[mike777]

"I'm am not claiming that Iran is harmless or that Israel is a threat,..."


Winston so far you can claim just about whatever you prefer but pls claim something and what you want the USA to do or not do.

I think we all, 100%.\, want peace, love and understanding, talk to some degree and war to almost zero degree but that leaves alot unsaid.

Lets start with one simple issue, do you think Iran may be trying to build a bomb, if you think there is some chance of that what if anything do you want to do that we are not doing for years so far?

If you believe that Iran should build whatever it wants and use in self defense whatever it wants, ok.

Or do you think we should stop giving Israel any weapons it may in the future use to bomb Iran? If not are we, American innocent civilians responsible for what we all well know Israel may do with these weapons? Or to put it another we way are not innocent. If we do not mind if Israel bombs Iran and we keep giving it weapons knowing it may do so, ok, just do not call Americans innocents.

As for Iran when its leaders year after year say and act in such a way that says they want Israel wiped off the map. As some point Iranian civilians stop being innocent and not responsible. As some point America does something or does nothing but in anycase doing nothing does not make it innocent. Europe doing nothing does not make Europe innocent. Not acting to stop something bad does not make one innocent.

[effervesce]

mike777, on May 5 2008, 06:46 PM, said:

I am still trying to figure out why no one seems to really care that Mrs. Clinton is going to kill 70 million Iranians if they nuke Israel without a treaty or without Congress saying that it is ok. No one even worries about the global fallout and how many that will kill. So much for the rule of law and the voters say no problem and she wins Penn and may win Tuesday.

But talk about double standards, why cannot Iran have Nukes and use them in self defense. The USA has done so. Russia, UK, France China, Pakistan and India say they will do so.

The problem is not about self-defense. If Iran would only use them for self-defense this would be a non-issue. However, Iran is a regime which does not agree that Israel has a right to exist. If they could make nuclear weapons, they would CERTAINLY allow Hezbollah to obtain such weapons (Iran is a major sponsor of Hezbollah) - and Hezbollah would not hesitate to use any weapon they obtain in attempting to destroy Israel. See wikipedia's entry on Hezbollah. For example, Hassan Nasrallah, Hezobollah's leader has said "I am against any reconciliation with Israel. I do not even recognize the presence of a state that is called 'Israel."


In short, Israel is (very rightly) worried about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, as it is close to 100% certainty that if they did obtain nuclear weapons they would be used against Israel.

[Winstonm]

Mike, as you should know from reading my posts, I do not hold a black and white worldview, so I will do my best to answer these questions from that viewpoint.

Quote

Lets start with one simple issue, do you think Iran may be trying to build a bomb,

Iran has a history of non-aggression, first; second, the IAEA has stated that there is no evidence Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapons program, and the N.I.E. from the U.S. said with a high degree of confidence that Iran had abandoned these plans in 2003.

I would say I have high confidence that these two reports are more accurate than claims from Dick Cheney. 98% not making a bomb. 2% could be.

Quote

if you think there is some chance of that what if anything do you want to do that we are not doing for years so far?

Eliminate the embargos and engage the Iranians in diplomacy.

Quote

If you believe that Iran should build whatever it wants and use in self defense whatever it wants, ok.

Obviously, it gets trickier when you are talking about nuclear weapons - it's a little late after one has destroyed a city. However, the better tact to me than to threaten and embargo is to "Keep your friends close but your enemies closer."

Quote

Or do you think we should stop giving Israel any weapons it may in the future use to bomb Iran?

Actually, I'm not sure why we are giving Israel that which they can surely affored to purchase. If they want to buy armaments, I have no problem with that.

Quote

If not are we, American innocent civilians responsible for what we all well know Israel may do with these weapons

?
Absolutely we are responsible. But civilians are not so innocent.

Quote

Or to put it another we way are not innocent.  If we do not mind if Israel bombs Iran and we keep giving it weapons knowing it may do so, ok, just do not call Americans innocents.

I didn't. You did.

Quote

As for Iran when its leaders year after year say and act in such a way that says they want Israel wiped off the map.

