POL - Cheney: Iran faces consequences

[rexallllsc]

hxxp://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-03-07T162337Z_01_N07147141_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN-USA.xml&rpc=22

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons and faces "meaningful consequences" if it persists in defying the international community, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Tuesday.

Cheney, speaking to the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, also reaffirmed that the United States was keeping all options on the table -- including military force -- in its determination to prevent Iran from developing nuclear arms.

"The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course the international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences," Cheney said.

Cheney spoke as the 35-nation International Atomic Energy Agency governing board was meeting in Vienna to decide its next steps on Iran.

"For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table. ... We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," Cheney said.

At what point do we start worrying about the best interests of the USA, not the best interests of Israel?

[PSUColonel]

Sorry there Chief, but Iran not obtaining nukes IS in the best interest of the U.S., if you don't think so, you're nuts.

[dixieflatline]

Not trying to defend Cheney et all here but I think it would be pretty bad for the US if Iran had nuclear weapons. I think this is a really bad spot for the US to be placed in and I really am not too fond of any of the options I have seen except for Russia giving Iran non weapons grade uranium which, it appears, they just aren't interested in.

[rexallllsc]

Sorry there Chief, but Iran not obtaining nukes IS in the best interest of the U.S., if you don't think so, you're nuts.

Bush categorized Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as the "Axis of Evil" - what do you expect them to do? We saw how Iraq was handled. Then in the face of Bush sabre-rattling NK ramped up their program, and whattya know, we backed off.

I'd like to see what happens when we try and stop them and they retaliate.

[astrosfan64]

If we go into IRAN we can't do it the same as Iraq. We must go in annihilate. Make no mistake, this is turning into a holy war. I'm not a christian or muslim and wish you guys would get your crap together and stop screwing with the rest of the world. But, if I have to choose sides, I'll take the christians side.

We can not be worried about collateral damage in the case of Iran. Our military is spread thin and with our reserves crying a river, we do not have the manpower to do this any other way. You must go into Iran and pummel them.

I really hope there is a way out of this, but I just do see anyway of preventing the eventual show down.

[rexallllsc]

If we go into IRAN we can't do it the same as Iraq. We must go in annihilate. Make no mistake, this is turning into a holy war. I'm not a christian or muslim and wish you guys would get your crap together and stop screwing with the rest of the world. But, if I have to choose sides, I'll take the christians side.

We can not be worried about collateral damage in the case of Iran. Our military is spread thin and with our reserves crying a river, we do not have the manpower to do this any other way. You must go into Iran and pummel them.

I really hope there is a way out of this, but I just do see anyway of preventing the eventual show down.

Good luck.

hxxp://www.airliners.net/open.file/0593676/L/

I'm guessing they'd put up a bit more of a fight and then let the troops in Iraq have it as well.

[Klinglerware]

Our military is spread thin and with our reserves crying a river, we do not have the manpower to do this any other way. You must go into Iran and pummel them.


Uh, how do you reconcile the second sentence with the first sentence?

[astrosfan64]

Uh, how do you reconcile the second sentence with the first sentence?

I don't understand what you mean? The reason we required so much manpower in Iraq was the way we fought the war and continue to occupy the area.

If we do not worry about killing civilians, we can employ our full technological advantages.

[PSUColonel]

If we go into IRAN we can't do it the same as Iraq. We must go in annihilate. Make no mistake, this is turning into a holy war. I'm not a christian or muslim and wish you guys would get your crap together and stop screwing with the rest of the world. But, if I have to choose sides, I'll take the christians side.

We can not be worried about collateral damage in the case of Iran. Our military is spread thin and with our reserves crying a river, we do not have the manpower to do this any other way. You must go into Iran and pummel them.

I really hope there is a way out of this, but I just do see anyway of preventing the eventual show down.


I agree. In fact I agreed with the reasoning for going into Iraq, however the war strategy was flawed. I'm sorry to say, we need to go back to the way we used to do things...show everyone who's boss. In other words, air superiority and unfortunately that means many casulties.

[astrosfan64]

I'm not saying we should use Nukes.

But, if you look at Japan at the end of WW2 the fact that we simply bombed them into submission, saved 1000's of lives and required much less manpower.

[CamEdwards]

I don't understand what you mean? The reason we required so much manpower in Iraq was the way we fought the war and continue to occupy the area.

If we do not worry about killing civilians, we can employ our full technological advantages.

Bomb them into the stone age, then? The most effective way to do that would be to use nuclear weapons, which would be kind of odd, in that we'd be nuking a country to avoid them aquiring nukes. Fitting, in a way, but still odd.

No, Iran is a real mess. I'm not sure how this will be resolved, but I don't think it will be good.

[rexallllsc]

If we do not worry about killing civilians, we can employ our full technological advantages.

Hearts and minds!

[astrosfan64]

Hearts and minds!


You guys are missing the point here. This is becoming a Holy War. Even if the US does not wish to make it one, Iran does.

To Cam Edwards, I thought there were convential bombs now that were as strong as the ones dropped in Japan. I believe we tested some in the Ocean a few years back didn't we?

[SFL Cat]

Iran's Pres wants the nukes so he can force the apocalypse to occur -- his idea of the confrontation between good (Islam) and evil (us = infidels). According to Shia Muslim prophecy, a third of the world's population will be killed. Then, and only then will the mystical 12th imam return to rule and bring peace on earth.

[Klinglerware]

Air power usually cannot win wars on their own. A decent book that describes some of the limitations of strategic bombing as a singular strategy is Robert Pape's Bombing To Win.

Nukes are of course an exception, but even then what happens next? The majority of policy makers and academics believe that nuclear weapons are primarily deterrents never to be used, and I agree with that view. I also believe that a unilateral nuclear attack by the United States would be counter-productive due to the pariah rogue-state status we will receive in the aftermath.

However, there is a significant minority who believe that nuclear wars are both fightable and survivable. Let's take this position for a moment: US launches nuclear strikes in Iran. According to the "nuclear wars are fightable" camp, the strikes won't be as bad as the doomsayers are making it out to be. The implication is that enough people and infrastructure will still survive the aftermath, thus the US will still need to occupy Iran, or an exploitable political vaccuum will result. Of course, Iran is 3-4 times the size of Iraq both in terms of land and population--the US does not have the resources to mount a succesful large scale occupation concurrent with the Iraqi occupation.

[rexallllsc]

If we do not worry about killing civilians, we can employ our full technological advantages.

BTW, let me know how you think Iran would react to that situation. For some reason, I don't think they would would just sit back and take it.

[astrosfan64]

Well yes and no. If the US goes to war in Iran, I doubt very seriously it will do so alone.

France, yes France will help us this time. In fact I would imagine a large segment of Europe will support the US in this endevour. The recent rioting of Muslims throughout the world aren't making Western Powers more secure. France's rioting months back didn't do anything to help their stance on Muslims.

Europe is getting fed up with the Muslims and eventually this is going to come to a head. Iran may be the battle ground that this takes place.

The amazing thing here is this. Not one nation in the world that has any "Power" is muslim based. The religion along with its different sects prevents cooperation.

[rexallllsc]

Iran's Pres wants the nukes so he can force the apocalypse to occur -- his idea of the confrontation between good (Islam) and evil (us = infidels). According to Shia Muslim prophecy, a third of the world's population will be killed. Then, and only then will the mystical 12th imam return to rule and bring peace on earth.

Yeah, George Bush doesn't believe in any of that Armageddon stuff!

[flere-imsaho]

All you draft age kids better get ready....

[SFL Cat]

Yeah, George Bush doesn't believe in any of that Armageddon stuff!

Don't know what he believes about that. Not all Christians agree on apocalyptic prophecy. However, regardless of what he believes, I don't see him basing US nuclear strategy on those beliefs. Based on his statements, the Iranian president seems to be willing to do so.

[astrosfan64]

BTW, let me know how you think Iran would react to that situation. For some reason, I don't think they would would just sit back and take it.

It really wouldn't matter. Iran could not stand up to us in a tradditional battle. Our tanks shoot farther, our planes are faster, our weapons are stronger, our troops are better trained etc... etc.. etc...

Iran and Iraq fought for 7 or 8 years? to a stalemate. We destroyed Iraq in a matter of a month both times. The problem comes with occupying the area or fighting urban combat. Which in this case we would simply not do.

The only chance Iran would have it a Nuke, which is why we can not let them have one.

[flere-imsaho]

Iran and Iraq fought for 7 or 8 years? to a stalemate. We destroyed Iraq in a matter of a month both times. The problem comes with occupying the area or fighting urban combat. Which in this case we would simply not do.

So presumably there will be no anti-American insurgency in Iran after we conquer them?

Honestly, listen to yourself.

