough enriched uranium to build a bomb.*


----------



## Razor (Jan 16, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Because Iran would use them.  And there is a huge difference between _"not going to do it"_ and _"not having evidence."_  If you wait for evidence, the evidence will the the big mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv.



There is also a huge difference between "Iran will destroy Israel if they have nuclear capability" and "I believe Iran will destroy Israel if they have nuclear capability". Without evidence you are making an assumption; to quote Wilde "When you assume you are making an *** out of u and me" or something like that anyway.

Sorry, I thought you were referring to the one about 10 years ago.



> Nonsense. With Pakistan teetering on the brink of anarchy or another military coup, the world runs the risk of their nuclear weapons 'wandering' out of the country.  Note that when Libya fell, their armories were invaded toot sweet by the rebels, and the various high-power weaponry and weapons of mass destruction that they had have been scattered to the winds and to various terrorist organizations. Imagine if they had nuclear weapons for the rebels to steal. One shudders at the thought.



Some shudder at the thought of a USA, UK, France etc who can do whatever the hell they like without fear of recompense. I am glad in some ways that China and Russia provide a counterweight to NATO, but I am more wary of theocracies holding nuclear weapons. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Iran denies that the present day state of Israel has the right to exist. In what way is that unclear?
> The West, and the US in particular, have much to answer for; in many ways, we have sowed the seeds of the problem we now face.
> 
> None of that matters if Iran gets The Bomb. We cannot let that happen; in fact, we won't. If they get it, they will use it on Israel. PERIOD.



That's a massive jump. I know people who think that Israel should not exist who do not want to destroy it. Plenty of people seem to want to paint those who do not believe Israel should exist as a nation with the anti-semitic brush, but it is not necessarily true. I do not believe the ayatollah or President are crazy enough to attack Israel unprovoked with or without nuclear weapons. It does seem likely though that Israel may attack first, prompting retaliation.

Most countries have something to answer for; in many ways the current Iran situation is a direct result of British and American actions (Mossadegh Intervention).


----------



## Razor (Jan 16, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Your knowledge is woefully lacking, intentionally or otherwise.



I am sorry you feel that way. Perhaps you could give me a link to Israel saying that and help me expand my knowledge?

Here is an article you may find interesting:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/07/iran-war-already-begun?fb=optOut


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 16, 2012)

Razor said:


> I do not believe the ayatollah or President are crazy enough to attack Israel unprovoked with or without nuclear weapons.



Your opinion is noted.  I do not agree with you, not even a little bit.



> It does seem likely though that Israel may attack first, prompting retaliation.



That's pretty much a guarantee.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreig...-makes-diplomatic-path-suddenly-rockier-video



> He went on to warn Iran&#8217;s leaders that, if it comes to it, *the US won&#8217;t allow Iran to take the step of going nuclear.*
> 
> That is not new administration policy; Obama has said the same many times before.
> 
> But word of Iran&#8217;s imminent enrichment at an underground facility risks making the US position sound like an idle threat, since the clear purpose of moving Iran&#8217;s highest-grade enrichment activity to a site deep inside a mountain is to shield it as much as possible from military attack.



That is, as stated in the news recently, a 'red line'.  Cross it an it's game on.  But Israel won't wait for us to convince the handwringing crybabies in our nation to get with the program.



> Most countries have something to answer for; in many ways the current Iran situation is a direct result of British and American actions (Mossadegh Intervention).



And so what.  What does that mean now?  Nothing.  We're partially responsible for this situation; but still the situation exists.  We have to keep Iran from going nuclear, period.  What brought us to this point is interesting history and we have a lot to answer for.  But none of it matters with regard to whether or not we allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.  They cannot.  Period.  End of story.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 16, 2012)

Razor said:


> I am sorry you feel that way. Perhaps you could give me a link to Israel saying that and help me expand my knowledge?



That has nothing to do with your earlier statements.  Iran has indeed threatened to wipe Israel off the map.  The handwringing article in the Guardian about how awful we Americans are doesn't change that, even if true.  When I said you were ignorant, I pointed out previously many statements Iran has made on the subject of Israel and their right to exist; they've even hosted an official Holocaust Denial conference, for God's sake.  There is no more virulent enemy of Israel than Iran; possibly Syria, but even the Syrians have quieted down.  Iran hates Israel.  Israel hates Iran.  Mostly because Iran represents an existential threat to Israel.

None of that has dick to do with how the Guardian thinks we run our foreign affairs.  How Iran feels about Israel is fact.


----------



## Razor (Jan 16, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Your opinion is noted.  I do not agree with you, not even a little bit.



As are yours.



> And so what.  What does that mean now?  Nothing.  We're partially responsible for this situation; but still the situation exists.  We have to keep Iran from going nuclear, period.  What brought us to this point is interesting history and we have a lot to answer for.  But none of it matters with regard to whether or not we allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.  They cannot.  Period.  End of story.



I see what you mean in terms of taking a pragmatic approach. I just think that people (particularly uneducated and/or ignorant people) need to know some history to actually understand why and how things happen. You can learn a lot from history and so stop doing the same thing in the future (few politicians seem to learn). A lesson from this for the future could be that euphemistically titled "interventions" in countries that do not want you taking their oil and money should be avoided, as the resulting situation is often worse. Good thing the governments of the West learned that lesson, isn't it? Oh wait.


----------



## Razor (Jan 16, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That has nothing to do with your earlier statements.  Iran has indeed threatened to wipe Israel off the map.  The handwringing article in the Guardian about how awful we Americans are doesn't change that, even if true.  When I said you were ignorant, I pointed out previously many statements Iran has made on the subject of Israel and their right to exist; they've even hosted an official Holocaust Denial conference, for God's sake.  There is no more virulent enemy of Israel than Iran; possibly Syria, but even the Syrians have quieted down.  Iran hates Israel.  Israel hates Iran.  Mostly because Iran represents an existential threat to Israel.
> 
> None of that has dick to do with how the Guardian thinks we run our foreign affairs.  How Iran feels about Israel is fact.



If you read the thread, you will see that I was asked when Israel has said the same as Iran has said to Israel. I said that I did not think Israel had said the same, but had threatened its neighbours. Perhaps you feel that this thread and all of my comments are relevant only to you, but that is not the case. Also, you have got it the wrong way round; Iran has made threats to Israel, my reply was about *threats made by Israel.* Read before you call me ignorant please. Perhaps it is you who are choosing to be ignorant.

I simply said that you may find the article interesting. Clearly you are closed-minded and not interested in hearing other opinions. Oh, and seeking to generalise from a few Muslim Iranians to the whole of Iran? Do I even need to write about how ridiculous that is?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 16, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I would not even be surprised if a US-flagged vessel were attacked and sunk by the Iranians (*even if faked by us*) to give us a pretext for bombing the crap out of them.
> 
> In any case, Iran must not have nuclear weapons.  *I don't particularly care what it takes* to keep that from happening.



Do you really support a false flag attack on our own troops to get us into war with Iran?  I never thought I would read something like this on MT.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 16, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Mostly because Iran represents an existential threat to Israel.



I hate to correct you here, Bill. But, Iran IS a tangible, physical, ongoing terrorist threat to Israel through its funding of Hezzbollah and other terrorist groups. Iran doesn't just represent a threat to Israel. Iran represents a threat to what we laughingly call Western Values, i.e., Freedoms of speech, religion, association, etc. Why the LEFT isn't up in arms over Iran's treatment of homosexuals, for example is curious.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Do you really support a false flag attack on our own troops to get us into war with Iran?  I never thought I would read something like this on MT.


Slow down there, Conspiracy Boy.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Do you really support a false flag attack on our own troops to get us into war with Iran?  I never thought I would read something like this on MT.



No, I don't.  Point made.  However, Iran must be denied nuclear capability.  If that means bombing them, then that's what it means.  I would not support another Pueblo, Liberty, or Maine.  In fact, I would find it despicable that we could not simply attack Iran on the basis of the threat itself, rather than having to manufacture a pretext.  But I also would not be surprised if it happened.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 16, 2012)

Razor said:


> If you read the thread, you will see that I was asked when Israel has said the same as Iran has said to Israel. I said that I did not think Israel had said the same, but had threatened its neighbours. Perhaps you feel that this thread and all of my comments are relevant only to you, but that is not the case. Also, you have got it the wrong way round; Iran has made threats to Israel, my reply was about *threats made by Israel.* Read before you call me ignorant please. Perhaps it is you who are choosing to be ignorant.
> 
> I simply said that you may find the article interesting. Clearly you are closed-minded and not interested in hearing other opinions. Oh, and seeking to generalise from a few Muslim Iranians to the whole of Iran? Do I even need to write about how ridiculous that is?



About those Israeli made threats...
If a guy walks up to you on the street and starts beating you with a bat, are you going to stand there and take it meekly or fight back? Assuming you prevail, would you smack the hell out of his friends, coming behind him, and warn his other friends that if they mess with you they will get the same? That is exactly what Israel's threats amount to.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 16, 2012)

Big Don said:


> I hate to correct you here, Bill. But, Iran IS a tangible, physical, ongoing terrorist threat to Israel through its funding of Hezzbollah and other terrorist groups. Iran doesn't just represent a threat to Israel. Iran represents a threat to what we laughingly call Western Values, i.e., Freedoms of speech, religion, association, etc. Why the LEFT isn't up in arms over Iran's treatment of homosexuals, for example is curious.



Existential in this sense means 'existence'.  Iran is a threat to Israel's very existence.  Thus, an existential threat.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 16, 2012)

Razor said:


> If you read the thread, you will see that I was asked when Israel has said the same as Iran has said to Israel. I said that I did not think Israel had said the same, but had threatened its neighbours. Perhaps you feel that this thread and all of my comments are relevant only to you, but that is not the case. Also, you have got it the wrong way round; Iran has made threats to Israel, my reply was about *threats made by Israel.* Read before you call me ignorant please. Perhaps it is you who are choosing to be ignorant.
> 
> I simply said that you may find the article interesting. Clearly you are closed-minded and not interested in hearing other opinions. Oh, and seeking to generalise from a few Muslim Iranians to the whole of Iran? Do I even need to write about how ridiculous that is?




Israel has acted in self defense. You tell me when Israel has threatened to obliterate her neighbours? 

And yes, when people question the right of Israel to exist, that is blatant anti-semetism.


----------



## Razor (Jan 16, 2012)

Big Don said:


> About those Israeli made threats...
> If a guy walks up to you on the street and starts beating you with a bat, are you going to stand there and take it meekly or fight back? Assuming you prevail, would you smack the hell out of his friends, coming behind him, and warn his other friends that if they mess with you they will get the same? That is exactly what Israel's threats amount to.



I do not think the analogy is very good. Perhaps if other countries had attacked Israel, and Iran threatened to, then Israel threatened back, that would be different. But Israel has been doing its fair share of threatening. Honestly, I am not sure who "started it" but I don't think the analogy is quite fair.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 16, 2012)

Razor said:


> I do not think the analogy is very good. Perhaps if other countries had attacked Israel, and Iran threatened to, then Israel threatened back, that would be different. But Israel has been doing its fair share of threatening. Honestly, I am not sure who "started it" but I don't think the analogy is quite fair.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War



> In May 1967, Nasser received false reports from the Soviet Union that Israel was massing on the Syrian border.[20] Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19), and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.[21][22] UN Secretary-General U Thant proposed that the UNEF force be redeployed on the Israeli side of the border, but this was rejected by Israel despite U.S. pressure.[23] Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or a justification for war.[24][25] Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May. 22&#8211;23. On 27 May he stated *"Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."* [26] On May 30, Jordan and Egypt signed a defense pact. The following day, at Jordan's invitation, the Iraqi army began deploying troops and armored units in Jordan.[27] They were later reinforced by an Egyptian contingent. On June 1, Israel formed a National Unity Government by widening its cabinet, and on June 4 the decision was made to go to war. The next morning, Israel launched Operation Focus, a large-scale surprise air strike that was the opening of the Six-Day War.



Israel is surrounded by enemies who wish its destruction and they know it.  They have come through the Holocaust and have made it clear that they will never again become victims of attempts to annihilate them.  Any nation which urges the destruction of Israel risks being attacked preemptively, and I for one applaud their stance.  You don't want for schoolyard bullies to attack you at the time and place of their choosing.  Once they've made it clear they intend to attack you, you destroy them as quickly as possible.  This is the misunderstood character of self-defense.  One does not wait to be punched before defending oneself.  Once one knows they are about to be hit, they defend; first if necessary.  Iran has made it clear through their continued weapons and monetary support of Hamas and their own statements about the right of of Israel to exist that once they have The Bomb, they're going to use it on Israel.  Israel would be stupid not to take that threat for what it is and to prepare accordingly.  

At the moment, Israel can destroy Iran's nuclear capability at will; this means they have time to take, time for sanctions and diplomacy (and yes, even threats and even assassinations) to work.  Once Iran completes the task of moving their nuclear research and refinement programs underground and split into many parts of the country, Israel will no longer have the ability to destroy them at will.   This will not happen; Israel will not permit it.

Iran is saber-rattling, and maneuvering for time.  They won't get the time they want.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 16, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No, I don't.  Point made.  However, Iran must be denied nuclear capability.  If that means bombing them, then that's what it means.  I would not support another Pueblo, Liberty, or Maine.  In fact, I would find it despicable that we could not simply attack Iran on the basis of the threat itself, rather than having to manufacture a pretext.  But I also would not be surprised if it happened.



Bill, what does it mean that we have to acknowledge that our government might have to manufacture a pretext to attack in order to get this done?  I know you say that you don't support that and I believe you, but simply acknowledging it as a possibility has some grim implications regarding the state of our republic.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 16, 2012)

And then there is this...

http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=302258



> "*The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has  issued the Fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear  weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran  shall never acquire these weapons.* President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who  took office just recently, in his inaugural address reiterated that his  government is against weapons of mass destruction and will only pursue  nuclear activities in the peaceful domain. The leadership of Iran has  pledged at the highest level that Iran will remain a non-nuclear-weapon  state party to the NPT and has placed the entire scope of its nuclear  activities under IAEA safeguards and additional protocol, in addition to  undertaking voluntary transparency measures with the agency that have  even gone beyond the requirements of the agency's safeguard system."



