“The security aid package the United States has refused to give Israel for the past few months out of concern that Israel would use it to attack nuclear facilities in Iran included a large number of "bunker-buster" bombs, permission to use an air corridor to Iran, an advanced technological system and refueling planes.

Officials from both countries have been discussing the Israeli requests over the past few months. Their rejection would make it very difficult for Israel to attack Iran, if such a decision is made.

About a month ago, Haaretz reported that the Bush administration had turned down an Israeli request for certain security items that could upgrade Israel's capability to attack Iran. The U.S. administration reportedly saw the request as a sign preparations were moving ahead for an Israeli attack on Iran.

[SNIP]

At the beginning of the year, the Israeli leadership still considered it a reasonable possibility that Bush would decide to attack Iran before the end of his term.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in private discussions, even raised the possibility that the U.S. was considering an attack in the transition period between the election in November and the inauguration of the new president in January 2009.

However, Jerusalem now assumes that likelihood of this possibility is close to nil, and that Bush will use the rest of his time in office to strengthen what he defines as the Iraqi achievement, following the relative success of American efforts there over the past year and a half.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:
Why is Iran a "nuclear puzzle", and why do Iranians need Obama or that guy beside Palin to "solve" it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:
How about starting with those rogue states that already have nuclear weapons, refuse to abide by international treaties, attack their neighbours, and threaten to use their nuclear weapons tactically, instead of focusing on a "maybe".

---

The U.S. has basically stayed out of Europe’s way while Europe has (unsuccessfully) tried to negotiate a stoppage to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by melovesproles:
Way to dodge the point Sven.

---

Actually, here's the original dodge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Svenmeister:
You are correct that there is no puzzle to solve if nuclear proliferation is not a concern.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:
How about starting with those rogue states that already have nuclear weapons, refuse to abide by international treaties, attack their neighbours, and threaten to use their nuclear weapons tactically, instead of focusing on a "maybe".

---

So, in essence, Jingles isn't answering (he’s “dodging”) the implied question in my post: "Is proliferation of nuclear weapons with respect to Iran a problem or is it not a problem?"

Instead, he (almost predictably) points to the U.S.: "But...but...but...what about the evil U.S.?!?!"

My “dodge” is, in essence, this: Hey, this isn’t something that’s only about the U.S. or a U.S. concern about Iranian nuclear weapons. Europe is very concerned about a nuclear-armed Iran.

You know, you try to act progressive, but you are the epitome of an arrogant American. Even your tag line is sad sad sad....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
How about lobbying your government Sven, and ask it to stop selling weapons to rogue states, ask it to stop bombing the shit out of countries? Where is your outrage? How about the US, which has the most missiles and weaponry, to start a nuclear disarment program? What? Oh....yes...that isn't going to happen.

---

Put aside Americans for a moment. The funny thing is many (Canadian) babblers cannot seem to express any concern about a nuclear-armed Iran (even though Europe is very concerned about it). It all comes back to: "But...but...but...what about the Americans?!?!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Even your tag line is sad sad sad....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Sven you need to watch the skit "Don't Mention the War"

Why would anyone discussing disarmament issues leave aside the the largest military in the world. Because they only kill out of hate not envy? Don't mention the USA why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
No they are not off base they are all on NATO bases. They are all in the club together so of course they want to keep all those other undesirables out of their exclusive club. Imperialist need only apply. I think that we should disarm all nuclear powers but since those countries also have the largest stockpiles of conventional weapons too I doubt if they will listen to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
I take it you are all right with America ruling the world? Have I stated your views correctly?

---

quote:

---

Looks like Bush is going to leave the Iran nuclear puzzle for Barack to solve.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
So do you think that America has the right to rule the world

[SNIP]

Sure seems like your first post implies that very thing.

---

Barack isn't going to solve the puzzle alone (no one is).

So, no, you incorrectly inferred from my statement that I think "American has the right to rule the world".

quote:

---

"But...but...but...what about the evil U.S.?!?!"

---

Acutally, I was thinking Israel.

But we're supposed to believe that all Europe trembles at the notion of the idea of the thought that maybe someday Iran will contemplate the beginning of the plan for the feasibility of the possibility of getting the ball rolling towards a NUKULAR BOMB!!!!!1!1!