That's quite an interesting way to facillitate a debunked statement - to infer that they acted as if they want "Israel off the map". First, let's be clean that Ahmadinijad never said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map - I can get the original translation from Farsi if you want, but the statement was: As (Khomeni) said, the regime that is occupying Jerusalem should vanish from the pages of time.
Now that's not too friendly toward the Zionist regime, I grant you, but it is a far cry from proclaiming total death to all Jews.

It is interesting when you say years and years, as the Shah was only disposed in the 1970's, so it has only been 30+ years - not much time in that part of the world.

Quote

As some point Iranian civilians stop being innocent and not responsible. As some point America does something or does nothing but in anycase doing nothing does not make it innocent.  Europe doing nothing does not make Europe innocent. Not acting to stop something bad does not make one innocent. 

I agree. But acting on agenda and lying about the reasons makes one worse than simply not iinnocent.

[mike777]

Winston please read the post just before yours.


"In short, Israel is (very rightly) worried about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, as it is close to 100% certainty that if they did obtain nuclear weapons they would be used against Israel. "

I have zero proof of this let alone proof that Iran wants a nuke, but at least this poster seems pretty worried. If true I assume the fallout will kill many worldwide and may trigger a bigger war.

If we assume this is the general feeling of Israel I only hope and pray Winston is correct and Iran has no interest in making nukes.

[mike777]

"Eliminate the embargos and engage the Iranians in diplomacy."

Ty you for your polite and thoughtful response. Elections should be over issues such as this.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on May 6 2008, 09:40 PM, said:

Winston please read the post just before yours.


"In short, Israel is (very rightly) worried about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, as it is close to 100% certainty that if they did obtain nuclear weapons they would be used against Israel. "

I have zero proof of this let alone proof that Iran wants a nuke, but at least this poster  seems pretty worried. If true I assume the fallout will kill many worldwide and may trigger a bigger war.

If we assume this is the general feeling of Israel I only hope and pray Winston is correct and Iran has no interest in making nukes.

It is curious to me that David Ben-Gurion was involved in what can only be described as "terrorist activities", and the PLO was held out as a terrorist organization for 25 years before gaining recognition.

My point is that terrorism is the violent arm of a political movement. I am not an expert on Iran or the middle east so I try to get my information from people who truly are experts in this area.

This quote,

Quote

For example, Hassan Nasrallah, Hezobollah's leader has said "I am against any reconciliation with Israel. I do not even recognize the presence of a state that is called 'Israel."

to me does not imply a certainty that Hezbollah would nuke Israel - it reads to me like a statement from someone who feels that Israel "stole" the Palestinian homeland and are thus non-deserving of the state of Israel.

It seems doubtful that the groups who would like to live in the land occupied by Israel would make that land inhabitable by using a nuclear weapon, not to mention the potential of damaging holy sites.

[mike777]

effervesce, on May 6 2008, 09:29 PM, said:

mike777, on May 5 2008, 06:46 PM, said:

I am still trying to figure out why no one seems to really care that Mrs. Clinton is going to kill 70 million Iranians if they nuke Israel without a treaty or without Congress saying that it is ok. No one even worries about the global fallout and how many that will kill. So much for the rule of law and the voters say no problem and she wins Penn and may win Tuesday.

But talk about double standards, why cannot Iran have Nukes and use them in self defense. The USA has done so. Russia, UK, France China, Pakistan and India say they will do so.

The problem is not about self-defense. If Iran would only use them for self-defense this would be a non-issue. However, Iran is a regime which does not agree that Israel has a right to exist. If they could make nuclear weapons, they would CERTAINLY allow Hezbollah to obtain such weapons (Iran is a major sponsor of Hezbollah) - and Hezbollah would not hesitate to use any weapon they obtain in attempting to destroy Israel. See wikipedia's entry on Hezbollah. For example, Hassan Nasrallah, Hezobollah's leader has said "I am against any reconciliation with Israel. I do not even recognize the presence of a state that is called 'Israel."


In short, Israel is (very rightly) worried about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, as it is close to 100% certainty that if they did obtain nuclear weapons they would be used against Israel.

I note you say what the general, overall belief and feeling in Israel is if, I repeat if Iran wants to obtain nukes. They will try and wipe Israel off the map of the world.