The highest spiritual leader in Iran issued a fatwa against the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.  According to spiritual and political leaders at the heart of Muslim world, nuclear weapons are prohibited by Allah.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> And then there is this...
> 
> http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=302258
> 
> ...


Yes, because no Muslim ever does anything contrary to their religion, ever.
I missed the part in the Koran where truck loads of porn and alcohol were permitted to some Muslims, yet, forbidden the rest.


----------



## Razor (Jan 16, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> Israel has acted in self defense. You tell me when Israel has threatened to obliterate her neighbours?
> 
> And yes, when people question the right of Israel to exist, that is blatant anti-semetism.



See above. Israel often threatens neighbours.

Not according to the US State Department: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/40258.htm 

"An important issue is the distinction between legitimate criticism of policies and practices of the State of Israel, and commentary that assumes an anti-Semitic character." I feel with legitimate concern about lands taken from other people, that falls underneath the former.

The report does note however, that debate over what exactly constitutes anti-semitism has been going on for some time. In any case, criticism of Israel and/or its right to exist have legitimate and illegitimate paradigms; to criticise Israel does not necessarily imply anti-semitism.



Bill Mattocks said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What does the Six-Day War have to do with Iran? They are no friends of the Arabs and only buddy up to Syria because they are both oppressive states and apparently there is some sort of club for those 

Anyway, let us carry the bully analogy a little bit further, look at it from Iran's perspective. There are several mean bullies who keep coming into your side of the playground. They come right up to you and harass you, all because they want some sweets that you have. Sometimes they even hurt you in an attempt to get your sweets. Other times they try to set up companies (could not stretch the analogy far enough!) that take your sweets and leave you with very little money. You tell them you won't stand for it any more and you put your sweets deep into your pocket to that you are in charge of them, and the bullies can't take them.  After a while, they all get sticks. They now have the power to hit you and make you hurt even more. Now the story diverges a little, because we don't quite know how it went:

Story A:

You go off and try to find a stick to I don't know, build a fort or something. Something that would make things better for you in any case. The bullies try to stop you doing this. threatening to hurt you some more (not with the sticks yet though). You protest that you are just building a fort so that you'll be better off and can play and that this does not affect the bullies because you don't want to try to hurt them with the stick. They don't believe you and keep threatening to hurt you. One bully in particular is very aggressive and thinks you want to hurt them very badly. This frightens them and means they are most likely to hurt you even if the other bullies don't join in. *This is the point we're up to so far.*

Story B:

You go off and find a stick because if they have sticks, you want one too so they will be more wary of you then and you can protect yourself. You sneakily tell them that you just want sticks to build a fort while finding a stick. They don't believe you and keep threatening you, and your ruse has not worked. Now it looks like the bullies will come and hurt you again, just because you dared to reach for the stick. One bully in particular thinks you want to hurt them very badly with your stick you have found to try and protect yourself from the bullies. There is little you will be able to do as they threaten to attack. *This is the point we're up to so far.*&#8203;

After that there are a myriad of other stories about whether or not the protagonist actually wants to hurt the other bullies or not, but you get the picture. Please note that this is a simplistic analogy to try and show the other side of the argument. I am sure some will disagree, others may mock it, but I hope it encourages some thought.


----------



## Razor (Jan 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> And then there is this...
> 
> http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=302258
> 
> ...



I see the point you're making, and I just want to say that Iran is not exactly a Muslim country. Your point is perfectly valid as most of those in power (in government) are Muslim (i.e. the people who would use the weapons anyway). However, Islam has never featured much in Iran before 1979, at least among the better educated, urban population. Parts of it that were (and are) Muslim are Muslim a bit like the UK is "Christian". If you're not familiar with Christianity in the UK, 4-5% of people go to church, and a lot of attendance is for things like Midnight Mass at Christmas. Religion is loosely tied in to the state and more of a cultural than religious phenomenon. Similarly, Iran has little attachment to Islam, which has been spread there originally by invading Arabs anyway. If you can find anyone who lived in Iran before 1979, ask them how religious it was (or is if they have been back there)!

(Just to be clear, I'm talking mainly about the actual people here rather than the religion imposed by the state)


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 16, 2012)

Razor said:


> I see the point you're making, and I just want to say that Iran is not exactly a Muslim country. Your point is perfectly valid as most of those in power (in government) are Muslim (i.e. the people who would use the weapons anyway). However, Islam has never featured much in Iran before 1979, at least among the better educated, urban population. Parts of it that were (and are) Muslim are Muslim a bit like the UK is "Christian". If you're not familiar with Christianity in the UK, 4-5% of people go to church, and a lot of attendance is for things like Midnight Mass at Christmas. Religion is loosely tied in to the state and more of a cultural than religious phenomenon. Similarly, Iran has little attachment to Islam, which has been spread there originally by invading Arabs anyway. If you can find anyone who lived in Iran before 1979, ask them how religious it was (or is if they have been back there)!
> 
> (Just to be clear, I'm talking mainly about the actual people here rather than the religion imposed by the state)



My point is to show that "Iran" is actually very diverse about what the people believe and that the propaganda that paints it with a broad brush is wrong.  I actually agree with you.  Iran is a very complicated and diverse place.

Which leads into my next point.

The fact that people must acknowledge that our government would stage an attack on our own troops as a pretext to war means that we are acknowledging that our government will do anything it takes, tell any lie, hurt anyone it needs to, even our own citizens to get us into war.  The scenario where the US attacks itself to go to war has already played out.  Seymour Hersch reported in the NYT that Dick Cheney had these plans in motion, but basically Joint Chiefs put a stop to it in 2006.  They thought that it would put too many troops at risk in Iraq.

People need to realize that we've been lied into war again and again and again.  The decision to go to war isn't based on facts and arguments, it's based on an emotional response that transforms into political energy.  In this environment any **** can be reported as news and people will believe it.  Right now, the US is exerting is political muscle in the UN and with the IAEA to get this war on.  For example, they replaced the head of the IAEA with a person who will tell the people what the US wants to hear in regards to the UN's nuclear program.  The result is that all of the allegations that were debunked with their last report have basically been trundled out and stamped with approval in their latest report.  

No one here knows the truth and I say that anyone who trusts a government with a proven history of lying us into war is a fool.

That said, I say that we need to cut ties with Israel.  My kids and my families future comes first.  If they want to start a regional conflagration, they can deal with the results.  Our national interests, my families interests, are harmed by our intervention in Iran for Israel.  If we really care about the future of our country and the state of the world, we'll back away and let this go.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Bill, what does it mean that we have to acknowledge that our government might have to manufacture a pretext to attack in order to get this done?  I know you say that you don't support that and I believe you, but simply acknowledging it as a possibility has some grim implications regarding the state of our republic.



I acknowledge that we're run by a bunch of sneaky criminal bastards that we elected; left and right.  I accept that we've pulled crap like this before and we'll do it again.  We do not hold the moral high ground.  However, I'm not as interested in that as I am in the survival of Israel and preventing Iran from achieving access to nuclear weapons.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> And then there is this...
> 
> http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=302258
> 
> The highest spiritual leader in Iran issued a fatwa against the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.  According to spiritual and political leaders at the heart of Muslim world, nuclear weapons are prohibited by Allah.



Do tell.  Did he swear on a stack of Korans and cross his heart?

I do not believe one word of it, and neither should any thinking person.  We lie, they lie, it's all lies.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 16, 2012)

Razor said:


> What does the Six-Day War have to do with Iran? They are no friends of the Arabs and only buddy up to Syria because they are both oppressive states and apparently there is some sort of club for those



They are the single largest supporters of Hamas.  That puts them in the 'against Israel' category.  And my link to the Six Day War was meant to illustrate that when nations attack Israel, Israel strikes first and hardest.  Therefore, before Iran gets to the point of being able to build a nuclear device, Israel will stop them.  This is not speculation; this will happen.

That means speculation and urging 'talk' regarding Iran is of no use.  It's pointless because Iran will keep enriching uranium, and at some point very soon, Israel will stop them.  Then the real issues start.



> Anyway, let us carry the bully analogy a little bit further, look at it from Iran's perspective. There are several mean bullies who keep coming into your side of the playground. They come right up to you and harass you, all because they want some sweets that you have. Sometimes they even hurt you in an attempt to get your sweets. Other times they try to set up companies (could not stretch the analogy far enough!) that take your sweets and leave you with very little money. You tell them you won't stand for it any more and you put your sweets deep into your pocket to that you are in charge of them, and the bullies can't take them.  After a while, they all get sticks. They now have the power to hit you and make you hurt even more. Now the story diverges a little, because we don't quite know how it went:
> 
> Story A:
> 
> ...



Blah blah blah.  It's not about who is oppressed and who is the bully.  Iran is not going to get access to nukes.  They are playing a good game of brinksmanship, but it's not going to happen.  Are we the bad evil overlords and they are just the poor oppressed peace-obsessed little guys?  Fine, paint it that way.  I don't care.  I want Iran stopped.  Most of the world does too.  And that is going to happen.

Who's the bad guy?  I don't care if we are.  Yay bad guys.  I do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons.  Wring your hands all you like, Iran is not going to be permitted to have nukes.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> That said, I say that we need to cut ties with Israel.



That will never happen.



> My kids and my families future comes first.  If they want to start a regional conflagration, they can deal with the results.



If Israel attacks Iran (which is looking a lot more like 'when' and not 'if'), it won't be regional.



> Our national interests, my families interests, are harmed by our intervention in Iran for Israel.  If we really care about the future of our country and the state of the world, we'll back away and let this go.



Won't happen.  Live in the real world.  It doesn't matter what you think we should do; nor does it matter what I think.  We are not going to abandon Israel; that's a fact, period, done.  And we (not just Israel) are not going to let Iran have a nuclear capability.  Ever.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 16, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Do tell.  Did he swear on a stack of Korans and cross his heart?
> 
> I do not believe one word of it, and neither should any thinking person.  We lie, they lie, it's all lies.


IIRC, it is permitted, by the koran to lie to us lowly infidels...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 16, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> We are not going to abandon Israel; that's a fact, period, done.



It is the best thing we could do for them and probably the only way we'll stave off this conflict.  The moment *President Ron Paul* announces that Israel is on it's own if it decides to attack Iran, they will be left in an unbelievable bind.  They will have to determine the truth about Iran's nuclear program and simply do away with the propaganda.  *If* it turns out that Iran really is developing a nuclear bomb, they are going to need to talk to Iran and figure out a relationship for the region that will prevent this catastrophe.  As it has been noted above, Iran is not the single minded monster it's being portrayed in the western media.  They are politically diverse there are plenty of people in that country who want to live in peace.

No US interest, not mine, not my children, not yours, is served by supporting Israel to attack Iran.  The only interest is the Israel lobby...and that makes no sense whatsoever because their policy is a one way ticket to what everyone with an ounce of sanity wants to avoid.  I don't understand the Israeli position on this at all.  They will probably be the ones to suffer the most from this.  A war with Iran would reverberate throughout the region for at least fifty years.  An entire generation of Israeli men and women will be sacrificed.  

The only thing that makes sense to me is that factions in the US want this war with Iran and are willing to use Israel as a pawn to do it.  I suspect that certain special interest groups would like to dominate the region and check China and Russia.  Supposed Iranian nukes are an excuse.  Israel is just an excuse.  

It's time to put an end to the lies and take a look at the War Pigs who are running the show.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 16, 2012)

Some more Musical Inspiration to do the right thing in America.  Master of War by Bob Dylan.


----------



## billc (Jan 16, 2012)

> *If* it turns out that Iran really is developing a nuclear bomb, they are going to need to talk to Iran and figure out a relationship for the region that will prevent this catastrophe.



Yes, just as Chamberlain was able to convince Hitler to stop what he was doing...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> It is the best thing we could do for them and probably the only way we'll stave off this conflict.  The moment *President Ron Paul* announces that Israel is on it's own if it decides to attack Iran, they will be left in an unbelievable bind.



Again, I ask you to drink deeply of the water of reality.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 16, 2012)

Razor said:


> To my knowledge, Israel has never "threatened to wipe Iran off the map", but that is not what I said is it? If you want examples of Israeli threats to neighbours, I recommend searching "Israel threatens" into Google. Of course, at the moment that will only show you threats against Iran, but they threatened then bombed Syria, I think Iraq and perhaps somewhere else too, it's been a while since I studied it in detail. Here are a few to get you started:
> 
> http://www.christianpost.com/news/israel-threatens-an-attack-on-iran-60413/
> 
> ...



Ah Razor, someone has you nicely brainwashed? BNP, NF perhaps? I could point out that Israel is a tiny country which the Arabs have said they will destroy and drive it's people into the sea. They continue to say that. When Israel was given it's independance by the United Nations, it offered peace to each of it;'s neighbours, did they take that offer? No, they said they would destroy the Jews and Israel. How many times have Arabs countries attacked Israel? How many times have they shouted 'death to the Jews'? Every day.
The big bullies eh? yeah Isreal would be a big bully, it has the odd idea that it's people should live in peace, strange that isn't it? those poor goliath countries, so misunderstood, so afraid of big bad Jews, how one's heart bleeds for them. Such a peaceful place Syria, they don't make war on other countries do they? Not at the moment, they are too busy machine gunning their own people down in the street. Men, women and children lying in their own blood killed by their own people. Iraq, now, that's a nice peaceful place, remember that nice man Saddam? he gassed whole towns. The tried to ethnically cleanse the Kurds, a very ancient people btw, the Israelis tried to help them from being slaughtered, well why not after all they knew what that was like after having 6 million of their own killed in just the way Saddam wanted to destroy the Kurds.

I think it must an indictment of our education system that you don't actually know the history of Israel and 'who started it'. That you can imagine Israel is this big bully that goes around attacking it's neighbours would be laughable if it weren't so sad and so, so wrong.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 16, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Again, I ask you to drink deeply of the water of reality.



Millions of dead.  Economic depression.  Devalued currency.  Children crushed under guns/butter debt.  The end of Liberty in America.  The well of reality is filled with ****.