I guess Europe isn't concerned about those very real existing nukes in the hands of the actual fanatical fascist regime of Israel.

quote:

---

But, it seems like a lot of Canadians don't give a shit if Iran has nukes or not. They just have a hard time saying that.

---

I don't have a problem saying it. I don't give a shit if Iran has nukes or not. When was the last time Iran invaded anybody? When was the last time the world's nuclear powers invaded anybody? Well, that would be Russia (justifiably) during the week of August 8. Before that, the US and Britain destroyed a defenseless Iraq, Israel tried to do the same to the people of Lebanon, France occupies Afghanistan, where India and Pakistan are both engaged in proxy fight. China has Tibet. Did I forget anyone?

[ 11 September 2008: Message edited by: Jingles ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Barack isn't going to solve the puzzle alone (no one is).

So, no, you incorrectly inferred from my statement that I think "American has the right to rule the world".

But, it seems like a lot of Canadians don't give a shit if Iran has nukes or not. They just have a hard time saying that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Iran I will worry about when they actually join the club they say they aren't even applying for.

---

It's naive to think they aren't "applying" for admission to the club.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

It's naive to think they aren't "applying" for admission to the club.

Also, good move: Don't worry about them until after they have the nukes.

---

All Hail Pax Americana

quote:

---

Put aside Americans for a moment. The funny thing is many (Canadian) babblers cannot seem to express any concern about a nuclear-armed Iran

---

Why should we? The Iranians say they are working toward developing nuclear energy, not weapons.

And even if Iran should some day have nukes, is that any worse than the 200 nukes the Israelis have, or the nukes that the Indians and Pakistanis have? Who since, oh I don't know, the time of Xerxes, have the Iranians ever attacked? Iran is about the one country on the planet that seems safe to have nukes.

You'll have to forgive us dumb Canucks for not going wild-eyed in fear of Iran. We don't have the benefit of the lifetime of propaganda that creates your attitudes toward the outside world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Why should we? The Iranians say they are working toward developing nuclear energy, not weapons.

---

Well the neocons always insist that it's about making weapons that are aimed at destroying Western civilization.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Hell if I was Iran I'd be busy getting nukes. The way your creepy politicians talk, they'd incinerate the entire population.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Lemme see if I understand your logic. Iran needs nukes because if they don't have them, the USA would incinerate Iran's entire population. Iran doesn't have nukes now. So, why hasn't the USA incinerated Iran's entire population?

---

Or do you want the US and Israel to be made to give up their nukes as well?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Max Bialystock:
No according to neocons like Sven the U.S. and Israel would be "reasonable" but Iran can't be trusted.

---

Face it, there's no moral difference between Iran having nukes and Israel having nukes.

Why are you cheerleading for a pointless confrontation between Israel and Iran?

The way to resolve this is for the US to promise never to attack Iran again. Apologizing for the coup in 1953 would help as well, as would apologizing for the endless support for the murderous Shah.

[ 11 September 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
If Iran was bent on destroying Israel, it equally would have done so already.

---

Bullshit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Why are you cheerleading for a pointless confrontation between Israel and Iran?

---

You know nothing positive could come of Israel or anybody else attacking Iran. Why act as if its a defensible idea?

Iran doesn't want to attack Israel and you know it. The Iranian government is not insane.

[ 11 September 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Iran doesn't want to attack Israel and you know it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
By which he means replace the current State of Israel with a non-sectarian state in which Jews and Arabs live as equals, not nuclear obliteration.

---

You know there's no good reason to obsess on Iran. Yet you won't let this go.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
You just want to see Muslims get carpet-bombed.

---

You just want to see all Christians wiped out.

The answer is to chill out. There's no reason for brinksmanship here and you know as well as everyone else that Iran only wants nukes for energy and defensive purposes. If it was legitimate for the Shah to have nukes for those reasons(as the US believed)the US has no moral right to oppose any other Iranian government having them.

And Iran wouldn't have a government like it currently has if the US hadn't spent the last three decades demonizing it for no reason.

[ 11 September 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

You are pathetic.

[ 11 September 2008: Message edited by: Jingles ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
...and you know as well as everyone else that Iran only wants nukes for energy and defensive purposes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:

---

Or, as that great American Phil Ochs described the mindset in one of his best songs:

"We own half the world, O Say Can You See?
And the name for our profits is 'democracy'
So like it or not, you will have to be FREE...
'Cause We're The Cops Of The World, boys,
We're The Cops Of The World".