[flere-imsaho]

Don't know what he believes about that. Not all Christians agree on apocalyptic prophecy. However, regardless of what he believes, I don't see him basing US nuclear strategy on those beliefs.

Oh?

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y)

Bush believes he was called by God to lead the nation at this time, says Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a close friend who talks with Bush every day. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-01-bush-cover_x.htm)

[Greyroofoo]

So what happens after we pummel Iran? Does the world suddenly turn into a magical and happy place?

[astrosfan64]

So presumably there will be no anti-American insurgency in Iran after we conquer them?

Honestly, listen to yourself.


No, there will be no Iran left.

[astrosfan64]

Oh?

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y)

Bush believes he was called by God to lead the nation at this time, says Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a close friend who talks with Bush every day. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-01-bush-cover_x.htm)


Like I said, I think both sides are nutz. But at least the christians have learned throughout the years that it isn't a good idea to kill people in the name of god. The muslims still haven't learned that.

[Klinglerware]

So what happens after we pummel Iran? Does the world suddenly turn into a magical and happy place?

No, but our economy will collapse under the weight of sanctions...

[rexallllsc]

It really wouldn't matter. Iran could not stand up to us in a tradditional battle. Our tanks shoot farther, our planes are faster, our weapons are stronger, our troops are better trained etc... etc.. etc...


You don't think Iran would even get off a shot? Kinda naive, IMO.

[rexallllsc]

Like I said, I think both sides are nutz. But at least the christians have learned throughout the years that it isn't a good idea to kill people in the name of god. The muslims still haven't learned that.

Yet we keep picking fights with them...

[rexallllsc]

No, there will be no Iran left.

So you think we would nuke Iran out of existence because the want to defend themselves from the US?

[Daimyo]

So we're worried that Iran is developing the potential ability to kill mass amounts of civilians and your proposed reponse is to go in and kill mass amounts of civilians to prevent that from happening? Just because we don't use nukes to do it doesn't make it any better.

[astrosfan64]

So we're worried that Iran is developing the potential ability to kill mass amounts of civilians and your proposed reponse is to go in and kill mass amounts of civilians to prevent that from happening? Just because we don't use nukes to do it doesn't make it any better.


Have a nice discussion guys this is going no where. Their entire existance is to kill the infidels. If you can't "get" that, I'm not going to bother arguing with you.

I think this is all pretty silly. I don't get it at all from a religous stand point.

Iran would get a shot off and some of our people would die? How many, I dont' know maybe 1k or 2k? TOPS!

I mean in the grand scheme of things, that is a very low number. Everyone is bitching about how many people we've lost in Iraq. What is the number at? 2000 ish?

That isn't squat in the grand scheme of things. Look at Vietnam, WW2, WW1 the Cival War. Heck, more people were probably murdered last year in the United States.

If the defense of our nation were left up to people like you rexalllsc and Flere back in WW2 era, we would be speaking German right now.

[astrosfan64]

So we're worried that Iran is developing the potential ability to kill mass amounts of civilians and your proposed reponse is to go in and kill mass amounts of civilians to prevent that from happening? Just because we don't use nukes to do it doesn't make it any better.

There are no civilians in Iran. Their nation is a nation of Islam. In being such, they are at war with Western society.

[rexallllsc]

I mean in the grand scheme of things, that is a very low number. Everyone is bitching about how many people we've lost in Iraq. What is the number at? 2000 ish?

Man. I can't believe you went there.

That isn't squat in the grand scheme of things. Look at Vietnam, WW2, WW1 the Cival War. Heck, more people were probably murdered last year in the United States.

Different time, different tech.

If the defense of our nation were left up to people like you rexalllsc and Flare back in WW2 era, we would be speaking German right now.

Call me when Iran invades it's neighbors and you might have a point.

[dixieflatline]

Just thought I would add this here. From CNN:

Rumsfeld claimed Iran was sending "Iranian Quds-force type people," or a division of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, into Iraq.

"They're currently putting people into Iraq to do things that are harmful to the future of Iraq," he said. "And we know it. And it is something that they, I think, will look back on as having been an error in judgment. "

Rumsfeld said he suspected Iran was backing the military forces. Revolutionary Guard-type forces don't "go milling around willy-nilly, one would think," he said.

General Pace added the U.S. military believes some of the homemade bombs used in Iraq "are traceable back to Iran."

I had a clear opinion on what should be done before the Iraq war but to me this issue is 100 times more complex. I just don't see this turning out well for anyone.

[st.cronin]

rexall do you think Iran should have nuclear weapons?

[clintl]

We do one bit of economic leverage that would hurt us, too, but would hurt Iran more. Iran has lots of oil, but very little oil refiing capacity. It imports most of its gasoline. We can cut off its supply and wreck its economy.

[rexallllsc]

I had a clear opinion on what should be done before the Iraq war but to me this issue is 100 times more complex. I just don't see this turning out well for anyone.

If GW hadn't blown all of his "political capital" (his words) he might have some backing around the world re: handling Iran tougher. At this point, no one wants to side with him, and no one wants to back him...and for good reason.

[clintl]

His deal with India last week, which threw into the trashcan decades of bipartisan and international and nuclear policy, isn't going to help his credibility and political capital, either.

[rexallllsc]

rexall do you think Iran should have nuclear weapons?

It worries me and for my own sake I wish they didn't, but I can see why they're developing them. If another country (the US in this instance) targeted me by name I would do whatever I could to protect myself.

[rexallllsc]

His deal with India last week, which threw into the trashcan decades of bipartisan and international and nuclear policy, isn't going to help his credibility and political capital, either.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? What's that?

[rexallllsc]

We do one bit of economic leverage that would hurt us, too, but would hurt Iran more. Iran has lots of oil, but very little oil refiing capacity. It imports most of its gasoline. We can cut off its supply and wreck its economy.

I just fear conflict with Iran ending badly. I don't doubt that they would strike us - with Terrorist tactics if necessary. Now THAT would kill our economy.

[clintl]

I just fear conflict with Iran ending badly. I don't doubt that they would strike us - with Terrorist tactics if necessary. Now THAT would kill our economy.

The really sad thing is that during the Khatami presidency in Iran, there was a real opportunity to engage Iran and avoid this altogether. There was a definite pro-Western movement developing among younger Iranians that should have been nurtured and encouraged.

[st.cronin]

It worries me and for my own sake I wish they didn't, but I can see why they're developing them. If another country (the US in this instance) targeted me by name I would do whatever I could to protect myself.

Re-phrasing: Would you rather the US back off, and let them develop nukes?

[rexallllsc]

Re-phrasing: Would you rather the US back off, and let them develop nukes?

Yes. If Israel is worried, they can handle it.

However, my thoughts are that we should exit the entire region, though. The place is a Hornet's nest.

[st.cronin]

Yes. If Israel is worried, they can handle it.

However, my thoughts are that we should exit the entire region, though. The place is a Hornet's nest.

gotcha

you're still Anti-Israel

[rexallllsc]

gotcha

you're still Anti-Israel

That looks like something a neo-con talk-radio host would say.

I believe that the interests of the American people an Israel differ a bit. That is not about "anti-Isreal" but "pro-US"!

[st.cronin]

That looks like something a neo-con talk-radio host would say.

I believe that the interests of the American people an Israel differ a bit. That is not about "anti-Isreal" but "pro-US"!

See, but you don't think they differ - you already said it's not in the US best interests for Iran to acquire nukes. So Israel's and the US's interests, here, are identical. Yet you think we should leave Israel to fend for itself. The only way that begins to make sense in my mind is if you are, for some reason, anti-Israel.

Also, you do realize that the US is hardly leading the charge on this particular topic?

[astrosfan64]

See, but you don't think they differ - you already said it's not in the US best interests for Iran to acquire nukes. So Israel's and the US's interests, here, are identical. Yet you think we should leave Israel to fend for itself. The only way that begins to make sense in my mind is if you are, for some reason, anti-Israel.

Also, you do realize that the US is hardly leading the charge on this particular topic?

Agreed as I mentioned above. I believe that France of all nations would probably spearhead this charge, along with the majority of Europe. Europe in case you haven't noticed is getting pretty tired of the Muslim "ideals".

Even Russia and China have been banging the gong that Iran with Nukes is a bad idea.

[Dutch]

Yes. If Israel is worried, they can handle it.

However, my thoughts are that we should exit the entire region, though. The place is a Hornet's nest.
The good news for you is that this will certainly drag out until Hillary is in charge. Then we will leave the poor Iranians alone and no doubt America will have a 1,000 years of peace and security.

[Bubba Wheels]

Murtha was on Hardball tonight. He says 1. The Army is broke and depleted 2. Equipment is worn-out 3. Enlistments are down 4. Everybody knows the last 3 so we can't 'push anyone around' anymore. 5. Iraq is in civil war, not going to be.

