Iran Is Threatening

[drac]

TIme to get out the ruler :whip3:

hm.. why the threat? he just makes a point based on his preception, if you disagree with him, just say where and why he is wrong.

 

[Annie]

hm.. why the threat? he just makes a point based on his preception, if you disagree with him, just say where and why he is wrong.

Actually I don't take directions from members, nor do any of the mods. We will respond to a 'call out.' In this case a regular member recognized a flame of moderator, which is not allowed by the rules, found at the top of main forum page.

 

[drac]

Yeah, the Iranians are developing offensive weapons, while Israel develops defensive, but the Israelis are the aggressor.

Excerpt:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040815/wl_nm/iran_israel_missiles_dc

The best defense is the best offense, is not it. Iran cannot afford being viewed as a weak state, so is the statement. Similar to cold war retorics. No surprises here

 

[Annie]

The best defense is the best offense, is not it. Iran cannot afford being viewed as a weak state, so is the statement. Similar to cold war retorics. No surprises here

Then Israel may have to take the offensive. If one nation is going to go offensive, ie., OBL and 9/11, better have added up the consequences, correctly.

 

[drac]

Then Israel may have to take the offensive. If one nation is going to go offensive, ie., OBL and 9/11, better have added up the consequences, correctly.

Very true and perhapse israel or we or the un (big ?) will if they will feel threaten enough. Israel was feeling threaten by irag's wmd and attacked them in 82 (do not remember exact date). Iran at this stage is trying to show the world and most of all its own people that they will do whatever they need and will not bow to "israel or america power". It also basically spelling out to us what it will do if we (read we here as israel/usa/world) is attacked in order to destroy its wmd (or its development). So all this said, i do believe that eventually we will be forced to attack, cause iran+nukes = unstable balance of power in the region

 

[Annie]

Very true and perhapse israel or we or the un (big ?) will if they will feel threaten enough. Israel was feeling threaten by irag's wmd and attacked them in 82 (do not remember exact date). Iran at this stage is trying to show the world and most of all its own people that they will do whatever they need and will not bow to "israel or america power". It also basically spelling out to us what it will do if we (read we here as israel/usa/world) is attacked in order to destroy its wmd (or its development). So all this said, i do believe that eventually we will be forced to attack, cause iran+nukes = unstable balance of power in the region

I think that everyone should stand back and take a breath, though it seems the world is not going to allow us to. I've said this before, we are living through historical times, true paradigm forming period. Europe hasn't a clue to what they've done, they do not understand this country in a fundamental way. Many will be shocked whether GW wins, as I hope; or Kerry wins. Either way, the US is more isolationist now than it's been in 70 years. To even bring up the UN is a joke, they only steal money from widows and orphans. They have never dealt with a true military crisis, in an pro-active way. Now, they are no longer to be looked at first, second, or ever.

Iran better realize they aren't close to being ready to deal with the US, if they make any move towards Israel, they are going to be done for. Heck, with what they are doing today in Basra may be enough for them to have a difficult time in about 9 weeks anyways.

 

[Annie]

I think that everyone should stand back and take a breath, though it seems the world is not going to allow us to. I've said this before, we are living through historical times, true paradigm forming period. Europe hasn't a clue to what they've done, they do not understand this country in a fundamental way. Many will be shocked whether GW wins, as I hope; or Kerry wins. Either way, the US is more isolationist now than it's been in 70 years. To even bring up the UN is a joke, they only steal money from widows and orphans. They have never dealt with a true military crisis, in an pro-active way. Now, they are no longer to be looked at first, second, or ever.

Iran better realize they aren't close to being ready to deal with the US, if they make any move towards Israel, they are going to be done for. Heck, with what they are doing today in Basra may be enough for them to have a difficult time in about 9 weeks anyways.

