[luke warm]

some recent quotes by olmert:

HERZLIYA, Israel (AP) - Prime Minister Ehud Olmert devoted one of his most important policy speeches of the year Wednesday to a single topic - Iran - saying Israel will respond to a nuclear threat "with all the means at our disposal."

Addressing an annual security conference in this seaside city, he said the international community has no choice but to act forcefully against Iran and its president, Mahmoud Ahmedinajad, who has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction.

"When the leader of a country announces, officially and publicly, his country's intention to wipe off the map another country, and creates those tools which will allow them to realize their stated threat, no nation has the right to even to weigh its position," Olmert said.

"It is the obligation of every country to act against this with all its might.... The Jewish people, with the scars of the Holocaust fresh on its body, cannot afford to allow itself to face threats of annihilation once again," Olmert said.

[DrTodd13]

Given the Israeilis have launched such an attack in the past (on Iraq) then I see no reason to believe they might not do so in the future. When you've lived through the holocaust and then have somebody threaten to wipe you from the face of the earth then yeah, I think they might take this seriously and want to do something about it. They will try to get the US to do it and if that fails then they will do it themselves. The Iranians have buried a lot of their nuclear facilities and so unfortunately this may require preemptive use of nuclear weapons. They may wait around until the next Iranian election to see how crazy or evil the next leader will be but I'd be surprised if they waited longer than that.

[helene_t]

Yes, agree with Todd. It's hard to blame them. Menachem Begin motivated the attack on the Iraqi facilities by saying that they had to do it before the Iraqis accumulated so much radioactive material that the destruction of the facilities would cause a disaster for Iraqi civilizans. I still rememeber his wordings: "We don't want to kill Bagdad's children".

So as for Iran, it's about time, I suppose.

[mike777]

Wow alot of people ready to bomb Iran..to what effect or consequences?

[pbleighton]

"Wow alot of people ready to bomb Iran..to what effect or consquences?"

People never seem to think about this beforehand.

Israel is in a very difficult situation, but if it kills as many Iranian civilians as would be necessary to mostly eliminate Iran's nuclear capacity, it will be worse off.

Peace with Muslims is Israel's only long term survival option, no matter how difficult and long term it may be. The alternative is a nuclear strike in Tel Aviv.

The idea that they can beat the Muslims into submission has been disproven conclusively by its own history.

Peter

[mike777]

Another possible situation for Israel is just the never ending war, sometimes small sometimes bigger with Muslims for another 100 years. Not perfect but possible the best of the poor options?

America fought the Indians for hundreds of years until they overwhelmed them with babies. I could see more Muslim babies then Jewish in such a small country in another 100 years?

[pbleighton]

"Another possible situation for Israel is just the never ending war, sometimes small sometimes bigger with Muslims for another 100 years. Not perfect but possible the best of the poor options?"

Not with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, it's not. If this was prior to WW2, it would be possible. Now, it guarantees a strike.

100 years? They may not have 20.

Peter

[hrothgar]

Iran's president stated that Israel would be "wiped from the sands of history". Personally, I think that if the Israeli's are stupid enough to launch a signficant attack on Iran, Ahmadinejad's wish is going to come true.

As Peter notes, Iran's nuclear facilities are buried underground and located in civilian population centers. The Israelis (or for that matter the US) can try to make a surgical strike, however, I suspect that any attempt to take out the Iranian nuclear program will lead to

1. Significant civilian casualties, inflaming the population
2. The Iranian population rallying arround the flag
3. Retaliation by the Iranian government

I don't believe that its possible to stop the Iranians from getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction. Developing a weapons program takes time and money, but its not impossible. 10 - 15 years down the road, the Iranians are going to have nukes. While a military strike could delay the development of a domestic weapons program, it would probably lead to the Iranians purchasing a nuke from Pakistan or one of the ex-Soviet Republics.

Assualting Iran might provide the Israeli's with a short term tactical victory. I suspect that the end result will be losing Haifa or Tel'Aviv to a weapon of mass destruction.

[mike777]

In the cold war MAD was the operating policy.

Now with much smaller, limited nukes one wonders what the response of any country would be.

If a small stolen or bought nuke from the USSR or wherever was used by terrorists on the Usa or Israel what is the moral response?

[pbleighton]

"If a small stolen or bought nuke from the USSR or wherever was used by terrorists on the Usa or Israel what is the moral response?"