[Klinglerware]

Agreed as I mentioned above. I believe that France of all nations would probably spearhead this charge, along with the majority of Europe. Europe in case you haven't noticed is getting pretty tired of the Muslim "ideals".

Even Russia and China have been banging the gong that Iran with Nukes is a bad idea.

"Ideas", while having some significance to international politics, is usually trumped by "interests". In this case, Europe, while finding Iranian political ideals noxious, will try their damnedest to not let that get in the way of their economic relations. Even if they were to "spearhead this charge", the Europeans have very little long-range power projection capability to do much.

Russia and China are banging no gongs here, they are pushing the compromise now because they don't want to have to veto a security council resolution later (which I think is not that far-fetched). The large players on the Asian continent (China, India, and Japan) are dependent on Iranian oil. It is very unlikely that even Japan will want to rock the boat very much on this issue. Finally, much like the Chinese, the Russians have very strong economic relations with Teheran--Russia will have very much to lose in the event of multi-lateral sanctions. That is why they are very keen on resolving the standoff before it escalates...

[BYU 14]

Murtha was on Hardball tonight. He says 1. The Army is broke and depleted 2. Equipment is worn-out 3. Enlistments are down 4. Everybody knows the last 3 so we can't 'push anyone around' anymore. 5. Iraq is in civil war, not going to be.

We are in NO position to get involved in any additional long term conflicts for the reasons stated above, and quite frankly there has to be a point where the US stops trying to be Nanny to the rest of the World.

There is plenty here at home that needs the resources and attention we are spreading way too thin everywhere else.

[clintl]

2. Equipment is worn-out

An article I read over the weekend mentioned a Southern California law enforcement agency donating some of its body armor to a unit in Iraq because the stuff it has is better than what the Pentagon is issuing.

[rexallllsc]

Murtha was on Hardball tonight. He says 1. The Army is broke and depleted 2. Equipment is worn-out 3. Enlistments are down 4. Everybody knows the last 3 so we can't 'push anyone around' anymore. 5. Iraq is in civil war, not going to be.

Shocked. Shocked I tell you!

People don't want to fight wars based on deceit.

[rexallllsc]

The good news for you is that this will certainly drag out until Hillary is in charge. Then we will leave the poor Iranians alone and no doubt America will have a 1,000 years of peace and security.

Dutch, you make the mistake in believing that I'm a Democrat and/or a Hillary supporter.

[rexallllsc]

See, but you don't think they differ - you already said it's not in the US best interests for Iran to acquire nukes. So Israel's and the US's interests, here, are identical. Yet you think we should leave Israel to fend for itself. The only way that begins to make sense in my mind is if you are, for some reason, anti-Israel.

Also, you do realize that the US is hardly leading the charge on this particular topic?


I'm sure Russia, China, and the UK don't want Iran to have nukes, either.

$10 says if Iran proceeds none of them invade.

Just a guess.

[Dutch]

Dutch, you make the mistake in believing that I'm a Democrat and/or a Hillary supporter.
"It's not who you are on the inside, it's what you say that defines you." Or something like that. :)

[RendeR]

Hypothetical:

What happens to Isreal if the United States withdraws its econimic, military and political support tomorrow?

Followup:

If the result above is the utter elimination of Isreal as a world state, through whatever means, what happens to the middle east?


Discuss.

[Buccaneer]

Discuss.
No.



:)

[rexallllsc]

"It's not who you are on the inside, it's what you say that defines you." Or something like that. :)

Is that about Hillary or me? ;)

[RendeR]

No.



:)
Why? I'm seriously curious to see where things would go if we stop pandering to Isreal? I have no qualms admitting that I dislike their politics entirely. I have serious problems with our constant and unwavering support of them, generally to our detriment.

I want to hear other's opinions on what they think might become of the middle east if we stopped hand holding the one major state that is the focus of the problems in that region.

My opnions TOTALLY aside, what would happen?

[st.cronin]

To withdraw all support for Israel is to take Hamas' position that Israel has no right to exist.

[Bubba Wheels]

Well, that's always a good global strategy. Cut your ties to your real friends and allies while funneling money and arms to those who would like to kill you. Brilliant.

[ISiddiqui]

I liked astrofan better when he was saying Shawn Alexander was overrated. He was just as crazy, but at least that position wasn't scary.

What will happen with Iran is the EXACT same thing that happened with North Korea. We'll talk big, but in the end do nothing. Iran is far more powerful than Iraq and mountainous to boot. And guess what, I doubt Iran will launch anything at anyone. For all its rhetoric against Israel and Sunni states, it hasn't launched an invasion against anyone (the Iran-Iraq War was started by Iraq). And recall, Iran was the country that even though called the US "The Great Satan" was willing to trade hostages for arms with the US.

I find Iran to be more bark than bite.

[Dutch]

I'm seriously curious to see where things would go if we stop pandering to Isreal?


I personally am not interested in seeing American soldiers fight for Israel.

But Israel is a friend of the USA, just like England, Germany, France, and Japan are. At the end of the day, you don't abandon your friends who are being picked on by the local bully in hopes that the bully will in turn leave you alone.

Thinking that allowing terror groups to bully America = Peace is false hope. Noble. Thoughtful even. But unrealistic. We should at least know that by now.

[st.cronin]

I liked astrofan better when he was saying Shawn Alexander was overrated. He was just as crazy, but at least that position wasn't scary.

What will happen with Iran is the EXACT same thing that happened with North Korea. We'll talk big, but in the end do nothing. Iran is far more powerful than Iraq and mountainous to boot. And guess what, I doubt Iran will launch anything at anyone. For all its rhetoric against Israel and Sunni states, it hasn't launched an invasion against anyone (the Iran-Iraq War was started by Iraq). And recall, Iran was the country that even though called the US "The Great Satan" was willing to trade hostages for arms with the US.

I find Iran to be more bark than bite.

That seems pretty spot on. I would just worry that this might be like the boy who cried wolf; when there finally is a wolf, will we care?

[ISiddiqui]

At the end of the day, you don't abandon your friends...Isn't that kind of what we are doing to Musharraf? Bush publically said he wasn't getting the same deal that the US gave to India... right in front of his face, with all the Pakistani press there. It seems we basically gave him to the wolves (to explain whats the point of being the US's friend if Pakistan still gets screwed over and India gains)

[ISiddiqui]

That seems pretty spot on. I would just worry that this might be like the boy who cried wolf; when there finally is a wolf, will we care?Good point... on this issue of nuclear proliferation, I think we may care a little, but just not be able to do anything about it.

[Dutch]

Isn't that kind of what we are doing to Musharraf? Bush publically said he wasn't getting the same deal that the US gave to India... right in front of his face, with all the Pakistani press there. It seems we basically gave him to the wolves (to explain whats the point of being the US's friend if Pakistan still gets screwed over and India gains)
:confused:

[clintl]

Well, I don't think Musharraf could have expected the India deal after Pakistan's chief nuclear scientist helped North Korea a few years ago. India has been better behaved with the technology. But India should never have been given the deal, either.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, I don't think Musharraf could have expected the India deal after Pakistan's chief nuclear scientist helped North Korea a few years ago. India has been better behaved with the technology. But India should never have been given the deal, either.Not saying he should have, but to dog him out on Pakistani national TV in front of everyone... that's just asking to cause trouble for Musharraf and his fragile hold on power.

[clintl]

Not saying he should have, but to dog him out on Pakistani national TV in front of everyone... that's just asking to cause trouble for Musharraf and his fragile hold on power.

I agree with that completely. I'm not sure there was a single moment on that whole trip when Bush did something that was actually in the interests of the US (and the rest of the world, for that matter).

[Dutch]

I agree with that completely. I'm not sure there was a single moment on that whole trip when Bush did something that was actually in the interests of the US (and the rest of the world, for that matter).
That holds a lot of weight. I wouldn't expect you to be able to mention anything that Bush has done that's been helpful to anyone. :)

[astrosfan64]

You guys are seriously crazy.

What makes you think Iran was tougher then Iraq? They are pretty much a wash. Neither nation would be in the top 10 of military powers.
hmmm.....

The US Army is broke? Umm ok.... We are depleted in terms of manpower? WE ONLY LOST 2K people in IRAQ. You guys seriously underestimate the power of the United States.

Israel has taken on the whole region how many times and won?