[ 11 September 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Iran is a tiny country, Sven. Why do you see them as so much more evil than any other country in the world?

Face it, you're freaking out over nothing here. And you know it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

particularly given their past history of support for sectarian nutbars.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

I agree that Iran poses zero threat to the USA via ballistic missiles. My concern is with Iran developing portable nukes...particularly given their past history of support for sectarian nutbars.

---

quote:

---

The way to resolve this is for the US to promise never to attack Iran again.

---

With something in writing.

quote:

---

My concern is with Iran developing portable nukes...particularly given their past history of support for sectarian nutbars.

---

Why would they do this? Why would they spend billions to develop this kind of technology just to hand it over to someone or some group over which they have no control? That is the very definition of stupidity. The fact that you'd believe this sort of infantile nonsense is kinda sad.

It seems that US plans to bomb Iran, on whatever spurious pretext, were to have taken place partly from Georgian US military bases. Such bases would be close to Iran, with mountain cover, and able to quickly deliver a rain of death. With the aggressive mission in South Ossetia rebuffed, the Georgian military in a shambles, and Saakashvili turned into a political corpse, these Georgian bases for an attack on Iran are out the window.

There are other US client states in the region, of course. But Georgia's geostrategic location made it an excellent cornerstone of an attack on Iran.

Tough shit, Uncle Sam.

US to invade Iran?

quote:

---

A few weeks ago the Russian newspaper Izvestia, a well-known and authoritive daily published nationwide and abroad, came forward with something that would have been looked upon as a conspiracy theory if published by a tabloid.

The paper suggested that by attacking South Ossetia, the Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili had badly damaged a planned U.S. military operation against Iran. In the newspaper's opinion Georgia was supposed to play the role of another "unsinkable aircraft carrier" for the U.S., i.e. an operational and tactical base for U.S.
aircraft that would be making bombing raids into Iran. Something akin to what Thailand was in the Vietnam war....

Having read the story in Izvestia I decided to try to figure out the extent of improbability and impossibility of the assumptions. As I was doing that, I remembered that early in August CNN had started showing U.S. generals who cried for more troops and hardware for Afghanistan which, in their opinion, was rapidly becoming a more intensive conflict than Iraq.

Shortly after that, a phone call came from a college friend who had just come back from Kandahar in Afghanistan, where he had seen American battle tanks being unloaded from a Ukrainian-registered Antonov-124 "Ruslan", the heaviest and largest cargo airplane in the world. The friend asked if I had any idea what tanks would be good for in Afghanistan, and I said I didn't. It's an established fact from the Soviet war in Afghanistan that tanks are no good for most of the country's mountainous territory. They are good for flatlands, and the main body of flat land in the region is right across the border in Iran.

---

The author goes on:

quote:

---

Today the U.S. media reported that there had been a leak from the Pentagon about a secret Presidential order in which President Bush authorized his military (most of which is currently on Afghan soil) to conduct operations in Pakistan without the necessity for informing the Pakistani government. The U.S. military in Afghanistan - or shall we say in the whole region neighboring Iran - is getting a freer hand by the day. And it is getting more and more hardware to play with.

---

[ 11 September 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

et voila!

quote:

---

U.S. to sell IAF smart bombs for heavily fortified targets
By Aluf Benn and Amos Harel

Despite reservations in Washington regarding a possible Israeli strike on Iran, the American administration will supply Israel with sophisticated weapons for heavily fortified targets, the U.S. administration announced.

The U.S. Department of Defense announced it would sell the Israel Air Force 1,000 new smart bombs, rumored to significantly enhance the IAF's military capabilities. The deal was approved amid public and secret messages from Washington, with the Americans expressing their reservations about a possible Israeli strike against the Islamic Republic's suspected nuclear sites.

The Pentagon's announcement, which came on Friday, said the U.S. will provide Israel with 1,000 units of Guided Bomb Unit-39 (GBU-39) - a special weapon developed for penetrating fortified facilities located deep underground....

---

IDF discovers leftists in West Bank village

quote:

---

An IDF force which raided the West Bank village of Asira al-Kabaliya near the settlement of Yitzhar on Saturday night, apparently as part of an operation for the arrest of wanted Palestinians, was surprised to discover a group of left-wing activists in one of the houses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
If those Zionists don't watch it, the only place Hebrew will be spoken is in Hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aka Mycroft:

The mindset that permits one to condemn an entire nationality to hell is one of the drivers of the Mideast conflict.

