dreamdancer 0 #76 April 2, 2009 Quote Quote there is no chance of israel attacking iran - and iran knows it Sure about that??? yep, sure (iraq is not iran)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tonyhays 86 #77 April 2, 2009 Quote(iraq is not iran) Well thank you for pointing that out, Captain Obvious!! I am not so sure...since the head of state for Iran has called for Israels destruction and is less than open about their nuclear intentions.“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #78 April 3, 2009 the israeli plan is ludicrous (and increasingly seen to be so) Quote At a speech he delivered in Japan last summer, Samore said that in the past 50 years, seven Middle Eastern countries tried to obtain nuclear arms, but only one of them, Israel, succeeded. If the new U.S. president, in this case Obama, is unable to enlist international support to restrict or delay Iranian plans for uranium enrichment, Washington faces a "terrible choice - to accept Iran as a nuclear country or to use American or Israeli military force," Samore said. Ashton Carter, recently nominated by the president to be under secretary of defense for acquistion, technology and logistics, offered a similar analysis for the Bush administration, when he outlined three alternatives to confronting Iran. Plan B3, the military option, also entailed a possible bombing of Iranian oil installations, which are not protected and concealed like components of the nuclear infrastructure. The prevailing balance of power within the Obama administration tends to favor attacking Iran's nuclear installations, or to tolerate an Israeli attack. A prominent opponent of using military force against Iran, Charles Freeman, who had been slated to head the U.S. National Intelligence Council, was dropped under pressure of Israel's American supporters. Iran's inflexible positions are known to Washington. An American-Iranian discourse is already under way, in unofficial channels: Just as in the absence of official contact between Israel and Hamas, messages are conveyed through both public and undeclared channels. Samore joined one of these sessions. It is not the encounter itself that is pivotal, but what was said - and that is disappointing. Obama will wait - not only for Iranian elections, scheduled for June (and those in Lebanon, that same month), but also for September's elections in Germany, and for Britons to vote at more or less the same time (elections have yet to be scheduled), in order to know who will stand by his side in the trenches. In that way 2009 will pass without a decision, but not all of 2010, because come that November, Congressional elections will be held, immediately after which the Democrats will begin organizing Obama's reelection campaign. The summer of 2010 will be critical, because by then the evacuation of most of the American forces from Iraq will be completed and fewer exposed targets will remain for Iranian revenge attacks. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1076056.htmlstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #79 April 3, 2009 Quote If you're going to bleat about international law, then you can't ignore the violations of your side I don't. That's why I "bleated" when the Bushies were violating the NPT and "bleated" even more with regard to Guantanamo. And as a matter of fact, I'm still "bleating" about it, hoping that we hold them responsible for their violations. Putting some of them in prison would go a long way towards healing some of the wounds they caused this nation. Double standards help the few and harm the many. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #80 April 3, 2009 Quote the israeli plan is ludicrous (and increasingly seen to be so) Quote A prominent opponent of using military force against Iran, Charles Freeman, who had been slated to head the U.S. National Intelligence Council, was dropped under pressure of Israel's American supporters. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1076056.html I’m curious: why did you bold the reference w/r/t leadership of the NIC? What do you think that says about the larger context of US-Israel relations and why? I’m not sure I agree with Haaretz’s assessment of current US policy intentions. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #81 April 3, 2009 Quote the israeli plan is ludicrous (and increasingly seen to be so) Quote A prominent opponent of using military force against Iran, Charles Freeman, who had been slated to head the U.S. National Intelligence Council, was dropped under pressure of Israel's American supporters. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1076056.html I’m curious: why did you bold the reference w/r/t leadership of the NIC? What do you think that says about the larger context of US-Israel relations and why? I’m not sure I agree with Haaretz’s assessment of current US policy intentions. /Marg i think it says that the israel lobby is becoming increasingly more transparent with its moves. the more scrutiny they get the less room for manoeuvre Quote On March 10th, Freeman bowed out, but not with a whimper. In a letter to friends and colleagues, he launched a defiant, departing counterstrike that may, in fact, have helped to change the very nature of Washington politics. "The tactics of the Israel lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth," wrote Freeman. "The aim of this lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views." Freeman put it more metaphorically to me: "It