1. United States 370,700,000,000 $
2. China 60,000,000,000 $
3. France 45,238,100,000 $
4. United Kingdom 42,836,500,000 $
5. Japan 42,488,100,000 $
6. Germany 35,063,000,000 $
7. Italy 28,182,800,000 $
8. Saudi Arabia 18,000,000,000 $
9. Korea, South 14,522,000,000 $
10. Australia 14,120,100,000 $
11. India 14,018,800,000 $
12. Turkey 12,155,000,000 $
13. Brazil 10,439,400,000 $
14. Spain 9,906,500,000 $
15. Canada 9,801,700,000 $
16. Israel 9,110,000,000 $
17. Netherlands 8,044,400,000 $
18. Taiwan 7,611,700,000 $
19. Greece 7,288,900,000 $
20. Korea, North 5,217,400,000 $
21. Mexico 5,168,300,000 $
22. Singapore 4,470,000,000 $
23. Sweden 4,395,000,000 $
24. Argentina 4,300,000,000 $
25. Iran 4,300,000,000 $


List of money spent on the military? Yeah, we are broke. Yeah, we don't have any technology.

[ISiddiqui]

What makes you think Iran was tougher then Iraq?Land mass and geography. Oh, and population.

[rexallllsc]

To withdraw all support for Israel is to take Hamas' position that Israel has no right to exist.

That makes no sense. Stopping the blind support of a country isn't the same thing as saying they have no right to exist. I don't know why you keep repeating that.

[Mustang]

Land mass and geography. Oh, and population.

Oh.. don't forget

Iran..

Iran so far away.

[flere-imsaho]

Like I said, I think both sides are nutz. But at least the christians have learned throughout the years that it isn't a good idea to kill people in the name of god. The muslims still haven't learned that.

Since you grossly overgeneralize muslims I'd like to point out that there are still plenty of Christians who believe in killing in the name of God.

[flere-imsaho]

Have a nice discussion guys this is going no where. Their entire existance is to kill the infidels. If you can't "get" that, I'm not going to bother arguing with you.

So your argument is that the goal of all muslims is to kill all non-muslims? Do you even know any muslims?

I think this is all pretty silly. I don't get it at all from a religous stand point.

Ah, so true.

Iran would get a shot off and some of our people would die? How many, I dont' know maybe 1k or 2k? TOPS!

I ask again, are you assuming there would be no armed resistance to the resulting U.S. occupation?

[flere-imsaho]

Re-phrasing: Would you rather the US back off, and let them develop nukes?

In the broad scheme of things, I fail to see the difference between them having nukes and Pakistan having nukes. How about we develop a consistent foreign policy with regard to non-proliferation first?

[flere-imsaho]

If the defense of our nation were left up to people like you rexalllsc and Flere back in WW2 era, we would be speaking German right now.

Fuck you, you piece of shit.

My brother is over there, right now, risking his life for principles with which neither he nor I agree but you espouse, while you comfortably sit on your ass and spout off.

I'm married to a Jew, which, as you may or may not remember, is a race that suffered horribly in WWII.

My remaining Polish relatives who lived through that era still deal with the memories of German occupation.

Why don't you just fuck off and die.

[Ryche]

In the grand scheme of things, it seems rather odd for all of these countries that have nuclear weapons to be telling other countries they do not have the right to have them.

[fantastic flying froggies]

In the grand scheme of things, it seems rather odd for all of these countries that have nuclear weapons to be telling other countries they do not have the right to have them.
My thoughts exactly.

[astrosfan64]

So your argument is that the goal of all muslims is to kill all non-muslims? Do you even know any muslims?



Ah, so true.



I ask again, are you assuming there would be no armed resistance to the resulting U.S. occupation?


THERE would be no Iran after we were done. What occupation? For the same reason we don't need to occupy countries in Africa.

Yes, a very friend of mine is a Muslim. He lives in the US and was raised here. I'm speaking of the general population of Iran. The people burning US flags and screaming death to the infidels. You know in government sponsered demonstrations. The same nation that basicly stated they will wipe Israel off the map.

[Telle]

Oh.. don't forget

Iran..

Iran so far away.

But it does border both Iraq and Afghanistan.. so we'd at least be keeping things relatively together. Not that that's a huge plus..

Personally, this whole situation scares the shit out of me. I'm hoping it goes the way of North Korea.. a whole bunch of sabre rattling and nothing really coming of it. But I have a bad feeling that Bush has an itchy trigger finger and actually wants to take on Iran.

[Telle]

THERE would be no Iran after we were done. What occupation? For the same reason we don't need to occupy countries in Africa.

Oh you mean all those countries in Africa in complete chaos being run by warlords that have countless people dying from famine and disease daily? Which also tend to be fertile ground for terrorists to set up camp since there's no government to prevent them from doing so? This is your idea of a good outcome?

[astrosfan64]

Fuck you, you piece of shit.

My brother is over there, right now, risking his life for principles with which neither he nor I agree but you espouse, while you comfortably sit on your ass and spout off.

I'm married to a Jew, which, as you may or may not remember, is a race that suffered horribly in WWII.

My remaining Polish relatives who lived through that era still deal with the memories of German occupation.

Why don't you just fuck off and die.

Listen, you don't need to goto the whole name calling, fuck off and die shit.

My family is polish and both of my grand parents fought in WW2. My uncle and father both servered in the military and so did my brothers. In fact, I'm the only person in my family who has not served.

My best friend is a captain with military intellegence. He is a marine and is quite familiar with what is going on over there. He has taught classes on Urban combat and is highly qualified to speak on the issue.

Is your brother a reservist? Is he the guy who signed up for free money then got called up to performed his duty?

[astrosfan64]

----- News Flash -----

If we were going to invade Iran, where would we launch from? Umm that would be Afganistan and Iraq.... yeah spread to thin.

[Klinglerware]

THERE would be no Iran after we were done. What occupation? For the same reason we don't need to occupy countries in Africa.

Yes, a very friend of mine is a Muslim. He lives in the US and was raised here. I'm speaking of the general population of Iran. The people burning US flags and screaming death to the infidels. You know in government sponsered demonstrations. The same nation that basicly stated they will wipe Israel off the map.

Wow, just wow. Not doing much reading about Iran lately? Most Iranians do not have as extreme a view of Islam as most of those in power--much like most Americans consider themselves Christians yet are not as extreme politically as the American Christian fundamentalists who have influence on government policy. In fact, you still see quite a bit of syncretization of a lot of pre-Islamic (Zoroastrian, etc) religious practices on the part of the many of the population.

The majority of Iranians do not particularly like their theocratic government especially because the majority of Iranians are not as religious as you may think. The government has been bending on minor stuff in the past decade like access to luxury goods, satellite TV, etc in their attempt to placate the population. I'm not sure if that will really work, but it is an indication that the government is afraid of popular revolution.

Genocide as a policy sounds a little extreme here, and is likely to be counter-productive...

[Klinglerware]

Dola--

Iran is larger than Alaska, with the population larger than France. Aside from the questionable power-projection capability, if the manpower on the ground in Iraq is barely adequate to occupy that country, how do you think we will muster the manpower to occupy a country 4 times the size of Iraq concurrently?

[flere-imsaho]

Listen, you don't need to goto the whole name calling, fuck off and die shit.

And you didn't need to suggest I'd be a Nazi sympathizer.

Is your brother a reservist? Is he the guy who signed up for free money then got called up to performed his duty?

My brother is a member of the U.S. Army, stationed in Ar-Ramadi in one of the most violent parts of Iraq. In performing his duty my brother has been blown out of his Humvee, been attacked by a vanload of AK-47-wielding insurgents and watched his good friend and lieutenant get gunned down by a sniper.

What's your contribution to the war effort? Jacking off to Fox News?

[st.cronin]

That makes no sense. Stopping the blind support of a country isn't the same thing as saying they have no right to exist. I don't know why you keep repeating that.

Our support is predicated on the idea that Israel has a right to exist, and really doesn't extend any further than that. We have not supported their settlements, and praised Israel when they announced that they were abandoning them. Our stance has been that Israel has a right to exist, not a right to regional hegemony.

Or, to put it another way, if our support for Israel does not equate with saying they have a right to exist, what do you say it equates to?

[st.cronin]

In the broad scheme of things, I fail to see the difference between them having nukes and Pakistan having nukes. How about we develop a consistent foreign policy with regard to non-proliferation first?

I agree. But, didn't we just say that Pakistan can't have nukes? Maybe you meant to say India. Either way, I more or less agree.

[flere-imsaho]

I agree. But, didn't we just say that Pakistan can't have nukes? Maybe you meant to say India. Either way, I more or less agree.

With regard to Pakistan, as I said in the other thread, actions speak louder than words and it's only been a year since we sold them those F-16s.

In a way, I think India's a different story. It is, after all, the "world's largest democracy". But basically I think U.S. non-proliferation policy is muddled* and as such arguing that being tough with Iran is part of a consistent approach is a weak argument at best.


*and has been muddled since, oh, 1945.

[RendeR]

Our support is predicated on the idea that Israel has a right to exist, and really doesn't extend any further than that. We have not supported their settlements, and praised Israel when they announced that they were abandoning them. Our stance has been that Israel has a right to exist, not a right to regional hegemony.