I'm not the only one thinking like this:

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0804/15europe.html

Europe has lost U.S. bond forever

By ZEB B. BRADFORD JR.
Published on: 08/13/04

I wouldn't dare predict the outcome of the presidential election in November, but there is one prediction I will make. Regardless of who wins, George W. Bush or John Kerry, an idealistic, interventionist foreign policy for the United States is over. In international affairs, our country will turn not to multilateralism but to isolationism. Partnership with Europe will be history.

The most immediate and obvious cause of this is the war in Iraq, and to a lesser extent that in Afghanistan. The baggage from these affairs — the costs, the difficulty and the controversy — will make Americans far less willing to take a leading activist international role anytime soon, no matter how compelling.

But the pain of these conflicts is not the only reason for the new American isolationism. Other, more fundamental influences are affecting American attitudes. We have learned that many whom we had always assumed to be allies, whom we thought stood for principles we believed to be universal, do not share the views of the world of many Americans. We have found that, regardless of the merits of invading Iraq, some European nations, France and Germany in particular, have actively tried to undermine our efforts, and wish to see an end to American supremacy in world affairs.

From policy objections, the critique of America now has progressed to disdain for our values and society. We are often stereotyped, even in mainstream European media, as warlike, materialistic, religious zealots with contempt for others. Our claims of idealism are met with derision and cynicism. Never has there been such venom directed at the United States. It is deeper than anti-Bushism. It reflects a profound cultural divergence that is rooted in the enduring hostility of the influential European intellectual left toward bourgeois, capitalist and highly successful America. This will not change no matter who is in the White House.

Americans have also been disillusioned with the bulwarks of the international system, including the United Nations and NATO. Among Americans, the United Nations has never had the legitimacy ceded to it by Europeans, but it was revered as an idealistic symbol of the world's aspirations toward peace. Now it is seen not only as weak, but corrupt and hostile to our interests. The ongoing oil for food scandal, anti-U.S. manipulation by members of the Security Council and the United Nations' unwillingness to sacrifice for its own principles and declarations, will inhibit any serious engagement with it for years to come.NATO has also suffered. It has been unprepared to contribute even token forces for our efforts in Iraq, or much of the quite modest resources it pledged to provide security for elections in Afghanistan. Only grudgingly has it agreed even to help train Iraqi security personnel.

Isolationism and withdrawal will not be proclaimed as such, but they are already under way. As a part of "force transformation," the Pentagon has announced that it will withdraw major portions of our forces in South Korea and Western Europe. For half a century these were sacrosanct symbols of American commitment. No more. Withdrawal is a one-way street. Once they've left, our forces will never again be deployed to Europe or Asia short of major conflict and perhaps not even then.

What then will a post-Iraq national security policy look like? First it must be assumed that international terrorism will continue to be a serious threat. Second, there remain other major threats including nuclear proliferation by states such as Iran and North Korea. In all likelihood, the United States will turn inward or act unilaterally to deal with these. It will focus on homeland security. It will attempt to deploy a ballistic missile defense to counter potential nuclear threats. It will work with others only on a limited basis, as required. Because it has to, it will work with international intelligence services to prevent terrorist attacks from originating from abroad.

American ground forces will not be substantially enlarged for nation building. There will be no return of the draft. These forces will be reconfigured for unconventional anti-terrorism operations, and for rapidly deployable strike forces to react to threats to American interests. The "footprints" of an American presence in other countries will be reduced. Highly sophisticated air and naval power will guard our sea lanes and provide power projection to defend our interests across the globe.

America will remain deeply engaged in the world economy. But the power of the United States will not be on call, as it was in the past, to protect the common interests of the advanced world. We will no longer serve as the international emergency number 911 to call for help.

In our attitudes and behavior, we will become more "European" — less altruistic, more provincial, more focused on our own interests. We will become what we are accused of being now.

Yet as the United States disengages, demographic and economic trends will lead to an even greater disparity in national power between America and any challengers, especially European. In a few decades, both the population and national wealth of America will be substantially greater than that of even the expanded European Union. Birth rates and immigration will make the United States younger and more non-European, with an average age in the thirties. Europeans will be in their fifties, with a much larger welfare burden. Economically, America will far outdistance any of its closest competitors, with the possible exception of China. Stagnant and uncompetitive European economies will become far less relevant to American commercial interests in the years ahead.