Please consider the future you want to create for our country.  You only know the propaganda that is force fed to us by admitted liars.  War with Iran will turn out to be a worldwide catastrophe.  It is far better to let Israel go then get dragged into this.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 16, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Yes, just as Chamberlain was able to convince Hitler to stop what he was doing...



Iran is not Nazi Germany.  They are not an industrial power and do not have the ability to threaten us like the Nazi's...assuming one imagines that the Nazis could have mountain an invasion of North America.  This is just more propaganda.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Millions of dead. Economic depression. Devalued currency. Children crushed under guns/butter debt. The well of reality is filled with ****.
> 
> Please consider the future you want to create for our country. You only know the propaganda that is force fed to us by admitted liars. War with Iran will turn out to be a worldwide catastrophe. It is far better to let Israel go then get dragged into this.



If you go to war, in fact if _we_ go to war with Iran it will be nothing to do with Israel. If it were expedient to let Israel go, I'm sure it would be done but look at history and our economic need for oil etc and that is why Iran is a target. If it weren't the Shah wouldn't have been propped up with his ghastly regime for all those years. There's many reasons NATO could go to war against Iran, Israel won't be one of them.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 16, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I think it must an indictment of our education system that you don't actually know the history of Israel and 'who started it'.



That story goes back thousands of years and is tit for tat the whole way.  American and the UK got sucked into it through the expansion of their empires and would probably be best served to let all sides, *over there*, work out their problems themselves.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 16, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> If you go to war, in fact if _we_ go to war with Iran it will be nothing to do with Israel. If it were expedient to let Israel go, I'm sure it would be done but look at history and our economic need for oil etc and that is why Iran is a target. If it weren't the Shah wouldn't have been propped up with his ghastly regime for all those years. There's many reasons NATO could go to war against Iran, Israel won't be one of them.



Various media sources in the US keeps saying that Israel will strike Iran and the counter attack will drag the US into the war.  The truth is that the US has been messing with Iran since the 50s.  The CIA deposed the democratically elected government.  We put the shah in and supported him and we supported Saddam Hussein as he invaded Iran at our behest.  Make no mistake, Israel is an excuse.  They are probably being used as pawns.  I suggest that we defuse this propaganda by pulling back our support.  I suggest that we use this an example and pull back our empire so that we can live more peacefully.

The truth of what has been happening is dark and will eventually come out, but now, we need to pull back from the brink and realize what is at stake.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Millions of dead.  Economic depression.  Devalued currency.  Children crushed under guns/butter debt.  The end of Liberty in America.  The well of reality is filled with ****.
> 
> Please consider the future you want to create for our country.  You only know the propaganda that is force fed to us by admitted liars.  War with Iran will turn out to be a worldwide catastrophe.  It is far better to let Israel go then get dragged into this.



You're just not going to join us over here on the 'reality' side of the fence, are you?  You just keep talking about what you'd like to happen.  Evaluate what the chances are of that happening.  What do you think they are?  Why not deal with what is, instead of hammering over and over again on how awful we all are and how we need to just get along?  Yes, we're awful.  War sucks.  Blah blah blah.  Now think about it and tell me what is likeliest to happen.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 16, 2012)

You do understand that the ONLY thing keeping Israel from preemptive action now, is the US, don't you?
Israel will act as it MUST, not as it wants to, Israel will act as it MUST to ensure the survival of its citizens.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Some more Musical Inspiration to do the right thing in America.  Master of War by Bob Dylan.



I see your dumb *** song, and raise you:


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 16, 2012)

Big Don said:


> You do understand that the ONLY thing keeping Israel from preemptive action now, is the US, don't you?
> Israel will act as it MUST, not as it wants to, Israel will act as it MUST to ensure the survival of its citizens.



Which is precisely what happened during the Gulf Wars.  The only thing that kept Israel from responding to the attacks on them was the Coalition's promise (primarily via America's anti-missile systems and Britain's special forces) to defend their population centres from the Scud's.  

The balance of things may have shifted somewhat since the 60's and 70's and political memories are short but those rattling sabres against Israel would do well to remember how they reacted when attacked back then, including what they did to Egypt's nuclear programme.

It is deeply sorrowful to think that we are yet again on the brink of another war, this one with the potential to spread into something far more horrifying than we have witnessed in this century. 

Those that have noted the role of Britain and later America in forging the present state of affairs regarding Iran are quite right; the acts of self-interest from our governments did indeed have a large role to play in bringing us to this point.  

I have to agree with the pragmatic words in some of the posts earlier, however.  In a very real sense, the road we took to get here no longer matters.  That 'cloth' is woven and cannot be unpicked, no matter how we might wish otherwise (and I do so wish as another war with 'religion', false as it may be, raising the flags is worrisome in the extreme).


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 16, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> That 'cloth' is woven and cannot be unpicked



Bravo when it comes to metaphors.  I disagree.  We tell Israel that if they are going to strike, it's your responsibility.  Then we pack our bags, pull out of places that piss off our global neighbors.  Then, we stop selling weapons and installing petty dictators in the region.  Yeah, it will be a mess, but it will be less of a mess then if we blow this up into a global conflagration.  

I'm surprised how few people can see this.  They seem to think that more war is the answer to the problems that war caused.  You can't solve this problem with the same kind of thinking that started it.  Talk about fighting for peace and ****ing for virginity.

Lastly, no one seems willing to tackle the question of whether or not they really know what they know about Iran.  How do you dissemble war propaganda from reality?  Why would you trust people who have lied society into war before to steer you straight now?

I refuse to believe that trust anyone who did this in your personal relationships.  Why do you give a pass to the corrupt, lying, and murdering government?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> I'm surprised how few people can see this.  They seem to think that more war is the answer to the problems that war caused.



I can't believe that you think anything different is going to happen.  You've got this one track mind about what we should be doing.  But it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, we're NOT going to do that.  Israel will attack Iran as soon as they do not think they can stop Iran's acquisition of nuclear capability any other way.  None of this psychobabble will change anything.

You rail against the evil of our own governments.  Yay you.  I even agree.  So what?  It means nothing.  You seem utterly unable to grasp that.

That's the frustrating part in this thread.  You're arguing ideology; most of the rest of us are simply stating what is most likely to happen, not why it's a good or bad thing.  You seem to have the opinion that being 'against it' is going to change anything.  It's not.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Bravo when it comes to metaphors.  I disagree.  We tell Israel that if they are going to strike, it's your responsibility.  Then we pack our bags, pull out of places that piss off our global neighbors.



We shouldnt EVER turn our backs on our friends.  I dont understand why people think its ok to turn our backs on Israel but would never think of doing that to other places like the UK.  I hope its not because Israel is a Jewish state but sadly I cant think of any other reasons.  I believe we stand by our friends.



> Then, we stop selling weapons and installing petty dictators in the region.  Yeah, it will be a mess, but it will be less of a mess then if we blow this up into a global conflagration.


I agree with that.  




> I'm surprised how few people can see this.  They seem to think that more war is the answer to the problems that war caused.  You can't solve this problem with the same kind of thinking that started it.  Talk about fighting for peace and ****ing for virginity.


In a perfect world you would be right.  However there are people in this world that only know violence and will only respond to violence, and when these people are running countries there is really only way to deal with them.



> Lastly, no one seems willing to tackle the question of whether or not they really know what they know about Iran.  How do you dissemble war propaganda from reality?  Why would you trust people who have lied society into war before to steer you straight now?


All you  need to do in Iran's case is listen to what come out of its own leaders mouths.  They have made threats to wipe Israel off the map. If they are bluffing then too bad for them dont write checks with your mouth you butt cant cash.



> I refuse to believe that trust anyone who did this in your personal relationships.  Why do you give a pass to the corrupt, lying, and murdering government?


With out proof you would have a point but there is enough evidence of Iranian weapons used against US soilders in Iraq, threats from Iran's leaders, and 1000's of years of history to back it up.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 16, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I can't believe that you think anything different is going to happen.  You've got this one track mind about what we should be doing.  But it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, we're NOT going to do that.  Israel will attack Iran as soon as they do not think they can stop Iran's acquisition of nuclear capability any other way.  None of this psychobabble will change anything.
> 
> You rail against the evil of our own governments.  Yay you.  I even agree.  So what?  It means nothing.  You seem utterly unable to grasp that.
> 
> That's the frustrating part in this thread.  You're arguing ideology; most of the rest of us are simply stating what is most likely to happen, not why it's a good or bad thing.  You seem to have the opinion that being 'against it' is going to change anything.  It's not.



In a lot of cases, I completely agree.  Trying to appeal to the government to change something bad that it's doing is beyond a waste of time.  Most of the time politics is merely trying to not vomit when near various candidates opinions.  This year, for this issue, I think we can make a difference.  I've been putting my support toward Ron Paul's candidacy for president because I feel like he is the candidate that will kill the least amount of people.  I think his candidacy could build a movement that could possibly steer our country from it's current road to self-destruction.  I could also be wrong.

And in that case, I know what I'm going to do.  I'm not going to hang around while the Vandals sack the place.  It's taken many years for me to get my family in the position where we could leave at any time that we wished.  I've known this was coming for a long time.  And war with Iran has always been the proverbial and real line in the sand for me.

That said, if Israel attacks Iran, that's one thing.  If the US joins in, that's a whole new level.  The former isn't going to lead to all of the things I wrote about earlier in this thread.  The latter will probably be the last thing our current form of government does.  We don't need to support Israel.  Nor do we need to use them as a proxy to start a new war.  Tomorrow, if the President said that Israel was on it's own if it attacked Iran, I think the politics of this would change over night.  They would have to talk to Iran.  They would have to sort through the propaganda and real intelligence and actually find out what Iran was doing with it's nuclear program.  And *IF *it turned out that Iran really was making a nuke, they would have to find a way to live next to a powerful neighbor.

And it might be true that Iran really isn't pursuing a nuclear weapon, as they have said time and time again going so far to issue a fatwa against it.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> I'm surprised how few people can see this.  They seem to think that more war is the answer to the problems that war caused.  You can't solve this problem with the same kind of thinking that started it.


 When violence IS necessary it is the ONLY thing that will work. 





> What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach.





Big Don said:


> Human beings only have two ways to deal with one  another: reason  and force.  If you want me to do something for you, you  have a choice of  either convincing me via argument, or force me to do  your bidding under  threat of force.  Every human interaction falls into  one of those two  categories, without exception.  Reason or force,  that&#8217;s it.
> In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact   through persuasion.  Force has no place as a valid method of social   interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the   personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
> When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.  You have to  use  reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your   threat or employment of force.  The gun is the only personal weapon that   puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a   75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a   single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with   baseball bats.  The gun removes the disparity in physical strength,   size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.


Or a teeny tiny little Democracy like Israel and a big Evil theocracy like Iran...


> I refuse to believe that trust anyone who did this in your personal relationships.  Why do you give a pass to the corrupt, lying, and murdering government?


You don't trust our government, but, you do trust these a holes?





Makalakumu said:


> And then there is this...
> 
> http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=302258
> 
> ...


That says a couple of things about you, and none of them are good...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 16, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> In a lot of cases, I completely agree.  Trying to appeal to the government to change something bad that it's doing is beyond a waste of time.  Most of the time politics is merely trying to not vomit when near various candidates opinions.  This year, for this issue, I think we can make a difference.  I've been putting my support toward Ron Paul's candidacy for president because I feel like he is the candidate that will kill the least amount of people.  I think his candidacy could build a movement that could possibly steer our country from it's current road to self-destruction.  I could also be wrong.
> 
> And in that case, I know what I'm going to do.  I'm not going to hang around while the Vandals sack the place.  It's taken many years for me to get my family in the position where we could leave at any time that we wished.  I've known this was coming for a long time.  And war with Iran has always been the proverbial and real line in the sand for me.
> 
> ...



One. Track. Mind.  It's boring, buddy.  It's banal.  Paul is not going to be elected, first.  That won't happen, and I may vote for him myself.  As to threats to leave the country, don't let the door hit you in the *** on the way out.  Hollywood actors like to make those threats when their candidate loses too.  Haven't seen a single one of them make good on their promises.

But as I said; and you keep simply ignoring; what is going to happen is that Iran is going to keep trying to gain nuclear capability.  And Israel will stop them.  If they can't do it with diplomacy, assassinations, UN sanctions, and so on, they will attack.  Nothing you or I say here has anything to do with that, and we cannot stop it.  Seriously, if I told you it was raining out, instead of just sticking your hand out the window to feel the raindrops, you'd be arguing that bad weather is unfair to the poor.  Like the weather cares.

If you're going to leave the US over this, hasta la bye-bye.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 16, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> As to threats to leave the country, don't let the door hit you in the *** on the way out.  Hollywood actors like to make those threats when their candidate loses too.  Haven't seen a single one of them make good on their promises.


You ever notice it is never the conservative republicans that threaten to bail?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 16, 2012)

Big Don said:


> You ever notice it is never the conservative republicans that threaten to bail?



Er, I've seen a few.  Not to rain your parade or anything.  But yeah, mostly liberals.

I've also read dozens of assertions that this or that crisis is about to be the last mistake the US makes.  Somehow we're still here.

I'm not happy with our direction either.  I'm not happy with the interventions we've made in the Middle East and I think we bear some responsibility for the situation today (so do many nations).  But I'm not fooled into thinking it's OK for Iran to have nukes because we have been meddling and naughty to them.  I don't care how bad we've been, it's not OK for Iran to have nukes.

And frankly, the 'blame America first' drone gets old and depressing.  If you (they) hate it so much, and you think we're on the brink of destruction, and you'd rather live in a more civilized nation, there's the door.  Go on, git.  Unlike many other of the nations you love to suck up to and cry over, our citizens are free to leave whenever they wish.  We've never  built fences to keep ours in.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 16, 2012)

Where's he gonna go, Canada?

If the Middle East blows up, we'll be right there, front and centre of the fight.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 16, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I've also read dozens of assertions that this or that crisis is about to be the last mistake the US makes.



The US will still be here, it's just that all of this is going to happen if we get involved in Iran.