Or, to put it another way, if our support for Israel does not equate with saying they have a right to exist, what do you say it equates to?I have a couple issues regarding Israel, first, I don't partake of the whole "right to exist" defense. The nation was created by others, to compensate them for WWII and offer security that such things couldn't happen again. Unfortunately those that did so put them in the worst possible place and said "have fun!" and left them there. I don't belive Israel has any specific "right to exist" so therefore we should not be supporting them based on that.

Secondly, we have supported them for decades, politically, militarily, et al. and what return have we ever gotten from them? They willfully try to expand into territory they were not given, because they somehow feel its their right to do so, they engage in tactics against their nieghbors that at times border on NAZI-ish standards, and they repeatedly have ignored those nations supporting them to stop their militant activities. showing no remorse or contrition for acts they call others out for.

based on the history of their government and their continued lack of respect for their allies, I don't think they should be supported, period. If they want to exist as they are, its their ball. I think we need to cut them loose from the "we've got everyone on our side so we can act like assholes" support lines.

[st.cronin]

I have a couple issues regarding Israel, first, I don't partake of the whole "right to exist" defense. The nation was created by others, to compensate them for WWII and offer security that such things couldn't happen again. Unfortunately those that did so put them in the worst possible place and said "have fun!" and left them there. I don't belive Israel has any specific "right to exist" so therefore we should not be supporting them based on that.

Secondly, we have supported them for decades, politically, militarily, et al. and what return have we ever gotten from them? They willfully try to expand into territory they were not given, because they somehow feel its their right to do so, they engage in tactics against their nieghbors that at times border on NAZI-ish standards, and they repeatedly have ignored those nations supporting them to stop their militant activities. showing no remorse or contrition for acts they call others out for.

based on the history of their government and their continued lack of respect for their allies, I don't think they should be supported, period. If they want to exist as they are, its their ball. I think we need to cut them loose from the "we've got everyone on our side so we can act like assholes" support lines.


One of the reasons Israel is where it is, is because post WW2 the Arab nations in that region lobbied HARD to have Israel put there. (From what I can tell, this was mostly based on economic motives - that the creation of Israel would create jobs.) If the Arab nations had objected, it's quite possible that Israel would be in Africa or Europe.

As for the right to exist, what right to exist does Iran have that Israel does not? Or the US? Or Italy? Or South Korea? Tell me why the US has a right to exist, but Israel does not.

[biological warrior]

I think we need to re examine how we fight wars. The days of Maneuver warfare (for the forseeable future) is over. We need to focus more on 4th Gen Warfare and, re- structure Basic and NCO (ie more emphasis on urban ops instead of old style of BCT.) training on fighting 4GW and other small intensity conflicts. Also the SF community needs to realize that SF training shouldn't be a fraternity and instead focus on training not weeding out the ''weak'' (you get that far, in theory you should be ''high speed.'' For many failure in SF school begins a downward spiral towards an end to their military career.

[Anthony]

To withdraw all support for Israel is to take Hamas' position that Israel has no right to exist.

if a country doesn't have the means to defend itself and to protect it's sovereignity, what gives it the right to exist? and by exist i mean not in the Hamas sense of "to be eliminated", but exist in the sense of self-government. a country need to be able to show it can stand on its own two feet, and doesn't deserve to be aquired by a larger nation.

i don't think we need to prop up Israel. they've shown the ability to do a good job on their own. in the event they were to lose to Hamas or whomever, i don't see a need to come in and restore Israel to power. might=right. so i don't agree that if we don't support Israel we're actually supoprting Hamas' insane beliefs. rather, i think it's more of a sense of given these crazy times we need to worry about ourselves, and those who are able to exist on their own should take the steps to do so.

[RendeR]

One of the reasons Israel is where it is, is because post WW2 the Arab nations in that region lobbied HARD to have Israel put there. (From what I can tell, this was mostly based on economic motives - that the creation of Israel would create jobs.) If the Arab nations had objected, it's quite possible that Israel would be in Africa or Europe.

As for the right to exist, what right to exist does Iran have that Israel does not? Or the US? Or Italy? Or South Korea? Tell me why the US has a right to exist, but Israel does not.
Self creation, self defense to use two simplistic ideals. They were not self created, they depend heavily on support from many other nations for both logistics and defense. If you think they'd last long without the threat of half a dozen world powers coming to their aide I think you are seriously mistaken. So in those terms, no, I do not believe they have a "right" to exist. If they survive, good for them, if they are threatened with absorption by another state, oh well, sucks for them too.

We as a nation shouldn't be playing the "bodyguard" role that we've had for 50 years. No matter the situation, the US has been in the background looming over any and all attempts to subjugate Israel, and I think we have to stop being that shadow.

Israel has used that position to bully and harrass each of its neighbors at different times over the years. Even when attacked, the threat of US or other nations stepping in kept those attacks to a limited level. And to top things off the US has always been the political cattle prod to keep the peace over there. You think the arab nations listened to the peace talks because they wanted to? It had a lot to do with the US being the center piece and having the threat of losing ties with the US that kept the talks and treaties going.

I just see a repeated attitude from Israel that they feel like a "special" state, that they can do whatever they want whenever they want because we're backing them up.

I really believe we need to cut loose the Israeli state and let them thrive or flounder on their own. They haven't given enough back in this relationship to warrent our continued support.

[SFL Cat]

if a country doesn't have the means to defend itself and to protect it's sovereignity, what gives it the right to exist? and by exist i mean not in the Hamas sense of "to be eliminated", but exist in the sense of self-government. a country need to be able to show it can stand on its own two feet, and doesn't deserve to be aquired by a larger nation.

Based on this line of reasoning, I suppose one could justify Israel if they simply wiped out the Palestinians or shipped them off to Saudi Arabia or some other Muslim mecca, and forget all this talk of a Palestinian state.


i don't think we need to prop up Israel. they've shown the ability to do a good job on their own. in the event they were to lose to Hamas or whomever, i don't see a need to come in and restore Israel to power. might=right. so i don't agree that if we don't support Israel we're actually supoprting Hamas' insane beliefs. rather, i think it's more of a sense of given these crazy times we need to worry about ourselves, and those who are able to exist on their own should take the steps to do so.

Other than providing weaponry and supporting them diplomatically, we really haven't propped them up militarily. They've kicked the Arabs' asses quite nicely on their own. Territory grabs? Only after kicking the Arabs' asses in wars that the Arabs initiated -- spoils of war and what not. Since the 90s, we've probably been more responsible for tying their hands and moderating their responses to terrorist attacks. If all the stuff happening now had happened back in the 60s and 70s, we'd be scratching our heads saying, "what happened to all the Palestinians?"

[st.cronin]

Self creation, self defense to use two simplistic ideals. They were not self created, they depend heavily on support from many other nations for both logistics and defense. If you think they'd last long without the threat of half a dozen world powers coming to their aide I think you are seriously mistaken. So in those terms, no, I do not believe they have a "right" to exist. If they survive, good for them, if they are threatened with absorption by another state, oh well, sucks for them too.

We as a nation shouldn't be playing the "bodyguard" role that we've had for 50 years. No matter the situation, the US has been in the background looming over any and all attempts to subjugate Israel, and I think we have to stop being that shadow.

Israel has used that position to bully and harrass each of its neighbors at different times over the years. Even when attacked, the threat of US or other nations stepping in kept those attacks to a limited level. And to top things off the US has always been the political cattle prod to keep the peace over there. You think the arab nations listened to the peace talks because they wanted to? It had a lot to do with the US being the center piece and having the threat of losing ties with the US that kept the talks and treaties going.

I just see a repeated attitude from Israel that they feel like a "special" state, that they can do whatever they want whenever they want because we're backing them up.

I really believe we need to cut loose the Israeli state and let them thrive or flounder on their own. They haven't given enough back in this relationship to warrent our continued support.


So, we were wrong to come to the aid of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in the early 90's? That was a MUCH higher level of support than anything we've provided Israel, ever.

[Klinglerware]

History is littered with states that have come and gone off the world map. No state has an inherent right to exist. If an entity is strong enough to force other states to recognize it or if it manages to receive the backing of a preponderence of strong states--it has the "right" to be a state. If it can't defend itself or can't find anybody to do it for them, then all bets are off.

The United States does not support Israel for ideological reasons, the US supports Israel because of American security interests: the US (originating in Cold War competition) views Israel as a reliable ally in an unstable region. To cement this, the United States has created a sponsor-client relationship with Israel to guarantee Israeli cooperation. And for the most part, it's worked--the Israelis are so dependent on the US, the US wields great influence over Israeli policy.

The US aid levels to Israel were relatively small until the 1970s--coinciding with cold war politics and the ascension of OPEC as a potential destabilizing force. While I have no doubt that the US has always viewed Israel favorably from it's inception, the timing of the start of military aid tells me that US support is rooted in strategy and not idealism.