Europe's problems do not lie with the United States. Europe is faced with economic and demographic decline, risk-averse societies and an alienated Muslim population. These are the issues European leaders should be facing, not U.S. hegemony. Europe will be weaker, poorer, older and less important to the United States as the years proceed.

Politicians cannot change these facts. America is likely to become an even greater colossus, but without a sense of community with its traditional partners. Will the world be better and safer with an increasingly powerful but less idealistic, less Europe-oriented America that distrusts international institutions? We'll see. Those who resent American power and wish to see it recede would be wise to reflect on the deeper implications of what they're wishing for.

 

[wade]

Yeah, the Iranians are developing offensive weapons, while Israel develops defensive, but the Israelis are the aggressor.

Excerpt:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040815/wl_nm/iran_israel_missiles_dc

I don't see how the Israeli nuclear weapons are any more "defensive" than those belonging to Iran. In fact, I would bet Israel can deploy nukes much further than Iran, since they have much higher level of technology. This is a perception issue, one of believing Israel desires peace where Iran desires war.

The whole Israeli-Palastinian thing is a convoluted mess. All sides are in the wrong, all sides think they are in the right, and all sides use religious arguments to justify their positions.

Wade.

 

[freeandfun1]

I don't see how the Israeli nuclear weapons are any more "defensive" than those belonging to Iran. In fact, I would bet Israel can deploy nukes much further than Iran, since they have much higher level of technology. This is a perception issue, one of believing Israel desires peace where Iran desires war.

The whole Israeli-Palastinian thing is a convoluted mess. All sides are in the wrong, all sides think they are in the right, and all sides use religious arguments to justify their positions.

Wade.

What a stupid and moranic statement. If Israel wanted to use nukes for offensive puposes, don't you think they would have a LONG time ago?

They developed nukes as a deterent to war. You must be so young that you cannot remember the 80's. If Israel didn't have nukes, they would have been invaded over and over again until they could no longer fight. Why don't your read some history before opening your trap. You would look much less foolish!

 

[DKSuddeth]

I don't see how the Israeli nuclear weapons are any more "defensive" than those belonging to Iran. In fact, I would bet Israel can deploy nukes much further than Iran, since they have much higher level of technology. This is a perception issue, one of believing Israel desires peace where Iran desires war.

The whole Israeli-Palastinian thing is a convoluted mess. All sides are in the wrong, all sides think they are in the right, and all sides use religious arguments to justify their positions.

Wade.

what evidence do you use in stipulating that Irans offensive is only perception when Iran still doesn't recognize Israels right to survive and has said that they would wipe Israel from the face of the earth?

 

[Annie]

I don't see how the Israeli nuclear weapons are any more "defensive" than those belonging to Iran. In fact, I would bet Israel can deploy nukes much further than Iran, since they have much higher level of technology. This is a perception issue, one of believing Israel desires peace where Iran desires war.

The whole Israeli-Palastinian thing is a convoluted mess. All sides are in the wrong, all sides think they are in the right, and all sides use religious arguments to justify their positions.

Wade.

That mess is discussed on Israeli-Palestinian forum. Israel has not admitted to nukes, certainly not threatened anyone with them. If others assume they have them, well....

 

[wade]

It is not our fault that YOU don't want to debate. You only want us to agree with you. When we point out your ignorance, you just get mad and start making claims that nobody uses facts, or whatever. You are the only one I have seen (well, you and your other liberal friends on these and other boards) that does not care about facts and that is throwing around OPINIONS. It is not our fault that, opinions being like assholes, your's stinks!

LOL - you see you make my point for me. Anything you percieve as "liberal" you flame.

I have not chosen to do much debating here, I've been mostly observing. As for being uninformed, well, you have no idea what is going on in the world today. If you did, you're positions would be radically different than they are. You don't know who your enemies really are, and foolishly support policies which are against your own best intrests.