Makalakumu said:


> 1.  *It will require boots on the ground.*   Once we start dropping bombs, it won't end until Tehran falls.  The  religious leaders of Iran will use the war to consolidate opposition and  outside forces will have to dig them out.
> 2.  *It will spike oil prices and cause everything we need to live our lives to spiral upwards.*   For every one calorie of food we consume, it takes ten calories of oil  to produce.  When the first bomb drops, prices will jump by at least  20%.
> 3.  *It will cost the unborn their livelihood.*  The US  government is already mired in war debt from the last ten years.  Adding  more will pretty much ensure that our children will live with much more  diminished standard of living.
> 4.  *It will kill the US dollar and the Economy*.  As we  struggle to pay for the war and bailout the banks that will fall from  the reduced economic activity, the value of our money will plummet.   Thereby forcing the world to come up with a new currency.
> ...



This is a list of consequences I'd rather not face and I think that I can avoid it...one way or another.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 16, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> But as I said; and you keep simply ignoring; what is going to happen is that Iran is going to keep trying to gain nuclear capability.



How do you know that they even want a nuke?

The last IAEA report has turned out to be largely a piece of war propaganda that incorporated all kinds of bogus charges that were previously panned by Nuclear watchdogs.  

http://www.fpif.org/blog/do_irans_objections_to_the_iaea_report_deserve_consideration


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 16, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> We shouldnt EVER turn our backs on our friends.  I dont understand why people think its ok to turn our backs on Israel but would never think of doing that to other places like the UK.  I hope its not because Israel is a Jewish state but sadly I cant think of any other reasons.  I believe we stand by our friends.



The state of Israel is not my friend.  I have people who are my friends, not governments.

At any rate, I'm not an anti-semite.  I have priorities.

1.  My family.
2.  My friends.
3.  My property.

I want the best outcome I can possibly get for these things.  Going along with an attack on Iran or watching while the country that encloses my property performs it, is not going to deliver a very good outcome.  Look at the list I posted above.

If Israel attacks Iran without us, it will be FAR less disruptive then if we went to war and exacerbated all of our financial problems, pissed off Russia and China, and torched the Bill of Rights.  The biggest problem that an Israeli strike on Iran will be the subsequent disruption in the global economy.  The oil that comes out of the region is vital and this disruption could very well trigger a Depression.

Therefore, our political leaders need to condemn this possible strike.  They need to threaten to disavow ties to their government if they do.  They need to demand diplomacy, better intelligence, and good faith.  

That's how we avert this thing.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 16, 2012)

bill mattocks said:


> if you (they) hate it so much, and you think we're on the brink of destruction, and you'd rather live in a more civilized nation, there's the door.  Go on, git.  Unlike many other of the nations you love to suck up to and cry over, our citizens are free to leave whenever they wish.  We've never  built fences to keep ours in.



qft


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 16, 2012)

Big Don said:


> You don't trust our government, but, you do trust these a holes?



Not when my government is doing things like this.  Wikileaks released a cable that showed how the US positioned the new IAEA head.  

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/230076


> _Amano reminded Ambassador on several occasions that he would need to  make concessions to the G-77, which correctly required him to be  fair-minded and independent, but that he was solidly in the U.S. court  on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments  to the handling of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program._



The last IAEA report was a major embarrassment for the US and the War Mongering Neocons.  Their response was to get rid of El-Baradi and put in their guy.



Big Don said:


> That says a couple of things about you, and none of them are good...



LOL!  When you tell me I've gone astray, I know I'm on the right track.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 16, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Unlike many other of the nations you love to suck up to and cry over, our citizens are free to leave whenever they wish.  We've never  built fences to keep ours in.



Actually, the US has some of the most strict laws in the world when it comes to people living abroad and taxes.  This country doesn't let go of it's tax-cattle easily.

http://www.ehow.com/list_6851601_countries-file-taxes-living-abroad.html



> Living abroad as an expatriate is a dream for some people and a reality for others; taxes  are just one of the realities of living abroad. The shadow of taxes  follows many people across international borders, *the United States  having the strictest tax laws for residents living abroad*; however,  citizens of other countries are also not necessarily exempt from paying  taxes while living as expatriates abroad.



The deeper we dig this hole, the harder it's going to be able to leave. We collectively need to get our heads screwed on straight when it comes to the guns and butter state because it's going to eat everything we have.
​


----------



## Big Don (Jan 17, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Actually, the US has some of the most strict laws in the world when it comes to people living abroad and taxes.  This country doesn't let go of it's tax-cattle easily.
> 
> http://www.ehow.com/list_6851601_countries-file-taxes-living-abroad.html
> 
> ...


Then make sure to completely cash out before you leave! Take all your cash, sell everything you can't carry and BLOW. But, for the love of Mike, STFU and GO already.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 17, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Then make sure to completely cash out before you leave! Take all your cash, sell everything you can't carry and BLOW. But, for the love of Mike, STFU and GO already.



:bangahead:

Don't worry, Don.  It might not be much longer.  I'm not sticking while the Vandals sack the place.  Especially since our own people opened the god damned doors.


----------



## Razor (Jan 17, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> They are the single largest supporters of Hamas.  That puts them in the 'against Israel' category.  And my link to the Six Day War was meant to illustrate that when nations attack Israel, Israel strikes first and hardest.  Therefore, before Iran gets to the point of being able to build a nuclear device, Israel will stop them.  This is not speculation; this will happen.
> 
> That means speculation and urging 'talk' regarding Iran is of no use.  It's pointless because Iran will keep enriching uranium, and at some point very soon, Israel will stop them.  Then the real issues start.
> 
> ...



All I offer you is a different perspective. I find it abhorrent that you don't even care if you are the "bad guys". Most people want to actually be "good" in some respect even if this is and ill defined and vague concept. In any case, you have reminded me why I generally avoid talking to entrenched, vitriolic people about this kind of thing. You people go on about "hand-wringing" and descend into childish statements like "blah blah blah" when exposed to another viewpoint and at the end of the day there is little use talking about it.



Tez3 said:


> Ah Razor, someone has you nicely brainwashed? BNP, NF perhaps? I could point out that Israel is a tiny country which the Arabs have said they will destroy and drive it's people into the sea. They continue to say that. When Israel was given it's independance by the United Nations, it offered peace to each of it;'s neighbours, did they take that offer? No, they said they would destroy the Jews and Israel. How many times have Arabs countries attacked Israel? How many times have they shouted 'death to the Jews'? Every day.
> The big bullies eh? yeah Isreal would be a big bully, it has the odd idea that it's people should live in peace, strange that isn't it? those poor goliath countries, so misunderstood, so afraid of big bad Jews, how one's heart bleeds for them. Such a peaceful place Syria, they don't make war on other countries do they? Not at the moment, they are too busy machine gunning their own people down in the street. Men, women and children lying in their own blood killed by their own people. Iraq, now, that's a nice peaceful place, remember that nice man Saddam? he gassed whole towns. The tried to ethnically cleanse the Kurds, a very ancient people btw, the Israelis tried to help them from being slaughtered, well why not after all they knew what that was like after having 6 million of their own killed in just the way Saddam wanted to destroy the Kurds.
> 
> I think it must an indictment of our education system that you don't actually know the history of Israel and 'who started it'. That you can imagine Israel is this big bully that goes around attacking it's neighbours would be laughable if it weren't so sad and so, so wrong.



What you say seems entirely stupid, not to mention insulting. Just because I encourage people to think differently about the situation with Iran (BNP and NF support Iran? Are we thinking of the same organisations?) that makes me a racist, right-wing crazy? Why is brainwashing necessary to try and talk about this?

Israel is a tiny country which punches massively against it's weight. They have the potential to bully, in the same way many other smaller countries can.

If you go back and read the comment you will see that I was referring to who started threatening who. I think it is an indictment of our education system that you jump to conclusion, feebly attempt to put words in people's mouths and are not even open minded enough to engage with a different perspective without starting to accuse others of biases that you pull out of nowhere.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2012)

Razor said:


> All I offer you is a different perspective. I find it abhorrent that you don't even care if you are the "bad guys". Most people want to actually be "good" in some respect even if this is and ill defined and vague concept. In any case, you have reminded me why I generally avoid talking to entrenched, vitriolic people about this kind of thing. You people go on about "hand-wringing" and descend into childish statements like "blah blah blah" when exposed to another viewpoint and at the end of the day there is little use talking about it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your biases are out there in writing for all to see I'm afraid as is your ignorance of who is atually doing what to whom. Your idea of Israel being the bully in the Middle East is as way out as  someone suggesting the Isle of Wight is bullying America. really, you are offering another pesepctive? What of? the current Iranian thinking? Are you going to add Holocaust denial to that as well?
Interesting that you have backracked though from calling Israel a bully to now saying they have the potential to bully. I suggest you read up your history and see why the Middle East is the way it is, look up the Mufti of Jerusalem who was a staunch Nazi supporter, even went to live in Germany after the British kicked out, read also about his nephew Yasser Arafat and the PLO who still push the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as being true. Look at the Iranian insistance that the Holocaust never happened, look at teh declaration made by the Arabs after the Declaration of Independance that the Jews would be swept away into the sea and destroyed forever, then look to see how many times that is said now, I can assure it's many times. If you choose to be blind fine but don't assert that what you _think_ is the actually the truth.
So, the massacres in Iraq and the daily massacres in Iran are stupid are they? The ethnic cleansing of the Kurds is also stupid? Well, that's your opinion and I'm sure you are entitled to it, and you called my comments feeble, son, you are aving a larf.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Which is precisely what happened during the Gulf Wars. The only thing that kept Israel from responding to the attacks on them was the Coalition's promise (primarily via America's anti-missile systems and Britain's special forces) to defend their population centres from the Scud's.
> 
> The balance of things may have shifted somewhat since the 60's and 70's and political memories are short but those rattling sabres against Israel would do well to remember how they reacted when attacked back then, including what they did to Egypt's nuclear programme.
> 
> ...




The situation in the Middle East goes back to the end of the First World War when the Allies chopped up the whole area into parcels, gave them new names and new rulers, making tribal chiefs into kings etc. It was done in the Allies interests of course, there's no doubt there however as Mark says what's done is done and now we have to all these years later reap what was sown then and try to sort out the mess. We could all wash our hands of the situation there but of course there's the oil. 

I think it's unlikely to be honest that there will be a war with Iran, we may come to the brink of it every so often but I don't think we will actually get there. After years of having this sort of relationship with the USSR did we ever actually go to war with them despite all the posturing, the practicing, the readiness alerts and the spying. Countries cannot afford to go to war anymore, Iran no more than anywhere else.Iran has already had a hugely sapping war with Iraq, we are tied up in afghanistan, no one can afford to go to war. As for nuclear weapons, they are good bargaining point, again go back to the USSR model, we had them, they did, having a nuclear war would destroy all of us, so in real terms how mad do you think the Iranian leadership is? How mad would an American president have to be to unleash them? We are playing with fire on boths sides, it's a game of brinkmanship and risk but at some point there will be an accommodation made. It will be made because it has to be, all sides know that. Iran knows that while the other Muslim countries will support them publically they will not in private, many of them trade with Israel on the quiet and have come to private terms with it while posturing in public against it.


The economic situation in America, job losses, the banks etc are what will drive the next election plus the American political subjects such as abortion, crime, religion etc. all things a people in any country are rightly worried about. War with Iran won't be the first people think about when voting I'm sure. It's not a subject that comes up here very often though I'm sure it's exercising the Foreign Offices brains. We will continue to posture at each other, to make threats and be generally unfriendly but behind closed doors there will be people talking to each other insincerely of course but talking not declaring war. Israel isn't going to attack Iran, it may interfere with things a bit though but Iran does the same in Israel, it will stay at a 'manageable' level. Anyway, if we do have a nuclear war, that'll be the planet done with so probably not a lot of point in really worrying about it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 17, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> How do you know that they even want a nuke?
> 
> The last IAEA report has turned out to be largely a piece of war propaganda that incorporated all kinds of bogus charges that were previously panned by Nuclear watchdogs.
> 
> http://www.fpif.org/blog/do_irans_objections_to_the_iaea_report_deserve_consideration



First, keep in mind that you're a vast believer in conspiracies.  You see boogey-men behind every tree.  Anything that happens, was actually caused by some other group, for nefarious purposes.  I hate to say it, but you are a very paranoid person and many of your posts indicate you don't have a firm grip on reality.  You're also a very nice person and I like you.  But dude.

Second, Iran has stated that they will not stop enriching uranium.  As recently as yesterday.

The claim it is for peaceful purposes.  And that does not matter as far as the Israelis are concerned.  They will attack if they feel they have no other options left.

It does not matter that Iran says 'peaceful' and most of the rest of the world says 'weapons'.  Israel won't let Iran have nuclear capability.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 17, 2012)

Razor said:


> All I offer you is a different perspective.



No, you don't.  When it is raining, you are argue that weather is unfair.  Nothing to do with reality.



> I find it abhorrent that you don't even care if you are the "bad guys".



I don't want Iran to have nuclear weaponry, because they will use it on Israel as soon as they do.  End of statement.  Good, bad, blah blah blah.  The moral distinctions are all important, but they stand in line behind what is.



> Most people want to actually be "good" in some respect even if this is and ill defined and vague concept. In any case, you have reminded me why I generally avoid talking to entrenched, vitriolic people about this kind of thing. You people go on about "hand-wringing" and descend into childish statements like "blah blah blah" when exposed to another viewpoint and at the end of the day there is little use talking about it.



I said 'blah blah blah' because your talking points are boring, inane, ridiculous and by the way, sound like a broken record.  I said 'hand-wringing' because I get really tired of that 'blame America first' mentality which tends to go along with notions that if we let madmen have atomic weapons, they won't use them.



> What you say seems entirely stupid, not to mention insulting. Just because I encourage people to think differently about the situation with Iran (BNP and NF support Iran? Are we thinking of the same organisations?) that makes me a racist, right-wing crazy? Why is brainwashing necessary to try and talk about this?
> 
> Israel is a tiny country which punches massively against it's weight. They have the potential to bully, in the same way many other smaller countries can.
> 
> If you go back and read the comment you will see that I was referring to who started threatening who. I think it is an indictment of our education system that you jump to conclusion, feebly attempt to put words in people's mouths and are not even open minded enough to engage with a different perspective without starting to accuse others of biases that you pull out of nowhere.