[Telle]

So, we were wrong to come to the aid of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in the early 90's? That was a MUCH higher level of support than anything we've provided Israel, ever.

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have oil. You'd be kidding yourself if you thought our government had more altruistic motives than that in helping them.

[RendeR]

To get back to my original question though, My personal opinions aside:

What happens to ISreal if we stop holding their hands?

What happens to the middle east if because of that, Israel falls?

[Ryche]

Israel might fall if we didn't provide any support, but its fall would be under several mushroom clouds throughout the region.

[flere-imsaho]

What happens to ISreal if we stop holding their hands?

You've got to define what you mean by "stop holding their hands". There's a huge difference between say, us protecting them in the U.N. Security Council and, on the other hand, cutting off their aid payments.

[Telle]

Israel might fall if we didn't provide any support, but it's fall would be under several mushroom clouds throughout the region.

The interesting thing is that Israel has "the bomb", and I don't think anybody else in the region does (yet). The fact that they have it and would be likely to use it if pressed (in my opinion at least) might be enough of a deterent to hold off attacks, at least for awhile. Not sure though. There are some rather radical nutjobs as heads of state in the region and they might just not care.

[astrosfan64]

And you didn't need to suggest I'd be a Nazi sympathizer.



My brother is a member of the U.S. Army, stationed in Ar-Ramadi in one of the most violent parts of Iraq. In performing his duty my brother has been blown out of his Humvee, been attacked by a vanload of AK-47-wielding insurgents and watched his good friend and lieutenant get gunned down by a sniper.

What's your contribution to the war effort? Jacking off to Fox News?

I didn't suggest you would be a Nazi sympathizer. I simply suggested you were a pacifist and would rather of let germany impose their will on others, then fight back.

You are not your brother. You have done as much for the war effort as I have. So, I'm not sure I get your point there? If you supporting your brother is supporting the war effort, then I'm supporting it also by support my best friend. I mean this is a pretty stupid topic of discussion.

[astrosfan64]

Wow, just wow. Not doing much reading about Iran lately? Most Iranians do not have as extreme a view of Islam as most of those in power--much like most Americans consider themselves Christians yet are not as extreme politically as the American Christian fundamentalists who have influence on government policy. In fact, you still see quite a bit of syncretization of a lot of pre-Islamic (Zoroastrian, etc) religious practices on the part of the many of the population.

The majority of Iranians do not particularly like their theocratic government especially because the majority of Iranians are not as religious as you may think. The government has been bending on minor stuff in the past decade like access to luxury goods, satellite TV, etc in their attempt to placate the population. I'm not sure if that will really work, but it is an indication that the government is afraid of popular revolution.

Genocide as a policy sounds a little extreme here, and is likely to be counter-productive...

Didn't Iran have an election that put the "extremists" in power?

[astrosfan64]

I have a couple issues regarding Israel, first, I don't partake of the whole "right to exist" defense. The nation was created by others, to compensate them for WWII and offer security that such things couldn't happen again. Unfortunately those that did so put them in the worst possible place and said "have fun!" and left them there. I don't belive Israel has any specific "right to exist" so therefore we should not be supporting them based on that.

Secondly, we have supported them for decades, politically, militarily, et al. and what return have we ever gotten from them? They willfully try to expand into territory they were not given, because they somehow feel its their right to do so, they engage in tactics against their nieghbors that at times border on NAZI-ish standards, and they repeatedly have ignored those nations supporting them to stop their militant activities. showing no remorse or contrition for acts they call others out for.

based on the history of their government and their continued lack of respect for their allies, I don't think they should be supported, period. If they want to exist as they are, its their ball. I think we need to cut them loose from the "we've got everyone on our side so we can act like assholes" support lines.

In you have forgotten, Israel was attacked by the various countries around them. They occupied territory taken from a war they didn't start... Go check your historical facts.

[Klinglerware]

To get back to my original question though, My personal opinions aside:

What happens to ISreal if we stop holding their hands?

What happens to the middle east if because of that, Israel falls?

I doubt that Israel will fall. Israel is not ideologically driven it is survival driven and will act in an unsavory fashion to guarantee it's survival. If the Israeli's were to lose US financial support, I would suspect that it would turn to its arms and high-technology export trade to both raise revenue and develop linkages with states that may not view the Israeli's favorably. Israel has traded with the likes of Iran as recently as the 1980s. Israeli policy decisions have been driven by pragmatism in the past, so there is no reason to believe more of the same in the future.

And of course, Israel posses nuclear weapons--a very strong deterrent against states wishing to attack Israel.

[astrosfan64]

if a country doesn't have the means to defend itself and to protect it's sovereignity, what gives it the right to exist? and by exist i mean not in the Hamas sense of "to be eliminated", but exist in the sense of self-government. a country need to be able to show it can stand on its own two feet, and doesn't deserve to be aquired by a larger nation.

i don't think we need to prop up Israel. they've shown the ability to do a good job on their own. in the event they were to lose to Hamas or whomever, i don't see a need to come in and restore Israel to power. might=right. so i don't agree that if we don't support Israel we're actually supoprting Hamas' insane beliefs. rather, i think it's more of a sense of given these crazy times we need to worry about ourselves, and those who are able to exist on their own should take the steps to do so.


By using this argument above, you agree that Kuwait should not exist. They lost to Iraq and were overwhelmed. Why did we help them?

[astrosfan64]

dola, I go down through the boards and answered each message. I just realzied that a few others game the same answers that I did. Sorry about that!

[RendeR]

In you have forgotten, Israel was attacked by the various countries around them. They occupied territory taken from a war they didn't start... Go check your historical facts.
I'm not arguing those aquisitions, spoils of war are just that. but since those attacks Israel has blatantly stolen, forcefully taken and militarily attacked hundreds of square miles of land that simply is not theirs to take.

Rolling tanks through peoples homes in the middle of the night.

Rounding up entire villages of people and forcibly removing them to aquire land for their own settlements.

These are not the actions of a state that deserves our protection, or assistance. period.

I have my facts straight, thank you. Get your time frame straight and we'll both be on the same page.
But as I said, my personal belief aside: back to the original questions.

[astrosfan64]

I'm not arguing those aquisitions, spoils of war are just that. but since those attacks Israel has blatantly stolen, forcefully taken and militarily attacked hundreds of square miles of land that simply is not theirs to take.

Rolling tanks through peoples homes in the middle of the night.

Rounding up entire villages of people and forcibly removing them to aquire land for their own settlements.

These are not the actions of a state that deserves our protection, or assistance. period.

I have my facts straight, thank you. Get your time frame straight and we'll both be on the same page.
But as I said, my personal belief aside: back to the original questions.

The areas taken by war are the properity of Israel. Is it really different then our governement saying, we are building a landfill here you must move? Or we want to build a shopping mall here, you must move?

The people that lived there were on the side of enemy, I'm not sure I follow how removing them is not ok, if you agree it is a spoil of war.

I bet you if Israel wasn't ever attacked none of what you mentioned above would of taken place.

[RendeR]

The areas taken by war are the properity of Israel. Is it really different then our governement saying, we are building a landfill here you must move? Or we want to build a shopping mall here, you must move?

The people that lived there were on the side of enemy, I'm not sure I follow how removing them is not ok, if you agree it is a spoil of war.

I bet you if Israel wasn't ever attacked none of what you mentioned above would of taken place.Ok, please remember that the acts I'm talking about were not taking place WITHIN ISRAEL. They rolled into Palestinean lands, ousted entire villages of people and annexed the areas for their OWN settlements.

Please take your own advice and get your facts straight. Thank you.


Even if your concept of removing people within the lands was true, its still wrong. Its no better than what we did to the native Americans.

Now please, drop the tangent conversation as requested and go back to the actual questions. Thank You.

[Klinglerware]

Didn't Iran have an election that put the "extremists" in power?

There are several issues at play here:

- The religious leadership has veto power over who can run
- The reformists who were approved were badly-splintered and many decided to boycott the elections
- Ahmadinejad ran on an anti-corruption platform, and as in most countries, people vote on pocket-book issues. In Iran, people don't think they can do much about the theocracy, so they choose candidates based on other domestic issues...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2005

[astrosfan64]

There are several issues at play here:

- The religious leadership has veto power over who can run
- The reformists who were approved were badly-splintered and many decided to boycott the elections
- Ahmadinejad ran on an anti-corruption platform, and as in most countries, people vote on pocket-book issues. In Iran, people don't think they can do much about the theocracy, so they choose candidates based on other domestic issues...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2005

Hmm, sounds like to me they need to have a cival war? America and other nations deal with the ruling power. If masses in the nation don't agree with the ruling party, then they need to take care of that themselves. It isn't our problem that they are corrupt and don't follow the rules for elections...