But the discussion is just for fun. We are already past the point of no return. Nothing that we do can stop what is comming. All we can do is prepare for it as best our assests allow. The war on terrorism is signficant in that it distracts us from what is really important. But in the overall scope of things, it is just a minor concern.

To have a meaningful discussion would require far too much understanding of biological and economic systems than I expect to find here. In the end, more than half the worlds current population swell (current population + 1 generation of prodgeny) has to die. The math just demands it. And that is a very ugly fact that I usually try not to think about, but I know it's true and when I see stupid short visioned arguements, sometimes I enjoy probing the thinking behind them.

Oh - and one last thing - I'm not a liberal. Liberals don't believe in using any kind of Nukes, fission power, very limited abortion rights, the death penalty, etc., etc., etc... I personally think both the liberals and the conservatives are a bunch of fools, the more they lean left or right and spout dogma with a sense of pride over their conservativism/liberalism, without understanding the overall consequences of their positions, the more foolish they are.

Wade.

PS: Speaking of assholes - it's never pretty to see someone lick one. When your done, wipe off your face.

 

[wade]

What a stupid and moranic statement. If Israel wanted to use nukes for offensive puposes, don't you think they would have a LONG time ago?

They developed nukes as a deterent to war. You must be so young that you cannot remember the 80's. If Israel didn't have nukes, they would have been invaded over and over again until they could no longer fight. Why don't your read some history before opening your trap. You would look much less foolish!

LOL - I remember the 70's m8.

My point is the Israeli nukes protect them from foreign interventions. They then use this protection to shield their land grabs on the west-bank.

Do you have any knowlege of how Isreal manages the west-bank? Are you aware that if a palastinian wants to cliam land it requires 5 years of living on and developing that land to do so? That at any time, even in the last months of that 5 year period, an Israeli citizen can claim the land right out from under the palastinians who have waited over 4 years for the claim to be approved? That almost every time a successful well (one that does not go dry in a year or two) is dug on the west bank, that it is claimed by the Israelis? That palistinian familes struggle to have enough water to survive while watching Israeli families living on the land they developed swim in pools filled with water from the wells they dug? That the Israelis almost always display their water wealth in a way to infuriate the palastinians?

You seem to think the Israeli's are the "good guys". They are not. They are a greedy peoples who care only about themselves, and justify themselves based upon a 2000 year old claim to the land which they CANNOT PROVE!

Now don't get me wrong - I don't like the Arabs either. But to ascribe some kind of "rightness" to the Israeli position is just buying into the foolishness which plauges too much of our thinking. Only by realizing that there is no "right" side, and trying to devise a "best" solution to the real life problems of the existing situation, can we ever expect to settle the problems of the mid-east.

Justifying Israel's possesion of nukes while villifying the desire of the Arabs to have the same power just perpetuates the wrong thinking that got us here in the first place.

You think the propoganda you've fallen for is "history". I wish there was a good way to test which of our knowleges of history is deeper. Got any suggestions?

Wade.

 

[Annie]

LOL - I remember the 70's m8.

My point is the Israeli nukes protect them from foreign interventions. They then use this protection to shield their land grabs on the west-bank.

Do you have any knowlege of how Isreal manages the west-bank? Are you aware that if a palastinian wants to cliam land it requires 5 years of living on and developing that land to do so? That at any time, even in the last months of that 5 year period, an Israeli citizen can claim the land right out from under the palastinians who have waited over 4 years for the claim to be approved? That almost every time a successful well (one that does not go dry in a year or two) is dug on the west bank, that it is claimed by the Israelis? That palistinian familes struggle to have enough water to survive while watching Israeli families living on the land they developed swim in pools filled with water from the wells they dug? That the Israelis almost always display their water wealth in a way to infuriate the palastinians?

You seem to think the Israeli's are the "good guys". They are not. They are a greedy peoples who care only about themselves, and justify themselves based upon a 2000 year old claim to the land which they CANNOT PROVE!

