It’s a big oversimplification, as any single explanation is bound to be. However, I didn’t say it was true. I thought it was a valid thing to imply, or at least keep in mind. I do know that in this past war, Israel lost an enemy without having to lift a finger and the US, expecting a walk in the park, took on a bunch of problems it will be involved in for years. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say Israel’s government might have encouraged the US to invade Iraq because it was a threat to both nations; it would have been in Israel’s interest to do so. And I do realize the comment I quoted was not this cautious in its wording, but then I didn’t think this would become an ongoing discussion.
Do you always try to make your points by putting words in people’s mouths? I’m trying to take part in a conversation here.
What’s Bush going to do, lose his bid for a third term? We already know Cheney isn’t running in '08 either.
If I may presume to speak for myself, I don’t think it’s at all a foregone conclusion that the US will attack Iran. There can’t be an invasion any time soon because we don’t have the people. I also don’t think it’s impossible something will happen.
Does that sentence really require an “if?”
I know where you’re coming from, but on the other hand, whores would know and that’s a tu quoque.
Then obviously any nation that has ever participated in an armed conflict can never lecture Israel even if Israel admits the summary executions and crimes against humanity as that would be hypocritical :rolleyes: Europeans saw what violence/human rights violations/segregation all lead to and learned their lessons (after a number of tries). Israelis also saw the same examples, but it hasn’t really sunk in yet. When Europe criticizes Israel its more like a recovered drug addict trying to help another kick the habit, you should appreciate it rather then get all worked up.
Okay, so it appears that people believe the pilots would not be putting their lives at risk very much, and that nuclear missiles (ICBMs) are not accurate enough.
Apparently, Israel is trying to prevent the Russians from selling missiles to the Syrians, since the IAF frequently overfly Syria to keep tabs on the bad guys there.
I mean “deciding to wage war to maintain your power position is just good ole fashioned realism” not the Bush doctrine. The Bush doctrine only describes U.S. actions.
Maybe the same way that a debacle with thousands of dead civilians did.
Haliburton has begun to withdraw from Iran. Apparently they don’t think people will buy the idea that they are a Cayman company rather than an American one.
It looks like Iran is saying it will either receive help from the world community in developing nuclear technology, or it will develop its own nuclear program, which will include nuclear weapons.
Obviously, Western nations fear that they would be playing a fool’s gambit if they gave Iran nuclear technology because Iran could easily turn that technology from peaceful purposes to developing nuclear weapons.
To respond to the main point of the OP rather than the “sub-thread” –
:eek:
What the fuck?!
You don’t really believe, do you, that anybody in the Israeli Defense Ministry is seriously weighing this as an option, or ever would? It would mean “collateral damage” of thousands, possibly millions, of Iranian civilians who just happen to live near the nuclear facilities. It would do unpredictable but certainly massive damage to the regional environment – and with the Earth turning the direction it does, Israel is more or less downwind from Iran. (Europe took a lot of nuclear fallout from Chernobyl, and that was just a power-plant meltdown.) And it would end in yet another war between Israel and all of its neighbors – and this time Israel would lose – even if it still held some nukes in reserve, it would lose – and no sane person would shed a tear for its extermination. That’s the best-case scenario. Worst-case scenario is a general war between the U.S. and Israel (and fuck, maybe even Europe) on one side and the whole Islamic world on the other. “Many megadeaths, no blame.”
If this is how the western nations feel, then they need to do the honest thing, and pull out of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. They are not living up to their end of the bargain.
How not? Under the NPT, five and only five countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons: The U.S., UK, France, Russia and China. Inda, Pakistan and Israel are not signatories – but Iran is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_non-proliferation_treaty
I don’t understand, Squink. How does the Western world’s caution in providing other countries the means to make nuclear weapons amount to “not living up to their end of the bargain” on the non-proliferation treaty?
In fact, it’s my understanding that providing Iran with such technology would go against the NPT, especially since Iran has “secretly” obtained materials for developing nuclear power and indicated that they oppose IAEA inspections and oversight (emphasis added):
The IAEA is thus far lacking evidence that Iran is engaged in a weapons program. The nuclear-weapon states (that’s us) have agreed not to hamper peaceful nuclear development. We are hampering Iran’s development of peaceful nuclear capabilities.
We’re not hampering peaceful nuclear development. We’re ensuring that Iran is developing peaceful nuclear power and not nuclear weapons, as specified in the NPT:
We are threatening to bomb or invade if they don’t forsake enrichment.
-not just weapons grade enrichment, any enrichment.
Having had one reactor blown to kingdom come, Iran’s reticence in revealing details of its program to everyone’s immediate satisfaction is understandable; particularly when US officials like John Bolton spread baseless lies about Iranian nuke plans.
Yes you are. And that’s just one example. There are countless others where the U.S. has stymied technological sales to Iran in regards to nuclear energy. If all you were doing was making sure they didn’t cross the line into weapons manufacturing, then you would have been calling for UN inspectors to go in and verify instead of outright sanctioning firms for working with Iran.
Iran was found to be in violation of it’s disclosure obligations in regards to some sites. But the U.S. has been sanctioning Russia and China to delay the plant at Bushehr which had been under UN supervision and had been verified to be for peaceful energy purposes (itself being a violation of the NPT as Squink correctly pointed out).
Well sure. We’ve got to get them into full cooperation with the IAEA, but spreading wild stories and threatening to bomb them isn’t the way to do that, or to uphold our side of the NNPT.
Europe has offered the Iranians to replace their older technology heavy-water generator, which can be used to create the material used in nuclear weapons, with a more modern and efficient nuclear generator, but which can not be used for nuclear weapon production. For free. Iran has declined all this. One has to be more than a little naïve not to see what their ambitions are.
I was offered a free iPod this morning. I said no too.
What were the precise terms of the deal?
What assurances did Europe offer that its free reactor-giveaway was less of a sham than the free reactor-giveaway offered to North Korea?
Iran has to get ten other countries to sign up to get a new reactor before it gets one.
Alargeblast has been reported near the reactor in question. Details sketchy on whether or not there actually was a blast and where it came from (I’m going to discount the possibility of an air strike–only two countries would seriously think about it, and I don’t see either Israel or the US hitting a nuclear reactor at this point in time.) The dropped fuel-tank sounds pretty plausible if there was indeed an explosion.