Let me expand further on this. Who would declare war in Iran? Would it be the moderate Muslims or the extremists in power? Who wants to develop nukes? That is who is in power, if the masses don't like it they need to change it.

[rexallllsc]

Didn't Iran have an election that put the "extremists" in power?

He is their elected leader. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

[rexallllsc]

It isn't our problem that they are corrupt and don't follow the rules for elections...

You talking about Iran or the US?

I love that people talk about how certain people choose the candidates over in Iran - as if that doesn't happen in the US, just involving money instead.

[miked]

Ok, please remember that the acts I'm talking about were not taking place WITHIN ISRAEL. They rolled into Palestinean lands, ousted entire villages of people and annexed the areas for their OWN settlements.


Actually, I'm not a history buff, but since the "Palestinians" rejected the 1948 settlement in favor of violence, I don't understand how the Israeli's rolled into Palestinian lands during the subsequent wars...I believe they took a chunk of Egypt and Jordan (and the governments there wanted no part of the people living there).

[rexallllsc]

To get back to my original question though, My personal opinions aside:

What happens to ISreal if we stop holding their hands?

What happens to the middle east if because of that, Israel falls?

I'll toss my $.02 in

1. They have to start playing nice with their neighbors. No more dodging on Nuclear issues, either.

2. Israel would probably pop off a few nukes if it got dire.

[RendeR]

Actually, I'm not a history buff, but since the "Palestinians" rejected the 1948 settlement in favor of violence, I don't understand how the Israeli's rolled into Palestinian lands during the subsequent wars...I believe they took a chunk of Egypt and Jordan (and the governments there wanted no part of the people living there).
See here is where I have the hardest time with the entire situation. Why should they have accepted the 1948 settlement? it was their territory and England and the US and others say "well hell, lets put the Jews HERE" (yes I know it wasn't quite that simplistic)

But the point remains, why should anyone have to accept that situation? This is where the Israeli's "right to exist" falters. They were not a nation unto themselves until outsiders created a little zoo for them to live in. Protected them and allowed them to gain strength.

Now they are the center of a rediculous amount of religious hatred in the region, and yet they continue to be arrogant and aggressive.

Everyone gets pissed off when someone takes an Anti-Israel stand, but I don't understand Why? What GOOD is there in supporting a nation that ignores its allies requests and subjugates the peoples who live around them?

Israel is not a saintly nation, its just as much to blame for everything thats come to them. Why does everyone jump to support them?

Again, not the intent of my questions before. I was hoping for more of a discussion on the shift in political activity if we stopped putting our shadow over the region.

[astrosfan64]

He is their elected leader. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Go follow the thread.

Someone stated that Iran was actually moderate and it was their leaders that were extremists.

I stated that the moderates elected him their leader, so they must abide by his decision or do something about it.

It isn't hard for me to understand, he is their elected leader. In being elected his views are the views of the people.

[Klinglerware]

Go follow the thread.

Someone stated that Iran was actually moderate and it was their leaders that were extremists.

I stated that the moderates elected him their leader, so they must abide by his decision or do something about it.

It isn't hard for me to understand, he is their elected leader. In being elected his views are the views of the people.

By that logic, Flere and Jessie_Ewiak are a couple of conservative Republicans...

[Runtheball]

At what point do we start worrying about the best interests of the USA, not the best interests of Israel?

That's a perfectly valid question. Well worth asking.

[astrosfan64]

By that logic, Flere and Jessie_Ewiak are a couple of conservative Republicans...

In a state of war, you can't goto the country and say who voted for them? Ok you guys will die.

Ok you guys didn't vote for them you can live. It isn't that simple.

I think this whole thing sucks ass. I really just want to worry about my family, friends and playing video games. Oh and reaching elightenment but that is a different topic.

My whole point of all this crap is as follows. Iran's leadership is extreme and does support terrorism. Them having Nukes is a bad idea. The entire world believes it is a bad idea. If they persist in doing what they are doing someone needs to stop them.

[rexallllsc]

My whole point of all this crap is as follows. Iran's leadership is extreme and does support terrorism. Them having Nukes is a bad idea. The entire word believes it is a bad idea. If they persist in doing what they are doing someone needs to stop them.

Our government is extreme as well, and just agreed to give Nuke info to another country (one who didn't sign the NNPT, btw)!

I would say that NK having nukes is a bad idea. Israel having nukes is a bad idea...yet we let them (and protect them in Israel's case).

[astrosfan64]

Our government is extreme as well, and just agreed to give Nuke info to another country (one who didn't sign the NNPT, btw)!

I would say that NK having nukes is a bad idea. Israel having nukes is a bad idea...yet we let them (and protect them in Israel's case).

Well, I must agree with you. But in doing so let me ask you a question.

Did it make you nervous when we found out that India had a nuke?

Does it make you nervous to think Iran has a nuke?

Do you worry that Israel will attempt to attack the United States? Do you think India would attack the United States?

How about Iran?

[rexallllsc]

Well, I must agree with you. But in doing so let me ask you a question.

Did it make you nervous when we found out that India had a nuke?

Yes

Does it make you nervous to think Iran has a nuke?

Yes

Let me add some: Does it make you nervous to think Israel has a nuke?

Yes

Does it make you nervous to think North Korea has a nuke?

Yes

Does it make you nervous to think Pakistan has a nuke?

Yes

Do you worry that Israel will attempt to attack the United States?

I worry that Israel is the kid who talks tough standing behind their big, tough friend, and will eventually say something to the wrong guy and then being the big, dumb friend we'll jump in instead of letting Israel take it's licks (or give them) all by itself.


Do you think India would attack the United States?

That's not the point. The US is selling nuke info to a country that refused to sign the NNPT. That sets a terrible precedent. See, the US used to be the country that could say, "hey, you don't really need nukes. We're chillin' here, and no one is going to F with you"
Then we broke that trust. Our "leader" turned into a cowboy and started talking about the Axis of Evil and a new "crusade" - look at how this has played out with Iran, NK, and Iraq. Iraq got punked out. NK has been defiant and we left them alone. Iran is being defiant and knows that we cannot invade them right now.

How about Iran?[/QUOTE]

I don't think Iran could hit us here, but they could certainly do a lot of damage in Iraq - and our GREAT ally Israel (who I know we would jump in to save, unfortunately).

[Runtheball]

My whole point of all this crap is as follows. Iran's leadership is extreme and does support terrorism. Them having Nukes is a bad idea. The entire world believes it is a bad idea. If they persist in doing what they are doing someone needs to stop them.

I'd imagine most of the world feels exactly the same about the US. Our leadership is extreme and has terrorized much of the world for decades. We've supported dictators (even Saddam when it served our interests), conquered countries when our puppet rulers turned against us, or based on "faulty intelligence" that somehow fooled no one but the US. We have nukes and are the only country that ever used nukes against another. The entire world believes GW is a great threat to global stability, and if we persist in doing what we've been doing someone needs to stop us. I fully expect that eventually the US will be proclaimed a pariah state, and our trading partners will slap us with economic sanctions until we moderate our positions. The whole idea of giving nuke technology to India while we threaten Iran for trying to develop that technology is inane!

I doubt we can even count on the 'coalition of the willing' to lift a finger against Iran (well, I suppose we can continue to rely on Tonga for support).

Should Iran have nukes? No.
Should Isreal have nukes? No.
Does the US have the right to determine which countries can have nuclear technologies? No.
Should the US be supporting Isreal? No.
Can Isreal take care of itself militarily and economically? Yes.
Would a moderate stance by the US regarding the entire middle east help increase stability throughout the world? Yes.
What would happen to Isreal if the US withdrew support? Nothing. None of their neighbors (not even a small assemblage of them) would stand a chance in hell of hurting Isreal militarily, and if they did hurt Isreal militarily Isreal would hit back with nukes. The more likely outcome of a withdrawal of US support is Isreal would be more inclined to deal with its neighbors rather than bully them.

[Runtheball]

I worry that Israel is the kid who talks tough standing behind their big, tough friend, and will eventually say something to the wrong guy and then being the big, dumb friend we'll jump in instead of letting Israel take it's licks (or give them) all by itself.

I don't think Iran could hit us here, but they could certainly do a lot of damage in Iraq - and our GREAT ally Israel (who I know we would jump in to save, unfortunately).

Very well put! Iran having a nuke is bad news for Isreal. Just like Saddam having nukes would have been bad news for Isreal. Isreal destroyed a nuclear facility under construction in Iraq some years ago. They have (or were trying to acquire from Germany a few years ago) submarines capable of carrying their nukes. They can handle Iran, and no doubt they would do so if necessary.

[Klinglerware]

Did it make you nervous when we found out that India had a nuke?

Does it make you nervous to think Iran has a nuke?



No and no. It actually makes their security situations more stable.




Do you worry that Israel will attempt to attack the United States? Do you think India would attack the United States?