I'm not engaging in discussion because there is nothing to discuss.  Iran will continue to enrich uranium.  That's not a political statement, that is a fact.  Israel will not permit this to occur past a certain point.  That's another certainty.

You can 'think different' up one side and down the other.  When it rains, we get wet. That's the reality.  Israel a bully?  Wah.  Tell me what difference that makes.  The USA evil?  Tsk, tsk.  Tell me how that knowledge changes anything.

Not liking the weather doesn't stop it.  'Think differently' about a mugger, see how it stops him from mugging you.  Reality trumps happy thoughts.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> First, keep in mind that you're a vast believer in conspiracies. You see boogey-men behind every tree. Anything that happens, was actually caused by some other group, for nefarious purposes. I hate to say it, but you are a very paranoid person and many of your posts indicate you don't have a firm grip on reality. You're also a very nice person and I like you. But dude.
> 
> Second, Iran has stated that they will not stop enriching uranium. As recently as yesterday.
> 
> ...



It's by no means certain that Israel will attack Iran though, there's considerable debate in Israel about it.
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week...ael-attack-iran-s-nuclear-facilities-1.394964


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 17, 2012)

Hey, everybody...

Let's turn the heat down a bit, OK?  Stick to the issues and drop the vitriol.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 17, 2012)

If they will lie to maximize their capabilities, they will certainly lie to minimize them...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 17, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> It's by no means certain that Israel will attack Iran though, there's considerable debate in Israel about it.
> http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week...ael-attack-iran-s-nuclear-facilities-1.394964



Consider that Israel (we all agree that it was Israel, right?) just assassinated what, Iranian scientist number four in Tehran?  Consider their track record in dealing with enemies that confront them.  From the Six Day War to the recent bombings of Syrian nuclear facilities, when have you ever known Israel to not viciously and aggressively defend itself?  Newspaper belly-button gazing aside, it is very clear what Israel will do if they feel threatened.

Put another way, Israel has bombed Iraqi and Syrian nuclear facilities.  Why would they NOT bomb Iranian ones?

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

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

We could argue about whether or not Israel was 'right' to bomb those two nuclear facilities; but the fact is, they did it.  And I have no reason to believe they won't do it again.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jan 17, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No, I don't. Point made. However, Iran must be denied nuclear capability. If that means bombing them, then that's what it means. I would not support another Pueblo, Liberty, or Maine. In fact, I would find it despicable that we could not simply attack Iran on the basis of the threat itself, rather than having to manufacture a pretext. But I also would not be surprised if it happened.



Sorry Bill, I am a little confused.  Do you mean you think those ship incidents were engineered by our government, or disagree with anyone twisting facts for their own purposes?



Razor said:


> I see the point you're making, and I just want to say that Iran is not exactly a Muslim country. Your point is perfectly valid as most of those in power (in government) are Muslim (i.e. the people who would use the weapons anyway). However, Islam has never featured much in Iran before 1979, at least among the better educated, urban population. Parts of it that were (and are) Muslim are Muslim a bit like the UK is "Christian". If you're not familiar with Christianity in the UK, 4-5% of people go to church, and a lot of attendance is for things like Midnight Mass at Christmas. Religion is loosely tied in to the state and more of a cultural than religious phenomenon. Similarly, Iran has little attachment to Islam, which has been spread there originally by invading Arabs anyway. If you can find anyone who lived in Iran before 1979, ask them how religious it was (or is if they have been back there)!
> 
> (Just to be clear, I'm talking mainly about the actual people here rather than the religion imposed by the state)



So may I conclude based on religious attendence that the UK is a muslim nation sir?



Makalakumu said:


> Iran is not Nazi Germany. They are not an industrial power and do not have the ability to threaten us like the Nazi's...assuming one imagines that the Nazis could have mountain an invasion of North America. This is just more propaganda.



I would submit and agree sir, that the current Iran does not resemble Nazi Germany at its height.  But Germany didn't start out that way either.  It was a poor defeated nation in the throes of a world-wide depression, but taken over by politicians who led it down a path seeking world domination.  Given time and more successes than it got, they could well have attacked North America.

By the way Makalakumu, I very much agree to you being entitled to your opinions.  I generally read your posts, but seldom agree with your beliefs.  I also note that you can seldom be construed as constantly or even usually impolite, although sometimes a little forceful in your defense of your beliefs.  But I must say, I find it astounding some of the positions you espouse.  The USA is certainly not perfect, and in my opinion, our politicians are about as self serving as any anywhere.  I deplore that and have said so.  But we are not quite as bad as to be the most evil country in the world.  Whether or not you intend it so, you make it sound as if you beleive we are the worst thing going.  Do you really think so sir?



Makalakumu said:


> :bangahead:
> 
> Don't worry, Don. It might not be much longer. I'm not sticking while the Vandals sack the place. Especially since our own people opened the god damned doors.



I am reminded of the story of the couple prior to WWII, who correctly discerned that war was likely, and decided to leave the USA for a safe place.  As I recall, they chose a backwater pacific paradise called Guam.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 17, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> Sorry Bill, I am a little confused.  Do you mean you think those ship incidents were engineered by our government, or disagree with anyone twisting facts for their own purposes?



Sorry, let me explain.

I am aware that the USA has used, or is alleged to have used, pretexts for going to war.  From the Maine to the Maddox, we've used attacks on US vessels, or the appearance of it, to justify war.  And I am not in favor of such things, not by a long shot.  Did we engineer the sinking of the Maine, or the Maddox?  I don't know.  What I do mean is that I'm aware of the allegations, and would not be surprised if we had.  Nothing shocks me about the deceitfulness of our own government.  That does not mean I 'support' such behavior.  It means I accept that it happens.

Furthermore, I also do not want Iran to have nuclear capabilities.  I had previously mentioned that I would not find it surprising if, since Iran is currently threatening to blockade the Straits of Hormuz, the US steams in, asserts their right to transit, and gets fired upon; thus created a palatable context for attack in the minds of many Americans.  I wish we did not engage in such tactics; we don't need a pretext to remove Iran's nuclear capabilities, but I understand and fully suspect that something like this might happen.

It's a somewhat nuanced stance, and I'm sure you get it, but others seem to be struggling with it.  In simple terms, I am not pleased with the thought that the US might engage in subterfuge, lies, and trickery to entice the Iranians into giving us a pretext to bomb their nuclear facilities, but at the same time, I do not want Iran to have said nuclear facilities and my objections to our machinations don't override the contempt I have for the methods we sometimes apparently use.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 17, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> If Israel attacks Iran without us, it will be FAR less disruptive then if we went to war and exacerbated all of our financial problems, pissed off Russia and China, and torched the Bill of Rights.  The biggest problem that an Israeli strike on Iran will be the subsequent disruption in the global economy.  The oil that comes out of the region is vital and this disruption could very well trigger a Depression.
> 
> Therefore, our political leaders need to condemn this possible strike.  They need to threaten to disavow ties to their government if they do.  They need to demand diplomacy, better intelligence, and good faith.
> 
> That's how we avert this thing.


So its ok to make threats against our allies but not our enemy?  Iran is the ones sending weapons used to kill US soliders not Israel.  Iran is the one making threats to wipe other nations of the face of the earth.  
I dont understand why you want to threaten one side and not the other esp when the side you seem to want to threaten is our friend  If you want to threaten both then I guess I could see that.  Israel you attack your on your own and Iran you attack were coming for you.  

If Iran attacked Israel 1st would you support the US then helping Israel?  Or are you totally against all involvment no matter what?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jan 17, 2012)

Thanks for the clarification Bill.  While I don't like lies about acts of war, only to support engagement with a real or supposed enemy, I might understand the political reasoning sometimes.  I just don't like our military to have to lie about such things.  We will likely prosecute them for telling lies and covering up war crimes.  Therefore we should not tell them lies are OK if the government says so.  I don't have any resources to any information not in the public domain already, but I tend to doubt there was any intentional killing of US military just to justify a war.  Politicians do a lot of stupid things, as I guess we all do, but that would be so illegal it would be hard to cover up.

And I certainly get it about not wanting Iran to have nuclear weapons, and about being friends of Israel.  I support that myself.  Iran may not be close to having a nuclear capability, and only be trying to make everyone believe they are close.  Saddam made that mistake.  He was too good a salesman.  He and his country paid dearly for that act of salesmanship..But if Iran did develop nuclear weapons, I don't doubt for a minute they would use them against Israel.  Fatwahs aside, both the leader and shadow leadership have made it clear they want to destroy Israel and return that land to someone non-Israeli.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 17, 2012)

Some new information:

http://www.military.com/news/article/israel-denies-false-flag-op-against-us.html?ESRC=topstories.RSS



> The Israeli government is denying a report that its intelligence agents posed as CIA officers in an alleged plan to recruit and train Sunni extremists in Pakistan to assassinate Iranian officials.
> 
> The Jan. 13 report in Foreign Policy magazine quoted U.S. intelligence officials as saying Israel&#8217;s intelligence agency, the Mossad, conducted the operation in 2007 and 2008.
> 
> ...



I was not aware of this before I started this thread, but it kind of ties in with what I was saying.  I didn't suspect Israel would pretend to be CIA in order to goad the Iranians into retaliating on the US in the Straits of Hormuz, but it makes perfect sense.  Israel would very much like the US to be in the thick of this.  And I suspect we will be, one way or another.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2012)

Actually it could just have easily been one of a number of countries that blew up the scientiest in Iran, including the Iranians if he was a dissident. 
One thing to remember is that Israel is a democratic country so saying that 'Israel' wants this and wants that isn't eaxactly true, there are as many political views, the same as there are in America and the UK. A good many of you don't agree with your President so it wouldn't be true to say all America wants something because he does ie the Obama healthcare stuff.  A good many will not want war with Iran, a good many won't want attacks on Iran and their view may well prevail. The Israelis are just as capable of forcing their government out and electing a new one. 
It might be better to stop reading what certain non Israeli people want Israel to do and taking that as gospel truth. it might be better to actually ask the Israelis instead of taking it at second hand what they will or won't do. there is a lot of restiance in the Israeli intelligence and military to raids on Iran, it's being pushed however by the right wingers in the govenment who in turn are being pushed by those outside Israel who want the Israleis to do their dirty work for them.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/iran-israel-attend-secret-nuclear-meet-in-cairo-1.5675



This is an interesting story, of how the Israelis cancelled an exercise with American troops and Obama is worried it makes America look weak in front of the Iranians.
http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...exercise-postponed-at-israels-request/251512/


Having the best intelligence organisation in the world is obviously a mixed blessing for Isreal as people give it far more credit than it actually deserves. It's getting into the realsm of fictions with Mossad agents everywhere fermenting wars with their fiendish twists and turns, bluff and double bluff, perhaps they should change the name to the Monty Python Office instead of just the Office.  I can read between the lines here when people suggest the Israelis are doing this sort of manipulation, it's as if someone is saying well, what do you expect they're Jews after all, actually it's not reading between the lines at all, I've actually had it said to me that the Israelis are expected to be sneakier than anyone else because they are Jews....sign.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 17, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Actually it could just have easily been one of a number of countries that blew up the scientiest in Iran, including the Iranians if he was a dissident.
> One thing to remember is that Israel is a democratic country so saying that 'Israel' wants this and wants that isn't eaxactly true, there are as many political views, the same as there are in America and the UK. A good many of you don't agree with your President so it wouldn't be true to say all America wants something because he does ie the Obama healthcare stuff.  A good many will not want war with Iran, a good many won't want attacks on Iran and their view may well prevail. The Israelis are just as capable of forcing their government out and electing a new one.
> It might be better to stop reading what certain non Israeli people want Israel to do and taking that as gospel truth. it might be better to actually ask the Israelis instead of taking it at second hand what they will or won't do. there is a lot of restiance in the Israeli intelligence and military to raids on Iran, it's being pushed however by the right wingers in the govenment who in turn are being pushed by those outside Israel who want the Israleis to do their dirty work for them.
> 
> ...



That's all interesting, but let's face facts.  The state of Israel will not permit a threat to its existence from Iran.  It has proven that it won't permit other nations in the area to do so; bombing both Iraq and Syria's nuclear reactors.  Nothing, not one thing, has changed that will alter that paradigm.

Yes, Israel is a democracy, and it's a noisy one, with lots of people who want different things.  However, when it comes to other nations in the area setting up nuclear reactors, it doesn't dither or dilly-dally.  No deep introspection, no hem and hawing.  They just go and do it.

Is it because they are Jews?  Oh, wow.  Sure, yeah, I'd argue it is.  Not because of the fact of their religion or their culture, but because of the history of the modern-day nation of Israel.  Coming out of the Holocaust, they swore 'never again' and they meant it.  That still drives their response to existential threats.

All the letters to the editor in the Jerusalem Post and navel-gazing are not going to change that.


----------



## Razor (Jan 17, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Your biases are out there in writing for all to see I'm afraid as is your ignorance of who is atually doing what to whom. Your idea of Israel being the bully in the Middle East is as way out as  someone suggesting the Isle of Wight is bullying America. really, you are offering another pesepctive? What of? the current Iranian thinking? Are you going to add Holocaust denial to that as well?



I do not have a bias unless what I have read and observed is biasing. Sure, I don't know everything about the situation, but then I never claimed to. Everyone is ignorant of some things or lying. I get the impression that Israel is surrounded by hostile countries and in turn is hostile back, supported by the US and UK. If you can't see the point of the perspective, it is lost on you. Please stop trying to paint me as your archetypal Holocaust denying racist. Firstly, you do not know how far from the truth you are (but you don't know me, so we'll give you the benefit of the doubt, even though if I didn't know someone I wouldn't go making assumptions and accusations) and secondly, it is getting rather tiring having to tell you that I am not. Please see the distinction above between anti-semitism and criticism. 