My question is how convinced are the people of Israel, as of today, that Iran is actively trying to build a nuke? Again I am asking about the feelings or belief of the people of Israel. For example the vast majority think Iran does not want to build one or the vast majority believe that they are in the process of building one?

[mike777]

"It seems doubtful that the groups who would like to live in the land occupied by Israel would make that land inhabitable by using a nuclear weapon, not to mention the potential of damaging holy sites."



Well Winston you say this is doubtful, but if this poster's information is correct, the people of Israel feel it is 100%. If this poster is accurate about the belief in Israel I think it is naive at best to assume Israel will do nothing once the leadership believes Iran is building a bomb. Yes this is all based on belief.

[kenberg]

I don't know what will happen next, but in the early 80s Israel bombed nuclear facilities in Iraq, and recently they bombed nuclear facilities in Syria. This could be a clue. Iran would be tough, even for the Israelis. But if the Iranians get nukes, it will be tougher. Maybe sanity will somehow prevail here, but that area of the world isn't much known for it. I don't see anything good coming along.

The thread began with questions about fairness. I seriously doubt either the Iranians or the Israelis think much in those terms. We can discuss what is fair of course, but it won't matter. Iran wants nukes. Israel aside, the world will do nothing to prevent this. So they will get them. So it seems. Maybe Israel will act, maybe not. Beats me.

[Winstonm]

Quote

and recently they bombed nuclear facilities in Syria.

Hey, Ken,

This is not meant as a slap against you in any way, but I find it interesting that you repeat the mantra that came for the White House and the MSM. I don't fault you for this, Ken, as most of us don't have time to dig around and question virtually any statement that is issued - but as that is basically a hobby of mine, it is easier for me to find the questions and contradictions.

Seymore Hersh in The New Yorker wrote an excellent piece questioning the Syrian nuke story - not that he said it wasn't a nuke facility, but there were many, many questions left unanswered and the proof offered was rather sparce.

But our MSM reported it as the White House claimed with no investigation or questioning....and now you repeat it and the next thing you know it is fact - whether or not it is true.

This is the world in which we now live - it feels as if we have gone through the looking glass and nothing is as it seems.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on May 6 2008, 11:03 PM, said:

Quote

and recently they bombed nuclear facilities in Syria.

Hey, Ken,

This is not meant as a slap against you in any way, but I find it interesting that you repeat the mantra that came for the White House and the MSM. I don't fault you for this, Ken, as most of us don't have time to dig around and question virtually any statement that is issued - but as that is basically a hobby of mine, it is easier for me to find the questions and contradictions.

Seymore Hersh in The New Yorker wrote an excellent piece questioning the Syrian nuke story - not that he said it wasn't a nuke facility, but there were many, many questions left unanswered and the proof offered was rather sparce.

But our MSM reported it as the White House claimed with no investigation or questioning....and now you repeat it and the next thing you know it is fact - whether or not it is true.

This is the world in which we now live - it feels as if we have gone through the looking glass and nothing is as it seems.

i feel the opposite, that most things are as they seem... you said in another post that you don't see conspiracy around every corner, and maybe that's true... but almost every post of yours implies that you see them around most corners

[kenberg]

Hi Winston,

No insult taken, not at all. Also, a certain lack of detailed knowledge on my part is readily conceded. For example, I don't know what the MSM is.

My thinking goes something like this:

1. It's difficult to be a major player in international politics w/o nukes and it seems clear that Iran sees its future as being a very major player.

2. Iran has made some pretty unequivocal statements as to its intention to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Also difficult to do w/o nukes.

3. A recent intelligence estimate says that they think maybe Iran has stopped certain portions of a program to develop nuclear weapons. Without any expertise, it seems I can conclude that if they stopped it, then there was a program to stop. It would seem to follow that they want nukes and are held back only, if at all, by a consideration of possible consequences.

Of course I don't know what the Iranians are doing. It would surprise me greatly if they were not trying to develop nukes because such development would seem to be in keeping with their announced plans for Iran's place in the world. If I were the president of Iran, and if I had in mind making Iran the dominant force in the region while wiping out Israel, I would get me some nukes if I could. I imagine Ahmadinejad (I checked the spelling and am amazed to find I got it right on the first try) thinks the same way.