was a nice way of, as the Chinese say, killing a chicken to scare the monkeys." By destroying his appointment, Freeman claimed, the Israel lobby hoped to intimidate other critics of Israel and U.S. Middle East policy who might seek jobs in the Obama administration. It remains to be seen just how many "monkeys" are trembling. Certainly, the Israel lobby crowed in triumph. Daniel Pipes, for instance, quickly praised Rosen's role in bringing down Freeman: "What you may not know is that Steven J. Rosen of the Middle East Forum was the person who first brought attention to the problematic nature of Freeman's appointment," wrote Pipes. "Within hours, the word was out, and three weeks later Freeman has conceded defeat. Only someone with Steve's stature and credibility could have made this happen." The Zionist Organization of America, a far-right advocacy group that supports Israel, sent out follow-up Action Alerts to its membership, ringing further alarm bells about Freeman as part of a campaign to mobilize public opinion and Congress. Behind the scenes, AIPAC quietly used its considerable clout, especially with friends and allies in the media. http://www.alternet.org/audits/131715/is_this_last_gasp_for_the_israel_lobby_and_the_neocons/?page=entirestay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #82 April 3, 2009 You're back to using citations rather than making any coherent arguments. After definitively (and falsely) declaring a 0% chance of a strike on Iran, now you seem to be waffling a bit. This isn't your freshman year in college (or is it, anonymous sock puppet?). Use citations to support your argument, not to make it for you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #83 April 4, 2009 QuoteYou're back to using citations rather than making any coherent arguments. After definitively (and falsely) declaring a 0% chance of a strike on Iran, now you seem to be waffling a bit. This isn't your freshman year in college (or is it, anonymous sock puppet?). Use citations to support your argument, not to make it for you. so you think that israel isn't bluffing. how many casualties do you think an israel/iran war will have? i believe there were two million casualties during the iraq/iran war. meanwhile, back in gotham city... QuoteThe New York Police Department has prepared plans to beef up security at the city's synagogues and other Jewish sites amid escalating tensions between Israel and Iran, officials confirmed Friday. Concerns that Muslim extremist groups might retaliate against civilians in New York City's Jewish community if Israel were to attack Iran's nuclear facilities prompted the NYPD to put together a response plan that includes deploying extra officers, including heavily armed "Hercules Teams," to synagogues, Jewish community centers and Israeli diplomatic offices. The nation's largest police department revealed for the first time this week that it already took similar precautions in 2008 after Imad Mughniyeh, a senior Hezbollah commander, was killed in a car bombing in Syria. The group blamed Israel for Mughniyeh's death. "Just in case there was some kind of retaliation in New York, we had an operational plan that was implemented within hours of knowing he was hit," Mitch Silber, a top NYPD intelligence analyst, said Friday at a briefing about security measures for the Jewish holiday of Passover. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1076285.htmlstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #84 April 4, 2009 Quote so you think that israel isn't bluffing. how many casualties do you think an israel/iran war will have? i believe there were two million casualties during the iraq/iran war. meanwhile, back in gotham city... You ever look at a map? Iran/Iraq are adjacent countries, and many Western powers supplied weapons to both sides. The closest to a conventional war Iran can have with Israel is the one it funded in Gaza. And that has been pretty one sided. So stop waffling - is the chance of an attack 0%, or some other number? It's clearly non zero. The question to debate is it 5%, 10%, 50%? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #85 April 4, 2009 zero - thank goodness stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #86 April 4, 2009 Quote zero - thank goodness the chance of US-USSR conflict wasn't even zero, and you're insisting it is here? It's a funny world you live in - come visit us. Might review the recent elections in Tel Aviv too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #87 April 4, 2009 still sticking with this prediction? QuoteISRAEL will almost surely attack Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months — and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country’s nuclear program. Because if the attack fails, the Middle East will almost certainly face a nuclear war — either through a subsequent pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb. It is in the interest of neither Iran nor the United States (nor, for that matter, the rest of the world) that Iran be savaged by a nuclear strike, or that both Israel and Iran suffer such a fate. We know what would ensue: a traumatic destabilization of the Middle East with resounding political and military consequences around the globe, serious injury to the West’s oil supply and radioactive pollution of the earth’s atmosphere and water. But should Israel’s conventional assault fail to significantly harm or stall the Iranian program, a ratcheting up of the Iranian-Israeli