> Interesting that you have backracked though from calling Israel a bully to now saying they have the potential to bully. I suggest you read up your history and see why the Middle East is the way it is, look up the Mufti of Jerusalem who was a staunch Nazi supporter, even went to live in Germany after the British kicked out, read also about his nephew Yasser Arafat and the PLO who still push the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as being true. Look at the Iranian insistance that the Holocaust never happened, look at teh declaration made by the Arabs after the Declaration of Independance that the Jews would be swept away into the sea and destroyed forever, then look to see how many times that is said now, I can assure it's many times. If you choose to be blind fine but don't assert that what you _think_ is the actually the truth.
> So, the massacres in Iraq and the daily massacres in Iran are stupid are they? The ethnic cleansing of the Kurds is also stupid? Well, that's your opinion and I'm sure you are entitled to it, and you called my comments feeble, son, you are aving a larf.



I never said the Iranians or Arabs were a bunch of fluffy bunnies. They've done their share of bad things, like most countries. I will read up on my history; I actually seek to learn and try to understand the perspective of others instead of personally attacking anyone I disagree with rather than their point. What was feeble was your comments directed towards me and my education rather than the point at hand.



Bill Mattocks said:


> No, you don't.  When it is raining, you are argue that weather is unfair.  Nothing to do with reality.
> 
> I don't want Iran to have nuclear weaponry, because they will use it on Israel as soon as they do.  End of statement.  Good, bad, blah blah blah.  The moral distinctions are all important, but they stand in line behind what is.
> 
> ...



Sure. I prefer to have a read or listen to what others have to say who I don't agree with (interestingly, why I read many of your posts). If you find other viewpoints boring however, I shall try not to give them to you. Also, I don't have a "blame America first" mentality, rather an understanding of some of the history (sorry Tez, but I don't know it all).

I am a little confused however, as to what the point of the thread is. Is it just to tell everyone what you think? You seem adamant that Iran will attack Israel if it develops nuclear weapons. Or are you just trying to focus purely on the pragmatics of the situation rather than history, perspective etc?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That's all interesting, but let's face facts. The state of Israel will not permit a threat to its existence from Iran. It has proven that it won't permit other nations in the area to do so; bombing both Iraq and Syria's nuclear reactors. Nothing, not one thing, has changed that will alter that paradigm.
> 
> Yes, Israel is a democracy, and it's a noisy one, with lots of people who want different things. However, when it comes to other nations in the area setting up nuclear reactors, it doesn't dither or dilly-dally. No deep introspection, no hem and hawing. They just go and do it.
> 
> ...



To you they are 'they,' to me they are 'us'.


Are you trying to overlook the fact that Obama is pushing Israel to do his dirty work for him? sounds like he's half way there when you are all stating Israel this and Israel that, you all believe that it's in Israel's interest to bomb Iran. A lot of Israeli intel and military people don't actually think it is, they aren't writng letters they are arguing with the Prime Minister. No-one ever accused the Israelis of being stupid, stop your president pushing war on the Middle East. Everyone goes on about how much aid Israel gets but it comes at a price, if Israel wants American aid it has to pay for it in ways that aren't always in the best interests of the Middle East. It's said that Israel threatened to bomb Iraq and America gave it Scud missiles not to, but it works the other way too, if Israel wants certain things like Scud missiles America can make Israel do it's dirty work. It depends who your president is and who the government is in Israel, it's far from being a one way street.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2012)

Razor said:


> I do not have a bias unless what I have read and observed is biasing. Sure, I don't know everything about the situation, but then I never claimed to. Everyone is ignorant of some things or lying. I get the impression that Israel is surrounded by hostile countries and in turn is hostile back, supported by the US and UK. If you can't see the point of the perspective, it is lost on you. Please stop trying to paint me as your archetypal Holocaust denying racist. Firstly, you do not know how far from the truth you are (but you don't know me, so we'll give you the benefit of the doubt, even though if I didn't know someone I wouldn't go making assumptions and accusations) and secondly, it is getting rather tiring having to tell you that I am not. Please see the distinction above between anti-semitism and criticism.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It's not my thread you will have to ask the OP.


----------



## Razor (Jan 17, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> So may I conclude based on religious attendence that the UK is a muslim nation sir?



No. Perhaps I did not explain it very well, but religion is tied in to the culture of the country. So it is not just dependent on who attends which church, but more on what the prevailing religion that has become culturally significant is. Also, it would depend on what you mean by a "Muslim nation". Sociologists have been arguing over what makes a nation religious for a while now, and to my knowledge, there is no universally accepted definition yet of what exactly defines the religion of the nation. I think in general it is thought of as the one linked to foundation of the country, at least the one that is dominant at the time.


----------



## Razor (Jan 17, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> It's not my thread you will have to ask the OP.


 Yes, sorry if it is not clear, but that is aimed at Bill. I do not intend to derail the thread if he is purely interested in the pragmatics of the situation.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 17, 2012)

Razor said:


> I am a little confused however, as to what the point of the thread is. Is it just to tell everyone what you think? You seem adamant that Iran will attack Israel if it develops nuclear weapons. Or are you just trying to focus purely on the pragmatics of the situation rather than history, perspective etc?



I never asked _"should Israel attack Iran?"_  That's because I take it as a given that they will.  I have explained why.  Rather than get a counter-argument that Israel won't attack Iran, we get a lot of blather about how Israel is bad and evil, the US is bad and evil, and no one should attack Iran, there's no proof Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon, and etc.

As I said in my analogy, which I still think is rather apt, it as if I had posited that it is raining out.  Rather than having anyone contradict me and tell me that no, it is not raining, instead I got a bunch of hoo-hah about how weather is evil.  Nothing to do with the topic whatsoever.

I say Iran will continue to enrich uranium, for whatever purpose.  I also say that past a certain point, Israel won't let them do that.  If you disagree, cool.  But if it's all just a bunch of crap about how bad Israel and the USA are, sorry, not interested.  It's got nothing to do with what will happen or won't happen, only about how you feel about it all.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 17, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> To you they are 'they,' to me they are 'us'.
> 
> 
> Are you trying to overlook the fact that Obama is pushing Israel to do his dirty work for him? sounds like he's half way there when you are all stating Israel this and Israel that, you all believe that it's in Israel's interest to bomb Iran. A lot of Israeli intel and military people don't actually think it is, they aren't writng letters they are arguing with the Prime Minister. No-one ever accused the Israelis of being stupid, stop your president pushing war on the Middle East. Everyone goes on about how much aid Israel gets but it comes at a price, if Israel wants American aid it has to pay for it in ways that aren't always in the best interests of the Middle East. It's said that Israel threatened to bomb Iraq and America gave it Scud missiles not to, but it works the other way too, if Israel wants certain things like Scud missiles America can make Israel do it's dirty work. It depends who your president is and who the government is in Israel, it's far from being a one way street.



I'm not overlooking anything. I'm quoting history and making a prediction based on that.  Sorry, not a lot of wiggle room there; I'm not interested in side-discussions about how evil the US is (as I keep saying).  Are we evil?  Sure yeah whatever.  I don't care, or to be more precise, I care less about that than I do that Iran not get nuclear capability.  But I am confident that Israel will take action before that becomes a reality, based on history if nothing else.  Who holds their leash?  Don't know, don't care.


----------



## Razor (Jan 17, 2012)

I contend that it is relevant but dependent on the scope of the discussion. I did not give "a load of hoo hah" about everywhere being evil; in fact in your analogy it is probably more akin to discussing meteorology with you, which you have no interest in, and simply want everyone to talk about whether or not it is raining.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 17, 2012)

Razor said:


> I contend that it is relevant but dependent on the scope of the discussion. I did not give "a load of hoo hah" about everywhere being evil; in fact in your analogy it is probably more akin to discussing meteorology with you, which you have no interest in, and simply want everyone to talk about whether or not it is raining.



OK, I get it.  I often have trouble with this.  It's like I posit that 2+2=4 and instead of getting argument about it, I get argument about how mathematics is essentially unfair.  What?  I'm sorry I didn't realize you knew that and were trying to inject the "but this is wrong" argument for other reasons.  My bad.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm not overlooking anything. I'm quoting history and making a prediction based on that. Sorry, not a lot of wiggle room there; I'm not interested in side-discussions about how evil the US is (as I keep saying). Are we evil? Sure yeah whatever. I don't care, or to be more precise, I care less about that than I do that Iran not get nuclear capability. But I am confident that Israel will take action before that becomes a reality, based on history if nothing else. Who holds their leash? Don't know, don't care.



I don't think America is evil, it, like everyone else, is trying to do what's best for it's people. 

It's expedient for you to have Israel attack Iran rather than for you to want your country to do it even if Israel is destroyed in the process.

You will never get a discussion with the word Israel in it that doesn't generate a lot of 'side discussions', Israel is either the country of the devils spawn or the place that is a miracle, you will never get a straight discussion about it, some people even get mentally ill when they visit ie Jerusalem Syndrome. 
You should care about what goes on there because it's likely that's where the next world war will start and that will very much affect you, with the alliances made there..China etc.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> OK, I get it. I often have trouble with this. It's like I posit that 2+2=4 and instead of getting argument about it, I get argument about how mathematics is essentially unfair. What? I'm sorry I didn't realize you knew that and were trying to inject the "but this is wrong" argument for other reasons. My bad.



Bear in mind we talk about the weather a lot, well nearly all the time here!  so rain was probably the wrong thing to mention when answering him!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 17, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I don't think America is evil, it, like everyone else, is trying to do what's best for it's people.
> 
> It's expedient for you to have Israel attack Iran rather than for you to want your country to do it even if Israel is destroyed in the process.
> 
> ...



I do care about what goes on there.  I just don't think it has anything to do with what's about to happen.  It's a side-issue.  Fascinating as all things political and religious and cultural are, but when it comes to what happens next, doesn't mean a thing.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 17, 2012)

I have serious doubts that Israel launches a pre-emptive strike at Iran. It has too much to lose.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 17, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> I have serious doubts that Israel launches a pre-emptive strike at Iran. It has too much to lose.



Why would they strike Iraq and Syria for the same reasons (nuclear power plants) and not Iran?  What does it have to lose that it did NOT have to lose when it did the same to them?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Why would they strike Iraq and Syria for the same reasons (nuclear power plants) and not Iran? What does it have to lose that it did NOT have to lose when it did the same to them?



For a start Iran has China as a major ally. China has made big investments in Iran and won't see them destroyed. Iran is also a big supplier of oil to China who won't risk having an oil shortage. Russia is another, less powerful these days, ally as is Germany and France who supply goods to Iran.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 17, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> For a start Iran has China as a major ally.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...china-others/2012/01/17/gIQAWsHf6P_story.html



> The squeeze is already beginning on Iran&#8217;s oil exports &#8212; and guess which nation quietly reduced its purchases from Tehran this month. Why, that would be China, Iran&#8217;s supposed protector.
> 
> The Chinese cut their imports from Iran roughly in half for January, trimming 285,000 barrels per day from their average last year of about 550,000 barrels per day, according to Nat Kern, the publisher of Foreign Reports, a respected industry newsletter.





> China has made big investments in Iran and won't see them destroyed.



China's investments in Iran won't be touched if they didn't build the nuclear enrichment plants.  And they didn't.

http://journal-neo.com/?q=node/4290



> In the mid-1990s, Washington put strong pressure on Beijing over an agreement signed between China and Iran in February 1993 to build two 300-MW light-water reactors in Iran, causing Beijing to back out of a profitable deal also. Nuclear cooperation between China and Iran came to a virtual standstill during the 1997-1998 timeframe.





> Iran is also a big supplier of oil to China who won't risk having an oil shortage.



As illustrated, China has already cut their purchases of Iranian oil by 50%.



> Russia is another, less powerful these days, ally as is Germany and France who supply goods to Iran.



http://www.voanews.com/english/news...-Wire-on-Irans-Nuclear-Program-137490773.html



> Russia built for Iran its first nuclear power plant, then refused to sell to Tehran the anti-aircraft missiles to defend it.
> 
> A high-ranking Russian told reporters in Moscow on Tuesday that it &#8220;remains unproven&#8221; that there is a military component to Iran&#8217;s nuclear program.
> 
> On the other hand, he added, Tehran&#8217;s decision to enrich uranium violates international resolutions designed to keep Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb.



http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-...ran-nuclear-activity-in-qom-facility-1.406555



> Russia 'regrets' reported Iran nuclear activity in Qom facility
> Russian Foreign Ministry official says uranium enrichment in Fordo location shows Iran is not responding to concerns on its nuclear program.



Some friends.

http://journal-neo.com/?q=node/4290

This article outlines the history of Iran's nuclear program, from the beginning with US backing, up to the present.  On a side-note, Iran recently announced triumphantly that they were one of the first signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.  They were.  In 1970.  Under the Shah of Iran.  But the press eats that stuff up and ignores the back story.

Israel will bomb the nuclear plants and enrichment facilities that Iran has built.  Russia built one of the plants, but as noted, has distanced themselves from Iran.  Oil won't be threatened, Israel has no need to bomb Iran's oil-production facilities or destroy it as a country.

I do not think France or Germany will seriously stop Israel from doing whatever it wants to do vis-a-vis Iran.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2012)

What is said in public is not always what is actually happening, many countries will save face by saying one thing and doing another. If asked Saudi Arabia will strenously deny trading with Israel but it does, a lot.
Guess who's saying China is investing?

http://tehrantimes.com/component/content/article/94583


http://arabiangazette.com/chinese-telecom-giant-stepping-iran-operations-sanctions/
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/209396.html


To be honest we can post up backwards and forwards but the truth is China is still a very major ally of Iran. the situation in the Middle East is not what it was when the Israeli's bombed the other sites. Russia is not to be trusted. France on it's own and Germany on it's own may do nothing but as part of NATO it could make life very difficult in many areas for allies of Israel. there's repercussions that could be felt all over the world, Israel is cognisant of this.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 17, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> What is said in public is not always what is actually happening, many countries will save face by saying one thing and doing another.



I thought the same thing about the links to newpspapers saying Israel is deeply conflicted about taking military action on Iran.  Public statements don't always tell the tale.  Turnabout is fair play, eh?