---

It's also one of the drivers of genocide.

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Settle down; I'm just using "Bull" Halsey's words, but with a different language in question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarcastro:
Are you denying that the USSA and the zionists are behind all the violence we see around the world, while a peaceful democratic Iran is presented as a threat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarcastro:
Are you denying that the USSA and the zionists are behind all the violence we see around the world, while a peaceful democratic Iran is presented as a threat.

---

I hardly see how my statement differs from FM's views for one example.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarcastro:

I hardly see how my statement differs from FM's views for one example.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
al-Qa'bong, it was a stupid racist jingoistic remark when Admiral Halsey said it, and it hasn't improved with age. Cut it out. Maybe edit it out too.

---

I guess you don't like the "Those who forget their history are doomed to yadda yadda yadda" irony of the comment.

quote:

---

That line is actually cut in modern releases of Tora! Tora! Tora! Why do you think that is?

---

Though not in the article, it signals a temporary swing to the so-called "realists" over the neoconservatives in Washington. This US position is not likely to change soon with the current extreme fragility of the US-world financial system--though all bets are off if the irascible dimwit McCain and Armageddon-monger Palin get in.

quote:

---

Israel Asked US for Green Light to Bomb Nuclear Sites in Iran
US president told Israeli prime minister he would not back attack on Iran, senior European diplomatic sources tell Guardian
Published on Friday, September 26, 2008 by the Guardian/UK

by Jonathan Steele

Israel gave serious thought this spring to launching a military strike on Iran's nuclear sites but was told by President George W Bush that he would not support it and did not expect to revise that view for the rest of his presidency, senior European diplomatic sources have told the Guardian.
[....]
Bush's decision to refuse to offer any support for a strike on Iran appeared to be based on two factors, the sources said. One was US concern over Iran's likely retaliation, which would probably include a wave of attacks on US military and other personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as on shipping in the Persian Gulf.

The other was US anxiety that Israel would not succeed in disabling Iran's nuclear facilities in a single assault even with the use of dozens of aircraft. It could not mount a series of attacks over several days without risking full-scale war. So the benefits would not outweigh the costs.
[....]
The US announced two weeks ago that it would sell [ie. bought with US taxpayers dollars] Israel 1,000 bunker-busting bombs. The move was interpreted by some analysts as a consolation prize for Israel after Bush told Olmert of his opposition to an attack on Iran. But it could also enhance Israel's attack options in case the next US president revives the military option...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Keep repeating: "A light unto nations, a light unto nations, a light unto...."

---

al Qabong, youve brought this up more than once, and it's not necessary for your otherwise insightful comments on Israel.
The biblical phrase "light unto all nations" is generally interpreted as Jews being the carriers of the old testament, and not an endorsement of Jews as upholding moral behaviour. On the contrary, the bible describes the Jewish people as normally disobedient and consistently unworthy of carrying God's laws. If you would like to read them, many rabbinical interpretations describe this role and other concepts like "chosenness" as primarily owing to chance, God's frustration or both. These are theological concepts, and have been debated and written about by rabbis for centuries, they are not supremacist axioms. Most religions have things like this.

quote:

---

The biblical phrase "light unto all nations" is generally interpreted as Jews being the carriers of the old testament, and not an endorsement of Jews as upholding moral behaviour.

---

I don't know from the Old Testament, and most of what I know about Jews is what I hear in my Benny Goodman records.

My use of the term, "light unto nations" is a reference to Israeli propaganda, going back to the founding of the State of Israel, such as this:

quote:

---

Ben-Gurion envisaged an Israel that would be, firstly, ‘a light unto nations’;
secondly, an ethical, moral and democratic leader;and thirdly, an Israel that would be at peace. It is Ben-Gurion’s vision that has set the far-reaching parameters for Israel.

---

quote:

---

I don't know from the Old Testament, and most of what I know about Jews is what I hear in my Benny Goodman records.

---

quote:

---

If you are trying to say that Israeli politicians have co-opted the Jewish religion to make political arguments

---

I'm not saying anything of the sort. I don't know enough about the Jewish religion to make such clever connexions.

[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: just one of the concerned ]