How about Iran?

No, no, and no. Their lack of long-range military power projection capability precludes this possibility.

[st.cronin]

I'm not arguing those aquisitions, spoils of war are just that. but since those attacks Israel has blatantly stolen, forcefully taken and militarily attacked hundreds of square miles of land that simply is not theirs to take.

Rolling tanks through peoples homes in the middle of the night.

Rounding up entire villages of people and forcibly removing them to aquire land for their own settlements.

These are not the actions of a state that deserves our protection, or assistance. period.

I have my facts straight, thank you. Get your time frame straight and we'll both be on the same page.
But as I said, my personal belief aside: back to the original questions.

One side of the story. There are other facts: More jews have been forcibly removed from their homes by arab governments than palestinians by the Israeli government. If a Saudi citizen wants to go to school or work in Israel, he can (most of the time). If an Israeli citizen wants to TRAVEL in Saudi Arabia, for any reason whatsoever, he can't.

[astrosfan64]

Actually, We had to restrain Israel in the first Gulf War from going to attack. If you remember Israel wanted to whip some ass. We do the dirty work, because if Israel did it, it would cause a war in the entire region.

[rexallllsc]

Actually, We had to restrain Israel in the first Gulf War from going to attack. If you remember Israel wanted to whip some ass. We do the dirty work, because if Israel did it, it would cause a war in the entire region.

So what you're saying is Israel is unstable and unable to control themselves except for us holding them back?

All the more reason for Iran to have nukes. Keep Israel in line.

[clintl]

That holds a lot of weight. I wouldn't expect you to be able to mention anything that Bush has done that's been helpful to anyone. :)

But I can. I think Bush, prior to deciding to invade Iraq, was handling Afghanistan very well. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan was a necessary war. Even though I don't think the follow-through has been as strong as it should have been, quite a lot of progress has been made toward stabilizing Afghanistan and turning it into a democracy.

[astrosfan64]

You've got to define what you mean by "stop holding their hands". There's a huge difference between say, us protecting them in the U.N. Security Council and, on the other hand, cutting off their aid payments.

Flere, I let me take back any of the negative comments I made towards you during this conversation. In doing research into this capsicum person, I've had chance to read quite a few of your posts and I pretty much agree with you on 90% of your posts.

Have a nice day.

[RendeR]

One side of the story. There are other facts: More jews have been forcibly removed from their homes by arab governments than palestinians by the Israeli government. If a Saudi citizen wants to go to school or work in Israel, he can (most of the time). If an Israeli citizen wants to TRAVEL in Saudi Arabia, for any reason whatsoever, he can't.
This first comment you make is valid, they have been forcibly removed from any of a thousand locations throughout their history, they're a nomadic people in historic terms. They've never had a country to live in until the post WWII insanity.

The rest of your post is completely irrelevent. Peoples of one nation/religion/sect or whatever have always had places they were denied access to, this is nothing big, nor relevant to the situation.

There are hundreds of "other facts" but the point remains that given the choice of taking the peace creation position or continuing to be a bullying aggressive nation, Israel has ignored its allies and continued to ensure that peace will only come if everyone ELSE gives in to them. And to be honest, The only reason that continues is our continued blind support for a tiny nation that needs to be a LOT more humble.

[Dutch]

The only way I have ever supported the "Palestinian Cause" is by the inherent right of representation in government. The people in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights are not allowed to vote. They are not citizens of a nation. That is the one thing that Israel is doing, above anything else, that is illegal.

As the controlling authority over those disputed territories, it's their responsability to either annex these lands outright and make all these people Israeli citizens (and thus diluting their right to a Jewish state even further) or they should cede the land to a new Palestinian State.

Until then, Israel is doing something wrong.

Do I agree with the way the Palestinian terrorists have taken control of the disagreement to the point where diplomatic relations are impossible? Absolutely not and I side with Isreal's right to self-defense.

But on that one issue, where a generation of people have been held hostage and are not citizens of a nation they can call their own....I STRONGLY disagree with Israel's unwillingness to make a command decision.

The world isn't black and white and there is no easy button. But you still have to make decisions in order to make progress.

[flere-imsaho]

Flere, I let me take back any of the negative comments I made towards you during this conversation. In doing research into this capsicum person, I've had chance to read quite a few of your posts and I pretty much agree with you on 90% of your posts.

Wow... that was unexpected. Assuming you're being serious (sometimes hard to tell around here), thank you.

[astrosfan64]

Wow... that was unexpected. Assuming you're being serious (sometimes hard to tell around here), thank you.

Yes, I'm being serious.

In these past threads, I agreed with most of the guys I just argued with.

I suppose I'm a social liberal but a militant republican.

I hope everything turns out well for your brother. I'm sorry he is over there, but I do still support the war and would understand our governement if they felt they needed to invade Iran to prevent Nukes. But, in this case it would be only of the UN supported such an invasion.

Good luck to you..

[edited to clear up some shitty grammar)

[Dutch]

Yes, I'm being serious.

I agreed with most of you that I just argued with in this thread.

I suppose I'm a social liberal but a militant republican.

I hope everything turns out well for your brother. I'm sorry he is over there, but I do still support the war and would understand our governement if they felt they needed to invade Iran to prevent Nukes. But, in this case it would be only of the UN supported such an invasion.

Good luck to you..
Flere's alright (I like his humor better than his politics, however).

Anyway, here's my own brand of humor....less interesting with no pictures obviously.


Here is the UN coming to a consensus to stop Iran from acquiring nukes...


*****

Iran - "We can make nuclear weapons if we choose! It is our right."

United Nations - "We'd like to talk to you about that."

Iran - "There's nothing to talk about."

United Nations - "We've discussed it with the committee, and although any use of military force would be veto'ed by somebody, we are going to send a critical letter to your foreign minister."

Iran - "We also hate Jews."

United Nations - "Could you clarify your position?"

Iran - "We wish all Jews would burn in the fiery abyss of nuclear....er....the fires of hell."

United Nations - "We have passed a resolution in the security council 4-3 with abstentions from Syria, North Korea, Somalia, and the Palestinian Authrority that says nuclear proliferation must cease."

Iran - "Go fuck yourselves."

United Nations - "Tough words. Now we have some tough words for you. Nuclear Weapons are not a good thing to possess. Please dismantle your illegal program."

Iran - "We now possess nuclear weapons!"

United Nations - "Hey! We said you cannot have those!"

Iran - "Fine."

*Nuclear Detonations across Israel proper*

Iran - "All gone."

United Nations - "You're right, our inspectors can't find your nucelar weapons. Now we have no way of imposing sanctions...grrrr."

[astrosfan64]

LOL

[Ryche]

Interesting article today in USA Today that suggests Iran's president doesn't have much support to back up his rhetoric.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-03-09-iran-president_x.htm

[st.cronin]

This first comment you make is valid, they have been forcibly removed from any of a thousand locations throughout their history, they're a nomadic people in historic terms. They've never had a country to live in until the post WWII insanity.

The rest of your post is completely irrelevent. Peoples of one nation/religion/sect or whatever have always had places they were denied access to, this is nothing big, nor relevant to the situation.

There are hundreds of "other facts" but the point remains that given the choice of taking the peace creation position or continuing to be a bullying aggressive nation, Israel has ignored its allies and continued to ensure that peace will only come if everyone ELSE gives in to them. And to be honest, The only reason that continues is our continued blind support for a tiny nation that needs to be a LOT more humble.

I think it's relevant. I think it speaks to the massive double standard that is imposed on Israel. Israel is labeled by serious people an 'apartheid' state, therefore they have no right to exist, or something similiar, but Hamas, well, you see, Hamas actually cares about Palestinians, so they're GOOD, even though Israel has done more for the Palestinians than Hamas.

The problem with your last paragraph (note what I have bolded) is that the negotiating position Israel's enemies are starting with is "Israel must be wiped from the Earth."

[ISiddiqui]

Interesting article today in USA Today that suggests Iran's president doesn't have much support to back up his rhetoric.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-03-09-iran-president_x.htm
In the end, it's the Ayatollah's show. Khatami found that out and Ahmadinejad will too.

[Yossarian]

John Simpson chimes in
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4800986.stm

Sounds like he is of the opinion that:
A - Iran will get nukes and theres diddly squat anyone can do about it
B - that nationalistic fervour partially caused by the iraq war is at least a little bit to blame

[rexallllsc]

Interesting article today in USA Today that suggests Iran's president doesn't have much support to back up his rhetoric.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-03-09-iran-president_x.htm

Neither does GWB. Doesn't stop him, does it?

[Ryche]

Neither does GWB. Doesn't stop him, does it?

I was actually thinking more in terms of support of the people who actually have power in Iran (the Ayatollah being at the top of the list). The Iranian president is much more of a figurehead.