Now don't get me wrong - I don't like the Arabs either. But to ascribe some kind of "rightness" to the Israeli position is just buying into the foolishness which plauges too much of our thinking. Only by realizing that there is no "right" side, and trying to devise a "best" solution to the real life problems of the existing situation, can we ever expect to settle the problems of the mid-east.

Justifying Israel's possesion of nukes while villifying the desire of the Arabs to have the same power just perpetuates the wrong thinking that got us here in the first place.

You think the propoganda you've fallen for is "history". I wish there was a good way to test which of our knowleges of history is deeper. Got any suggestions?

Wade.

Once again, don't hijack the thread away from Iran onto Israel. There is a forum there, make a new thread!

 

[Shazbot]

I don't see how the Israeli nuclear weapons are any more "defensive" than those belonging to Iran. In fact, I would bet Israel can deploy nukes much further than Iran, since they have much higher level of technology. This is a perception issue, one of believing Israel desires peace where Iran desires war.

The whole Israeli-Palastinian thing is a convoluted mess. All sides are in the wrong, all sides think they are in the right, and all sides use religious arguments to justify their positions.

Wade.

I, for one, don't undestand how anyone can believe that Iran wants to develop nukes because it is afraid Israel will launch at them!

-Douglas

 

[wade]

Once again, don't hijack the thread away from Iran onto Israel. There is a forum there, make a new thread!

jeeze, the topic was Iran's desire for nukes. Someone else then brought up Israel's nukes and the effect on the region. I then replied w.r.t. that post.

Iran is one of the nations that might intervene in Isreal's west-bank policies, except for Isreal's ability to stop them by nuclear and alliance deterance.

So the response was somewhat related to the intial topic. I was just replying to the assertions made in the thread.

I assume your idea is that only Iran can be discussed in this thread? Then why the selective sanctioning?

GRRRRR - Wade.

 

[DKSuddeth]

jeeze, the topic was Iran's desire for nukes. Someone else then brought up Israel's nukes and the effect on the region. I then replied w.r.t. that post.

Iran is one of the nations that might intervene in Isreal's west-bank policies, except for Isreal's ability to stop them by nuclear and alliance deterance.

So the response was somewhat related to the intial topic. I was just replying to the assertions made in the thread.

I assume your idea is that only Iran can be discussed in this thread? Then why the selective sanctioning?

GRRRRR - Wade.

wade, I'm not sure where you are getting your information that Iran is only interested in 'intervening' in Israels west bank policy, but maybe you should do a little historical digging on statements made by the Iranian government in regards to its stance on Israel before you make such assumptions.

 

[wade]

wade, I'm not sure where you are getting your information that Iran is only interested in 'intervening' in Israels west bank policy, but maybe you should do a little historical digging on statements made by the Iranian government in regards to its stance on Israel before you make such assumptions.

I understand Iran's stance DKS. But Isreal's nukes are meant to prevent action on that stance, and to allow them freedom of action w/o reprisal. If Iran had nukes, it might open options for other Arab nations to act against Isreal w/o worry of Israeli nuclear reprisal. Not that any of the Arab nations could succeed, but right now they cannot even consider it.

If you look at the history of the region, the Arab position w.r.t. Isreal is quite sensible from their perspective. However, that is a discussion for another forum.

Wade.

 

[Annie]

jeeze, the topic was Iran's desire for nukes. Someone else then brought up Israel's nukes and the effect on the region. I then replied w.r.t. that post.

Iran is one of the nations that might intervene in Isreal's west-bank policies, except for Isreal's ability to stop them by nuclear and alliance deterance.

So the response was somewhat related to the intial topic. I was just replying to the assertions made in the thread.

I assume your idea is that only Iran can be discussed in this thread? Then why the selective sanctioning?

GRRRRR - Wade.

Israel may be discussed in relation to Iran, that was the point of the thread. You are welcome to open your own thread.