Ahmadinejad is often spoken of as if he were nuts. Well, nuts he may be, or maybe not so nuts, but if we take his apparent intentions at approximately face value, I would expect him to very much want some nukes. Roosevelt wanted nukes. DeGaulle wanted nukes. And many others. I suppose Ahmadinejad wants some of his own. I imagine he will get them. I am not at all confident that this would change if Ahmadinejad were replaced by someone who speaks less provocatively.

Btw, while I didn't see the Seymore Hersh story I may well look it up. I regard Mr. Hersh as a very worthwhile read. Thanks. And again, I don't regard disagreement as insulting at all.

Ken

[Elianna]

sceptic, on May 6 2008, 02:55 PM, said:

Quote

Iran has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Israel hasn't. So Iran is subject to conditions under it, as a signatory nation, and Israel isn't.

Would that not indicate Iran are the good guys and anyone who is not willing to sign up to a glabal pact that is there to improve the safety of the world is not a good guy?

Signing up to a treaty and then breaking it is better than not agreeing at all in the first place? OK.

[jtfanclub]

Elianna, on May 7 2008, 08:54 AM, said:

Signing up to a treaty and then breaking it is better than not agreeing at all in the first place? OK.

Um, of course. You don't think so?

You'd rather, say, have a neighbor agree to pick up your paper while you're gone and then not do it, than have a neighbor say he can't do it?

I'd say in general that if somebody agrees not to do something and then does it, that it's worse than if somebody says they're going to do something and does it.

[matmat]

jtfanclub, on May 7 2008, 11:03 AM, said:

You'd rather, say, have a neighbor agree to pick up your paper while you're gone and then not do it, than have a neighbor say he can't do it?

i need to learn to read.... sorrs

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on May 7 2008, 05:19 AM, said:

Winstonm, on May 6 2008, 11:03 PM, said:

Quote

and recently they bombed nuclear facilities in Syria.

Hey, Ken,

This is not meant as a slap against you in any way, but I find it interesting that you repeat the mantra that came for the White House and the MSM. I don't fault you for this, Ken, as most of us don't have time to dig around and question virtually any statement that is issued - but as that is basically a hobby of mine, it is easier for me to find the questions and contradictions.

Seymore Hersh in The New Yorker wrote an excellent piece questioning the Syrian nuke story - not that he said it wasn't a nuke facility, but there were many, many questions left unanswered and the proof offered was rather sparce.

But our MSM reported it as the White House claimed with no investigation or questioning....and now you repeat it and the next thing you know it is fact - whether or not it is true.

This is the world in which we now live - it feels as if we have gone through the looking glass and nothing is as it seems.

i feel the opposite, that most things are as they seem... you said in another post that you don't see conspiracy around every corner, and maybe that's true... but almost every post of yours implies that you see them around most corners

And you, Jimmy, have a tendency to apply the tag "conspiracy" to what has not been suggested as conspiracy.

I'm sure you read my post and I know you are intelligent - but to make clear what I said was that the White House claims were repeated by the mainstream media without question - where is conspiracy in that?

Ineptitude is not conspiracy; poor journalism is not conspiracy; laziness is not conspiracy; sloth is not conspiracy; ignorance is not conspiracy; stupidity is not conspiracy; misguided patriotism is not conspiracy.....

You may want to check with yourself to make certain you aren't simply applying the term "conspiracy" to any idea with which you disagree.

[Winstonm]

Quote

For example, I don't know what the MSM is

Ken, MSM is shorthand for MainStream Media - ABC, CBS, Time, Fox, etc.

I appreciate your input into these discussions - you usually have something worthwhile to add. You made a good point about most countries with bigger goals wanting nukes, so there may be a lot of truth in the concern of Iranian nukes.

There is no doubt Iran is not a friend of Israel; however, I believe the more pressing reason for Iran to want nukes is to neutralize Israel's advantage, not as a reason to start war but as a method to coerce a conventional confrontation - i.e., a middle-east cold war, so to speak.