> To be honest we can post up backwards and forwards but the truth is China is still a very major ally of Iran. the situation in the Middle East is not what it was when the Israeli's bombed the other sites. Russia is not to be trusted. France on it's own and Germany on it's own may do nothing but as part of NATO it could make life very difficult in many areas for allies of Israel. there's repercussions that could be felt all over the world, Israel is cognisant of this.



Israel bombed Syria in 2007.  Not that much has changed.  And Israel took major criticism by the entire world, including UN sanctions, when they bombed Iraq's nuclear plant.  They didn't care.  They still don't.  They take existential threats very seriously, as they should.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I thought the same thing about the links to newpspapers saying Israel is deeply conflicted about taking military action on Iran. Public statements don't always tell the tale. Turnabout is fair play, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> Israel bombed Syria in 2007. Not that much has changed. And Israel took major criticism by the entire world, including UN sanctions, when they bombed Iraq's nuclear plant. They didn't care. They still don't. They take existential threats very seriously, as they should.



As I said, to you Israel is they, to me it's us. Canuck has been in Israel more recently than I though I have very strong links and info from there, I find it a tad odd that you insist you know Israelis better than us. I find it interesting too that you say the Israelis don't care. What do you actually base that on? How do you know for certain Israelis don't care rather than care but don't let you know?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 17, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> As I said, to you Israel is they, to me it's us. Canuck has been in Israel more recently than I though I have very strong links and info from there, I find it a tad odd that you insist you know Israelis better than us. I find it interesting too that you say the Israelis don't care. What do you actually base that on? How do you know for certain Israelis don't care rather than care but don't let you know?



HISTORY!

I don't have to know Israel to know what Israel has done to protect itself from perceived existential threats, and what it continues to do (assassinations in Iran itself).

Do I know what the average man-on-the-street in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem thinks about all this?  No.  And I have no doubt that they have the same range of public opinion that any country does, from Iran to Beijing to Washington DC.  I am not arguing that I know the Israeli mind.  I am arguing that I am aware of history, and Israel has shown no sign that they are going to react to this threat any differently than they have in the past.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 17, 2012)

Bill, you also fail to grasp Israeli politics. Any Israeli government is a house of cards. Any overt moves towards a military action in Iran would most likely topple the government.

Syria is a direct threat to Israel. You really need to be there to understand. I've stood on the northern Golan. Whithout moving your eyes, you see 3 major ennemies at your feet. Those you need to take care of. Iraq, that was a different time. 
The Arab Spring has done much to change the political landscape. Not for the better. An Israeli attack on Iran would push Egypt strongly towards the Brotherhood. Jordan would use the excuse to strenghten it's position.
It's a no-win scenario for Israel. They will just wait and see what happens in the Straight. 

I'm in frequent contact with Israelis, The majority opinion is against a pre-emptive strike.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 17, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> Bill, you also fail to grasp Israeli politics. Any Israeli government is a house of cards. Any overt moves towards a military action in Iran would most likely topple the government.
> 
> Syria is a direct threat to Israel. You really need to be there to understand. I've stood on the northern Golan. Whithout moving your eyes, you see 3 major ennemies at your feet. Those you need to take care of. Iraq, that was a different time.
> The Arab Spring has done much to change the political landscape. Not for the better. An Israeli attack on Iran would push Egypt strongly towards the Brotherhood. Jordan would use the excuse to strenghten it's position.
> ...



I bet the odds.  Odds say Israel strikes Iran.  They're doing it now with assassinations inside Iran.  They'll drop bombs if they feel they can't stop Iran from going nuclear any other way.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 18, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I bet the odds. Odds say Israel strikes Iran. They're doing it now with assassinations inside Iran. They'll drop bombs if they feel they can't stop Iran from going nuclear any other way.



You see you are so sure that it was the Israelis that are assassinating the Iranians, how can you be sure it's not the CIA, history tells us they have done this before. Don't tell me it's obvious it was the Israelis because frankly it's not. It's just as liable to be Iranians from another faction, how easy to say oh it's the Israelis whenever an Arab gets bumped off, how easy to assume, how easy for something to let people think that. Was the dead scientist a Sunni or a Shi'ite? Was he pro government or anti government? Was he pro democracy? what were his political views? so easy to blow some one up and say the Israelis did it, who's going to disbelieve it, not you. One scientist dead and that would stop the whole nuclear industry in Iran? 

I was going to put some links up from Wikipedia about the Shah of Iran but of course they are on a blackout against censorship by the American government, unless of course it's the Israelis again?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 18, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> You see you are so sure that it was the Israelis that are assassinating the Iranians, how can you be sure it's not the CIA, history tells us they have done this before.



The USA has recently lost many of its assets in the region, due their own incompetence.  This was revealed in late November of 2011.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cia-s...on-middle-east/story?id=14994428#.Txa63KXy92A



> The CIA has yet to determine precisely how many of its assets were compromised in Iran, but the number could be in the dozens, according to one current and one former U.S. intelligence official.
> 
> The exposure of the two spy networks was first announced in widely ignored televised statements by Iranian and Hezbollah leaders. U.S. officials tell ABC News that much of what was broadcast was, in fact, true.



...



> Some former U.S. intelligence officials say the developments are the result of a lack of professionalism in the U.S. intelligence community.
> 
> "We've lost the tradition of espionage," said one former official who still consults for the U.S. intelligence community. "Officers take short cuts and no one is held accountable," he said.



...



> "If you lose an asset, one source, that's normally a setback in espionage," said Robert Baer, who was considered an expert on Hezbollah.
> 
> "But when you lose your entire station, either in Tehran or Beirut, that's a catastrophe, that just shouldn't be. And the only way that ever happens is when you're mishandling sources."



As to why I think it is the Israelis:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/18/us-iran-methods-idUSTRE80H0NX20120118



> Iranian officials remember well that before Israel's 1981 air strike on a nuclear reactor in Iraq, there were similar acts of sabotage and assassination attributed largely to Israel.


...


> "Israel is the key player. It is the state that sees itself as under existential threat and has the capacity, just, to exercise a strike option."



...


> "I don't know who settled the score with the Iranian scientist, but I am definitely not shedding any tears," Israel's military spokesman Brigadier-General Yoav Mordechai said on his Facebook page.
> 
> In November, days after a mysterious explosion was reported near the city of Isfahan, Meridor himself told Israeli Army Radio: *"There are countries who impose economic sanctions and there are countries who act in other ways in dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat."*
> 
> Exclusive Analysis's John Cochrane noted that while there was no evidence of Israeli involvement *"the Israelis don't seem to mind giving the impression that they may have been."*



Why do I believe it was Israel that has been performing the assassinations in Iran?  They've done it before; it's S.O.P.  And while I was born at night, it wasn't last night.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 18, 2012)

Of course, what would anyone else know?


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 18, 2012)

Many Arab nations are not to keen on Iran getting nukes either. Could have been any one of them.


----------



## 72ronin (Jan 18, 2012)

Who's the major supplier of weapons to palestine and hamas?
Just saying..


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 18, 2012)

It could well be from inside Iran, the Iranians will blame Israel which of course Israel isn't going to deny or confirm so basically everyones satisifed. People think the Israelis are super sneaky beakies, the Iranians keep any insurrectionists quiet and no bombs dropping anywhere. Now that's more like it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 18, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> Many Arab nations are not to keen on Iran getting nukes either. Could have been any one of them.



It might also have been the Easter Bunny.  But I'm going to go with "Israel" until we find the basket of eggs.


----------



## 72ronin (Jan 18, 2012)

M0ssad did it no question about it.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 18, 2012)

Whatever, what would we know anyway? Everyone knows Americans are always right, Isrealis always kill people and the poor Arabs are innocent.

why don't you ask Mossad themselves?
https://www.mossad.gov.il//Eng/Contact.aspx


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 18, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Whatever, what would we know anyway? Everyone knows Americans are always right, Isrealis always kill people and the poor Arabs are innocent.
> 
> why don't you ask Mossad themselves?
> https://www.mossad.gov.il//Eng/Contact.aspx



Now you're just getting pouty.  Don't be a sore loser.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 18, 2012)

http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/20...nuclear-scientists-in-tehran/?singlepage=true



> Several Iranian officials and scientists involved in the nuclear project have been blown up in the last two years, but a closer look at the Iranian victims raises questions.
> The first was an academic with no apparent connection to the nuclear project, a political activist who supported the Green Movement. The second was a theoretical physicist. On the very same day, another physicist was attacked, a regime supporter and a member of the Revolutionary Guards who was an active participant in the nuclear program. The news stories spoke of a bomb, but the photographs of the crime scene don't show evidence of an explosion (they do show some bullet holes in his car). He wasn't killed. Shortly after the event, he was promoted to head the nuclear program.
> The fourth case was a university student gunned down in front of his house. He wasn't a nuclear anything, he was studying electrical engineering. There is an Iranian nuclear physicist with a similar name, but that man was out of the country. The latest victim was a chemist, not a physicist, and his main connection to the nuclear program was administrative: he worked in the purchasing office for the Natanz operation.
> There's a lot of killing in Iran, and the overwhelming majority of murders are carried out by the regime, and the victims are Iranian citizens from all walks of life. From this standpoint, the regime is the most likely perpetrator.
> ...


----------



## 72ronin (Jan 18, 2012)

What is the point to that CanuckMA, tell me you didnt just play the anti-semetic card!


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 18, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Now you're just getting pouty. Don't be a sore loser.



I'm not a loser, your beliefs are typical of people who believe Arab propaganda. Much of Mossad 'reputation' is actually made from things they haven't done. Bit like the SAS here, everyone thinks they've done more than they have when in fact the SBS or another group did, people automatically assume any  sneaky beaky stuff is done by the SAS and it's simply not true. Of course the SAS and Mossad both encourage these stories because people like you believe them whole heartedly and they work nicely as a deterrent, the Gurkhas do it as well with stories of blood curdling ferocity, of course they are fierce but a reputation does you no harm at all. the Paras here as well as the Bootnecks all encourage stories about their invincability. People are killed in Iran, MUST be Mossad. Well the Iranians wouldn't kill their own would they?

Israel isn't stupid enough to believe killing a few scientists would stop any nuclear threat. Iranian scientists were also killed in Afghanistan, almost certainly not by the Israelis, not a theatre of operations for them but one with NATO on one side and Al Queda/Taliban on the other. The Iranians themselves have long pursued the policy of killing Iranians that deviated from the party line. Iranian culture is also a complicated one with tribes being opposed to each other, it's just as likely that the Kurds were to blame for the killings, they have no wish to have nuclear sites/weapons aimed at or based on land they consider theirs. The Iranians tried to kill Saudis so there's another group of suspects.

To aver so strongly that it must be Mossad is to be blinkered to the politics that is going on in Iran as well as other countries in the Middle East. It's not the politics of the Western world it's more visceral, more violent and more nasty than you would hope to imagine.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 18, 2012)

72ronin said:


> What is the point to that CanuckMA, tell me you didnt just play the anti-semetic card!




http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/12/06/gutman-anti-semitism-israel-conflict-cause/


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 18, 2012)

72ronin said:


> What is the point to that CanuckMA, tell me you didnt just play the anti-semetic card!



The point is it's not quite as cut and dry as "Mossad did it". Blaming israel, or any Western intelligence service, shows a lack of understanding of the forces inside Iran. Killing some lower ranking staff of the nuclear program and blaming 'the West" is good propanganda in Iran.


----------



## granfire (Jan 18, 2012)

who knows, the scrub might have had a consion. 
Off the opposition and blame the enemy...win/win...

Poor sap though...


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 18, 2012)

A lot of opinion in Israel has it the Americans did it due to Obamas rather cryptic comments on the killing. There's a feeling that while Obama says he's a supporter of Israel that he's not, the American public is but not Obama himself. If he doesn't support Israel despite his words does this mean he could have ordered the killings? I don't know but it's a possiblity. I think it's worth a think about.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 18, 2012)

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/13/false_flag



> Buried deep in the archives of America's intelligence services are a series of memos, written during the last years of President George W. Bush's administration, that describe how Israeli Mossad officers recruited operatives belonging to the terrorist group Jundallah by passing themselves off as American agents. According to two U.S. intelligence officials, the Israelis, flush with American dollars and toting U.S. passports, posed as CIA officers in recruiting Jundallah operatives -- what is commonly referred to as a "false flag" operation.


...


> Interviews with six currently serving or recently retired intelligence officers over the last 18 months have helped to fill in the blanks of the Israeli false-flag operation. In addition to the two currently serving U.S. intelligence officers, the existence of the Israeli false-flag operation was confirmed to me by four retired intelligence officers who have served in the CIA or have monitored Israeli intelligence operations from senior positions inside the U.S. government.


...


> The report then made its way to the White House, according to the currently serving U.S. intelligence officer. The officer said that Bush "went absolutely ballistic" when briefed on its contents.
> 
> "The report sparked White House concerns that Israel's program was putting Americans at risk," the intelligence officer told me. "There's no question that the U.S. has cooperated with Israel in intelligence-gathering operations against the Iranians, but this was different. No matter what anyone thinks, we're not in the business of assassinating Iranian officials or killing Iranian civilians."


...


> Israel regularly proposes conducting covert operations targeting Iranians, but is just as regularly shut down, according to retired and current intelligence officers. "They come into the room and spread out their plans, and we just shake our heads," one highly placed intelligence source said, "and we say to them -- 'Don't even go there. The answer is no.'"


...


> A spate of stories in 2007 and 2008, including a report by ABC News and a New Yorker article, suggested that the United States was offering covert support to Jundallah. The issue has now returned to the spotlight with the string of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and has outraged serving and retired intelligence officers who fear that Israeli operations are endangering American lives.
> 
> "This certainly isn't the first time this has happened, though it's the worst case I've heard of," former Centcom chief and retired Gen. Joe Hoar said of the Israeli operation upon being informed of it. "But while false-flag operations are hardly new, they're extremely dangerous. You're basically using your friendship with an ally for your own purposes. Israel is playing with fire. It gets us involved in their covert war, whether we want to be involved or not."
> 
> The Israeli operation left a number of recently retired CIA officers sputtering in frustration. "It's going to be pretty hard for the U.S. to distance itself from an Israeli attack on Iran with this kind of thing going on," one of them told me.