conflict to a nuclear level will most likely follow. Every intelligence agency in the world believes the Iranian program is geared toward making weapons, not to the peaceful applications of nuclear power. And, despite the current talk of additional economic sanctions, everyone knows that such measures have so far led nowhere and are unlikely to be applied with sufficient scope to cause Iran real pain, given Russia’s and China’s continued recalcitrance and Western Europe’s (and America’s) ambivalence in behavior, if not in rhetoric. Western intelligence agencies agree that Iran will reach the “point of no return” in acquiring the capacity to produce nuclear weapons in one to four years. Which leaves the world with only one option if it wishes to halt Iran’s march toward nuclear weaponry: the military option, meaning an aerial assault by either the United States or Israel. Clearly, America has the conventional military capacity to do the job, which would involve a protracted air assault against Iran’s air defenses followed by strikes on the nuclear sites themselves. But, as a result of the Iraq imbroglio, and what is rapidly turning into the Afghan imbroglio, the American public has little enthusiasm for wars in the Islamic lands. This curtails the White House’s ability to begin yet another major military campaign in pursuit of a goal that is not seen as a vital national interest by many Americans. Which leaves only Israel — the country threatened almost daily with destruction by Iran’s leaders. Thus the recent reports about Israeli plans and preparations to attack Iran. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html?pagewanted=printstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #88 April 4, 2009 Quotestill sticking with this prediction? You'll need to clarify. I've been talking about probabilities, not predictions. Again, you're not actually making clear statements. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #89 April 4, 2009 still zero probability (you on the other hand seem adamant that israel will attack - why is that) stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #90 April 4, 2009 here's another israeli prediction (presumably one you agee with as you agree with them on mass murder in gaza and elsewhere) QuoteSuch a situation would confront Israeli leaders with two agonizing, dismal choices. One is to allow the Iranians to acquire the bomb and hope for the best — meaning a nuclear standoff, with the prospect of mutual assured destruction preventing the Iranians from actually using the weapon. The other would be to use the Iranian counterstrikes as an excuse to escalate and use the only means available that will actually destroy the Iranian nuclear project: Israel’s own nuclear arsenal. Given the fundamentalist, self-sacrificial mindset of the mullahs who run Iran, Israel knows that deterrence may not work as well as it did with the comparatively rational men who ran the Kremlin and White House during the cold war. They are likely to use any bomb they build, both because of ideology and because of fear of Israeli nuclear pre-emption. Thus an Israeli nuclear strike to prevent the Iranians from taking the final steps toward getting the bomb is probable. The alternative is letting Tehran have its bomb. In either case, a Middle Eastern nuclear holocaust would be in the cards. Iran’s leaders would do well to rethink their gamble and suspend their nuclear program. Bar this, the best they could hope for is that Israel’s conventional air assault will destroy their nuclear facilities. To be sure, this would mean thousands of Iranian casualties and international humiliation. But the alternative is an Iran turned into a nuclear wasteland. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html?pagewanted=printstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #91 April 6, 2009 Quote the chance of US-USSR conflict wasn't even zero. history has shown that the chance of a conflict was zero - wouldn't you agree meanwhile good news out of iran... Quote The leading reformist candidate in upcoming Iranian presidential elections on Monday condemned the killing of Jews in the Holocaust, a much different stance than current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who in 2005 called the Holocaust a myth. Prime minister during Iran's 1980-88 war with Iraq, Mirhossein Mousavi, 67, is seriously considered by many moderates and even some conservatives as their main presidential candidate and a strong rival to Ahmadinejad in the contest. "Our country was harmed because of extremist policies adopted in the last three years.... My foreign policy with all countries will be one of detente," Mousavi said at his first news conference since announcing his candidacy. "We should try to gain the international community's trust while preserving our national interests." When asked about his views on the Holocaust, Mousavi said: "Killing innocent people is condemned. The way the issue [Holocaust] was put forward [by Ahmadinejad] was incorrect." "Of course the question could be that why Palestinians should be punished for a crime committed by Germans?" Mousavi's conciliatory tone followed an overture by U.S. President Barack Obama towards the Islamic Republic. Obama has offered a new U.S. approach to Iran, which has not had relations with Washington for three decades, saying he would extend a hand of peace if Iran would "unclench its fist." Iran says Washington must show real policy change towards Iran rather than in words. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1076839.htmlstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #92 April 6, 2009 Quote Quote the chance of US-USSR conflict wasn't even zero. history has shown that the chance of a conflict was zero - wouldn't you agree demonstrating once again how poor an understanding you have of probabilities. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #93 April 10, 2009 Not even Iran believes that Israel won't attack Iran. If history, and not just modern history mind you, has proven anything countless times over it would be that people don't get along. I'm all for aspiring to rise above our ancestors' shortcomings... but it's a fools way to bet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #94 April 10, 2009 your link doesn't say what you think it says stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #95 April 10, 2009 And what do you think it says? (...he asked, expecting a quotation block) [/cheese shop sketch] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #96 April 10, 2009 Quote Quote the chance of US-USSR conflict wasn't even zero. history has shown that the chance of a conflict was zero - wouldn't you agree meanwhile good news out of iran... Quote The leading reformist candidate in upcoming Iranian presidential elections on Monday condemned the killing of Jews in the Holocaust, a much different stance than current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who in 2005 called the Holocaust a myth. Prime minister during Iran's 1980-88 war with Iraq, Mirhossein Mousavi, 67, is seriously considered by many moderates and even some conservatives as their main presidential candidate and a strong rival to Ahmadinejad in the contest. "Our country was harmed because of extremist policies adopted in the last three years.... My foreign policy with all countries will be one of detente," Mousavi said at his first news conference since announcing his candidacy. "We should try to gain the international community's trust while preserving our national interests." When asked about his views on the Holocaust, Mousavi said: "Killing innocent people is condemned. The way the issue [Holocaust] was put forward [by Ahmadinejad] was incorrect." "Of course the question could be that why Palestinians should be punished for a crime committed by Germans?" Mousavi's conciliatory tone followed an overture by U.S. President Barack Obama towards the Islamic Republic. Obama has offered a new U.S. approach to Iran, which has not had relations with Washington for three decades, saying he would extend a hand of peace if Iran would "unclench its fist." Iran says Washington must show real policy change towards Iran rather than in words. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1076839.html Perhaps if you studied just a LITTLE bit of history.... you will find that MANY Arabs had ties to the Nazi's in WWII based on their opposition to the British and their hatred of Jews. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #97 April 10, 2009 Quote Quote Quote the chance of US-USSR conflict wasn't even zero. history has shown that the chance of a conflict was zero - wouldn't you agree meanwhile good news out of iran... Quote The leading reformist candidate in upcoming Iranian presidential elections on Monday condemned the killing of Jews in the Holocaust, a much different stance than current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who in 2005 called the Holocaust a myth. Prime minister during Iran's 1980-88 war with Iraq, Mirhossein Mousavi, 67, is seriously considered by many moderates and even some conservatives as their main presidential candidate and a strong rival to Ahmadinejad in the contest. "Our country was harmed because of extremist policies adopted in the last three years.... My foreign policy with all countries will be one of detente," Mousavi said at his first news conference since announcing his candidacy. "We should try to gain the international community's trust while preserving our national interests." When asked about his views on the Holocaust, Mousavi said: "Killing innocent people is condemned. The way the issue [Holocaust] was put forward [by Ahmadinejad] was incorrect." "Of course the question could be that why Palestinians should be punished for a crime committed by Germans?" Mousavi's conciliatory tone followed an overture by U.S. President Barack Obama towards the Islamic Republic. Obama has offered a new U.S. approach to Iran, which has not had relations with Washington for three decades, saying he would extend a hand of peace if Iran would "unclench its fist." Iran says Washington must show real policy change towards Iran rather than in words. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1076839.html Perhaps if you studied just a LITTLE bit of history.... you will find that MANY Arabs had ties to the Nazi's in WWII based on their opposition to the British and their hatred of Jews. so you deny the european holocaust (the arabs did it)?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #98 April 11, 2009 Well now that is an interesting mental disconnect. Yes Arabs in many of their countries did have a holocaust as well as the Europeans...... after many centuries of periodic pogroms... the germans perpetrated to largest one. But the Arabs have been far more successfull in their lands... the numbers of jews remaining in most of them..... are nearly non-existant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