What are the circumstances?

What are the connections?

It matters, a lot.

Peter

[Winstonm]

I think it is possible Israel will strike Iran using nuclear low-yield weapons. But I also believe whoever first uses nukes in the middle east has signed his own death warrant.

I wonder if at the time Iraq, Iran, Syra, and Jordan thought Israel should be prevented at all costs from developing a nuclear capability?

Although the Israelis have not threatened another country with extinction, they have shown themselves to believe in an eye-for-an-eye-plus-a-pound-of-flesh-or-so-to-boot retribution. Lebanon comes immediately to mind in this regard.

I am not casitgating Israel for their beliefs - I am only wondering what the view is from the other side of the river. If Iran did develope a nuclear capability, would their leaders be insane enough to use them for anything other than a stand-off?

Lots of leaders have said lots of stupid things: Krushchev's "We will bury you." Chavez's, "Bush is a devil." However, it is not words but actions that tell. To my knowledge, Iran has never in its history begun a war of aggression - stating that Israel should be wiped from the planet is a far cry from actually initiating a nuclear strike that would doom your own nation in retaliation.

It is totally possible in my mind the two items are not connected. The want to rid the world of Israel could simply mean economically, politically, by use of standard armies, or by support of terror. The desire to have a nuclear arsenal is not the same thing as using it. The common thought is that if Iran had nuclear weapons they would automatically use them. I don't see it that way. I think they would use them in retaliation against Israel, but it is doubtful to me they would launch an unprovoked attack. Iran's president may be crazy, but he is not stupid.

In the movie, Tora, Tora, Tora, the Japanese Admiral is quoted as having said, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resovle."

I wonder if Isreal's threats along with the U.S. and its continued meddling in the middle east is not accomplishing the same thing.

Also, some you bright people help me with this. Isn't Olmert part of the Zionist faction? Isn't there a substantial difference between Zionist and Semite? My understanding is the Zionist are a hard right-wing branch of Israel and are not supported by all Israelis. I wonder what the Israeli-on-the-street thinks about all this.

[mike777]

pbleighton, on Jan 24 2007, 09:21 PM, said:

"If a small stolen or bought nuke from the USSR or wherever was used by terrorists on the Usa or Israel what is the moral response?"

What are the circumstances?

What are the connections?

It matters, a lot.

Peter

1) Ok Peter votes for an in depth investigation into many complicated issues after a nuke strike on the USA.
2) Winston quotes Japan, a country that did make a reckless gambling attack vs the USA.

[mike777]

".....My understanding is the Zionist are a hard right-wing branch of Israel and are not supported by all Israelis. I wonder what the Israeli-on-the-street thinks about all this......"



Zionist Jews think Israel has a right to exist, NOw!
AntiZionist Jews think Israel does not have a right to exist Now!

[Al_U_Card]

Megido is a place in Israel.

Israel will do whatever its leaders think is best.

The karma of nations is to follow the will of their leaders.

Pakistan and India suffered from small country syndrome and got nukes but never got nuked.

The middle east is a festering wound. Usually festering wounds don't heal. Usually they become septic and require excising or they kill the body. It is only a matter of time.

[mike777]

Well can we agree that India is not a small country?

and pakistan has nukes....whatever that means

[keylime]

I agree with Winston's theme: whoever shoots first is going to get pounded.

[mike777]

then who ever shoots first should be pounded first and shoot second/

[luke warm]

mike777, on Jan 24 2007, 09:41 PM, said:

1) Ok Peter votes for an in depth investigation into many complicated issues after a nuke strike on the USA.

and you expected what, exactly?

[mike777]

luke warm, on Jan 25 2007, 06:27 AM, said:

mike777, on Jan 24 2007, 09:41 PM, said:

1) Ok Peter votes for an in depth investigation into many complicated issues after a nuke strike on the USA.

and you expected what, exactly?

please give me a few years Jimmy....I do not want to make an emotionail nonlogical response.

[helene_t]

mike777, on Jan 25 2007, 04:09 AM, said:

If a small stolen or bought nuke from the USSR or wherever was used by terrorists on the Usa or Israel what is the moral response?

Who cares about "moral"? "Moral" may sound sexy but I'd rather discuss a rational response.

Which would be whatever it takes (as long as the costs are reasonable) to reduce the risk of reccurence. Which is the same as it takes to prevent it from happening in the first place. Which I have no clue about ......