...
Isn't that interesting?  No, I suppose not, if you think Israel poops flower-scented ponies and wishes candy canes and lollipops on all good little boys and girls.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 18, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/13/false_flag
> 
> 
> ...
> ...



Now you are just being silly.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 18, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Now you are just being silly.



It seemed appropriate.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 18, 2012)

Because foreignpolicy.com has no agenda and is a stalwart of un-biased articles.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 18, 2012)

Come along ladies and gentlemen, it's an involving enough topic for discussion without having to 'spice it up' with a little text-based-point-sparring.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 18, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It seemed appropriate.



Not really, I'm not discounting the fact that Israel could have killed the scientist but like the good investigator that I am, I'm also looking at other suspects, others with reasons to want to kill scientists in Iran. Nothing in the Middle East is what it seems, nothing is straightforward, there's smoke and mirrors everywhere. people don't say what they mean out there, don't mean what they say, as I said it's not politics as you know it. Syria is happily gunning down it's own people unless you think that's also Mossad? You think that factions in Iran couldn't do it? that the Kurds wouldn't? Or the Saudis? The Americans? The Brits? Keep an open mind about things like this because its never what it seems, despite what you think you know these people including my own both British and Israeli having been playing this game for centuries, it's not called the Great Game for nothing. the Americans aren't very good at it because bless them, and this is a compliment, they are too open and honest to intrigue with the same intensity and deviousness.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 18, 2012)

I guess if you look at it at face value and think who would have the most motive to bump off a nuclear scientist.  It would prob be the place that Iran has made it a point to want to wipe it from the face of the earth.  Does that mean Israel did it no but thats who would have the best motive.  I suspect  it was not one nation at all but prob operatives for a few nations working together that way the blame is not on any one nation and all of them can say nope wasnt me and thats partially true.  
No matter who did it I dont really care as long as it served its purpose and Iran never gets a nuclear weapon.  I dont think they would ever use it under the iranian flag but Ill bet dollars to donuts when they get them one may get "stolen" by some extreamist group and I it would be used either in the US or Israel.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 18, 2012)

http://www.rojhelat.info/english/component/content/article/385

http://www.friendsofncri.org/autonomy.htm


The Kurds have every reason to attack the Iranians, they also have the means. Note on the first one someone is blaming the 'Zionists' for the attack.

Other resistance movements in Iran
http://www.ostomaan.org/articles/news-and-views/4462
http://www.enotes.com/topic/National_Resistance_Movement_of_Iran

Executions of political prisoners in Iran
http://www.mojahedin.org/pagesen/detailsNews.aspx?newsid=16670



A US National has been sentenced to death in Iran  http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media...-execution-us-national-spying-case-2012-01-09 




Whoever killed the scientist, a good many people are pleased by the action. However whether it has any effect on the nuclear industry in Iran is doubtful.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 18, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> No matter who did it I dont really care as long as it served its purpose and Iran never gets a nuclear weapon.




To an extent, I agree. 

However,  the accusations can mean retalliations. 

And for some of us, that hits home. During the first Gulf War, I dreaded the long distance ring from my phone.  When I hear of suicide bombings In Israel, the first thing I look for in the story is location. I have many fiends, and a some extended family over there.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 19, 2012)

*If* Iran was actually developing a nuclear bomb, is there any possible way that this could be resolved without resorting to something that is lose lose for everyone?


----------



## Big Don (Jan 19, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> *Since Iran is *actually developing a nuclear bomb, is there any possible way that this could be resolved without resorting to something that is lose lose for everyone?



Fixed that for you. 
Aside from Iran voluntarily KITFO, no.


----------



## Scott T (Jan 19, 2012)

Since it hasn't been proven that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb (and Washington's wishful thinking doesn't constitute proof), those inbred children in that malarial swamp of a city have a long way to go to be convincing.

Remember, these are the same knuckle-children that claimed that Iraq was buying Nigerian yellowcake despite their man on the ground, Joe Wilson, saying they were full of ****.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 19, 2012)

As has been stated before:
The proof of Iran's having a nuclear weapon will be a mushroom cloud. I don't think it will be over Tel Aviv, I'd bet on near a large group of American troops, since they are almost as inherently evil, to the idiots as Jews.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 19, 2012)

Scott T said:


> Since it hasn't been proven that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb (and Washington's wishful thinking doesn't constitute proof), those inbred children in that malarial swamp of a city have a long way to go to be convincing.
> 
> Remember, these are the same knuckle-children that claimed that Iraq was buying Nigerian yellowcake despite their man on the ground, Joe Wilson, saying they were full of ****.


Despite British Intel reports, that British Intel still stands by, people believe Iraq wasn't trying to buy yellowcake, mostly because of their political leanings...


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 19, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Despite British Intel reports, that British Intel still stands by, people believe Iraq wasn't trying to buy yellowcake, mostly because of their political leanings...



Actually it was the Tony Blair's government (the socialist one) that said it was a fact and stood by it, the government that has got us into the wars, the government that 'sexed' up the report on WMD etc etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier


The Foreign Affairs Select Committee judged that the British Government had been wrong to state in an unqualified manner something that had not been established beyond doubt:
&#8220;_We conclude that it is very odd indeed that the Government asserts that it was not relying on the evidence which has since been shown to have been forged, but that eight months later it is still reviewing the other evidence. The assertion "&#8230;that Iraq sought the supply of significant amounts of uranium from Africa &#8230;" should have been qualified to reflect the uncertainty.[SUP][9]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Affairs_Select_Committee[/SUP]_


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 19, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> *If* Iran was actually developing a nuclear bomb, is there any possible way that this could be resolved without resorting to something that is lose lose for everyone?



The US and other western nations have been trying to negotiate with Iran for years over their nuclear program.  Iran is willing to negotiate, but with one caveat; they will not, under any circumstances, abandon nuclear research and nuclear power.  They of course claim they are not building weapons and have no plans to.  The western world is willing to give much to Iran to get them to give up their nuclear program.  They will not.

Therefore, there's not much more to talk about.  Waiting to see if they develop an actual bomb or not is not safe.  If they do, they will use it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 19, 2012)

Scott T said:


> Since it hasn't been proven that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb (and Washington's wishful thinking doesn't constitute proof), those inbred children in that malarial swamp of a city have a long way to go to be convincing.
> 
> Remember, these are the same knuckle-children that claimed that Iraq was buying Nigerian yellowcake despite their man on the ground, Joe Wilson, saying they were full of ****.



Let's say that the entire war in Iraq was based on a false premise, just to get that out of the way.  I'm not saying I believe it was, but just to say OK, fine, Iraq was based on false accusations.  Now, let's move on to Iran.

With regard to Iran, there is no proof that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb.  And they have repeatedly stated that they are not.  They want nuclear energy for power.  Think about that one for a second.  Nuclear power plants in the Mideast.  Where the oil comes from.  But hey, let's say they are planning ahead, for the day when the oil finally runs out.  In the case of other nations that want nuclear power plants, they have made deals with the IAEA and other groups to procure the necessary fissile materials to produce energy.  They types they get leave no capability to further enrich or create weapons-grade plutonium or highly-enriched uranium.  The USA was actually on the hook to build such a plant for Iran during the days of the Shah, and Israel was OK with it.  But Iran will have none of that now.  They want to produce their own uranium and enrich it themselves (which they are now doing), which means if they can enrich to the point of making it fuel-worthy, they can enrich to the point of making it weapons-grade.

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



> After public allegations about Iran's previously undeclared nuclear activities, the IAEA launched an investigation that concluded in November 2003 that Iran had systematically failed to meet its obligations under its NPT safeguards agreement to report those activities to the IAEA, although it also reported no evidence of links to a nuclear weapons program. The IAEA Board of Governors delayed a formal finding of non-compliance until September 2005, and reported that non-compliance to the UN Security Council in February 2006. After the IAEA Board of Governors reported Iran's noncompliance with its safeguards agreement to the United Nations Security Council, the Council demanded that Iran suspend its enrichment programs. The Council imposed sanctions after Iran refused to do so. A May 2009 U.S. Congressional Report suggested "the United States, and later the Europeans, argued that Iran's deception meant it should forfeit its right to enrich, a position likely to be up for negotiation in talks with Iran."[16]
> 
> In exchange for suspending its enrichment program, Iran has been offered "a long-term comprehensive arrangement which would allow for the development of relations and cooperation with Iran based on mutual respect and the establishment of international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program."[17] *However, Iran has consistently refused to give up its enrichment program, arguing that the program is necessary for its energy security, that such "long term arrangements" are inherently unreliable, and would deprive it of its inalienable right to peaceful nuclear technology.* Currently, thirteen states possess operational enrichment or reprocessing facilities,[18] and several others have expressed an interest in developing indigenous enrichment programs.[19] Iran's position was endorsed by the Non-Aligned Movement, which expressed concern about the potential monopolization of nuclear fuel production.[20]




Now, in November, the IAEA produced a report that says that Iran has indeed been engaging in nuclear weapons research:

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



> In November 2011, the IAEA Board of Governors rebuked Iran following an IAEA report detailing how Iran had undertaken research and experiments geared to developing a nuclear weapons capability.[5] For the first time, the IAEA report outlines, in depth, the country&#8217;s detonator development, the multiple-point initiation of high explosives, and experiments involving nuclear payload integration into a missile delivery vehicle.[6] Iran rejected the details of the report and accused the IAEA of pro-Western bias[7] and threatened to reduce its cooperation with the IAEA.[8]



Iran has denounced that report as Western-influenced and so have several people in this thread.  Is the report bogus?  I suppose that depends on what you want to believe.  I can't say I believe it fully or disbelieve it.  However, I am not sure it makes much difference.  *A man with a gun pointed at me may know in his heart he is not going to shoot me, but I don't know that and cannot take that chance.*

So....

Fact: Iran is enriching uranium and has stated categorically that it will not stop doing so.
Fact: Iran is under UN sanction for doing so, and has been in violation of IAEA requirements for something near a decade now.
Fact: The US and other Western powers have offered to support verifiable peaceful nuclear power for Iran, but Iran has rejected it.
Fact: Iran has, at various times, stated outright or implied that Israel has no right to exist, that it will be "wiped off the face of the earth," and that the Holocaust never happened.  They have also claimed they didn't mean it.  Hahaha.
Fact:  Iran has placed warships in the Strait of Hormuz and warned US warships not to enter or it will fire on them.
Fact:  If the Strait of Hormuz is blockaded, much of the oil that comes from the Mideast will not be able to make it to market.
Fact:  Iran has warned fellow OPEC members with 'dire consequences' if they step up oil production to meet any shortfall if Iran's oil is stopped from being sold on the open market via sanctions.
Fact:  Iran is the number one supporter, with cash and military weapons, of Hamas.  Hamas uses Iranian weapons and money to kill Israelis.  I hope this is clear to you.   Israel uses Hamas to kill Jews for them.
Fact:  Iran was the number one supporter of the insurgents in Iraq, with cash, training (in Iran) and weapons such as explosives and firearms.  US military personnel were being killed in Iraq using Iranian money, weapons, and training.  Regardless of support for or against the war in Iraq, Iran was killing Americans there by proxy and intentionally.
Conjecture:  With the US now gone from Iraq, Iran is asserting control through the Iraqi government.  Iraq will shortly be an Iranian province.

Given all this, when Iran says they do not want a nuclear weapon, I am inclined not to believe them.  I think waiting to see if they actually produce a bomb or not is foolish in the extreme.  As stated by another, we'll know about such a bomb when it gets set off in Israel or the US.

Perhaps they don't want a bomb.  I do not think we can afford to take that chance.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 19, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Perhaps they don't want a bomb.  I do not think we can afford to take that chance.



Maybe that weird guy in the van really does have the best candy...


----------



## elder999 (Jan 19, 2012)

In the matter of Saddam "seeking yellowcake uranium from Niger," many of us in the industry were immediately suspicious-Niger's uranium ore is mined, milled, and *strictly* controlled by the French consortium, Cogema. Additionally, Saddam already had 500 tons of yellowcake in his possession-though it was secured by the U.N. at the time in question. We know he _wanted_ to resume pursruit of a nuclear weapon program, but......he didn't have one at all, and wasn't looking to get special nuclear material. 

As far as Iran goes-I won't say much. They truly do have valid and real reasons for seeking nuclear power-their oil is finite, and pretty much committed to Russia, France, England, Italy, Spain, Greece, Germany and the UK. It's their revenue. 

If that's what they want, though, they're going about it the wrong way-the *hard* way-cascading centrifugal enrichment is a *****, done molecules at a time-*really*-and isn't at all necessary for power production-especially when everyone is offering to supply you with fuel elements for your reactors.

Ditto putting your enrichment facilities in hardened sub-mountainous facilities.

In multiple locations.

With impressive anti-aircraft defenses.......

They want a bomb-been arguing since '96 about whether they'll get there-especially with the Stuxnet virus and assassinations, and all-but concluded well before 9/11 that their scientists are definitely smart enough to get there....of course, they don't have to be that smart, these days-but those Persian fellas are........pretty ****in' smart.

And that's almost all I have to say, except that Israel can't bomb Iran's nuclear program out of existence, the way they did to Syria and Iraq. They can't even come close.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 19, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> To an extent, I agree.
> 
> However,  the accusations can mean retalliations.
> 
> And for some of us, that hits home. During the first Gulf War, I dreaded the long distance ring from my phone.  When I hear of suicide bombings In Israel, the first thing I look for in the story is location. I have many fiends, and a some extended family over there.



I understand that but no matter who we say did it wont change the view iran has of Israel.  Even if we proved that iran killed its own scientists they would spin it in a way in that country to look like he was a spy for the US or Israel and you would still have problems with the attacks.  

I think it was Voltaire who said "  as longs as people believe absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities."  Or something to that effect.  People will believe whatever makes there way of thinking true even if you prove there belief wrong.  Its just easier to hate someone because you were taught that from a child even if the reality is you have no reason to hate them.


----------