There may be a handfull of kooks who might actually use a nuclear weapon, but that group is not in power and are holed up in caves and desert camps. I do not think anyone in power - whether Israeli or Iranian - would be foolish enough to actually use a nuclear first strike and end with mutual assured destruction.

What we hear is the rhetoric, the spin, the justifications for stopping Iran, but I believe the more simple truth is that behind all the spin Israel simply wants to be the only nuclear nation in the middle-east; having a nuclear Iran creates a situation where the choices are all-out nuclear war, conventional war, or detente.
Obviously, when two opposing countries are armed with nuclear weapons the overall chances of nuclear war dramatically increase, so world peace is threatened.
But instead of stopping Iran the same end could be had by removing the capabilities from Israel. Therefore, it seems to me that Israel simply wants to keep the advantage, and if it takes lying, deceit, or spin, that is justified for their national safety - I can certainly understand and empathize with those feelings and fears.

But for the long-term interest of all the middle east, one country cannot continue to hold a huge military advantage over all the others. And that is the conundrum of that region.

[Winstonm]

Quote

And again, I don't regard disagreement as insulting at all.

To be clear, the reason for pointing out your comment was simply to give an example of how the majority of Americans get their news - so was not intended as a personal disparagement but as a criticism of our news organizations.

What so few realize is how much doubt and puzzlement there is outside the mainstream media about this incident. The White House (you remember them, don't you, the guys who knew Sadam had WMD and knew where they were) suddenly comes out 8-9 months after the incident and says, "Oh, yeah, well Syria and N. Korea were in cahoots building a nuclear reactor and it was set to go online in 2 weeks, so Israel bombed it."

As Mr. Hersh points out, that may be completely accurate, but the timing of the announcement is extremely odd, and the facts comprising the "proof" are quetionable. Demanding a fuller and more comprehensive explanation and proof used to be part of journalism's job, but now they simply parrot the press release.

That type of cynical, questioning journalism is simply not mainstream anymore - mainly, IMO, because it is cheaper, and thus more profitable, to hire talking heads who look good and can read the headlines. As long as we tolerate and support that as "our" news, it will continue.

Me, "I'm mad as hell and I won't take it anymore!" - (Network - 1979?)

[effervesce]

Winstonm, on May 6 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

mike777, on May 6 2008, 09:40 PM, said:

Winston please read the post just before yours.


"In short, Israel is (very rightly) worried about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, as it is close to 100% certainty that if they did obtain nuclear weapons they would be used against Israel. "

I have zero proof of this let alone proof that Iran wants a nuke, but at least this poster  seems pretty worried. If true I assume the fallout will kill many worldwide and may trigger a bigger war.

If we assume this is the general feeling of Israel I only hope and pray Winston is correct and Iran has no interest in making nukes.

It is curious to me that David Ben-Gurion was involved in what can only be described as "terrorist activities", and the PLO was held out as a terrorist organization for 25 years before gaining recognition.

My point is that terrorism is the violent arm of a political movement. I am not an expert on Iran or the middle east so I try to get my information from people who truly are experts in this area.

This quote,

Quote

For example, Hassan Nasrallah, Hezobollah's leader has said "I am against any reconciliation with Israel. I do not even recognize the presence of a state that is called 'Israel."

to me does not imply a certainty that Hezbollah would nuke Israel - it reads to me like a statement from someone who feels that Israel "stole" the Palestinian homeland and are thus non-deserving of the state of Israel.

It seems doubtful that the groups who would like to live in the land occupied by Israel would make that land inhabitable by using a nuclear weapon, not to mention the potential of damaging holy sites.

When their 'statements' have been backed up with suicide bombings and rocket bombardment of civilian areas, any less than paranoia about them obtaining nukes would be insane on Israel's part.

[Winstonm]

Quote

When their 'statements' have been backed up with suicide bombings and rocket bombardment of civilian areas, any less than paranoia about them obtaining nukes would be insane on Israel's part.

Consider this: Israel has nuclear weapons; Iran does not. Iran cannot confront Israel by conventional means as Israel could respond nuclear. What avenue is left for Iran to affect political change than terrorism?

Keep in mind that pre-Israel David Ben-Gurion also meddled in actions that could only be classified as terrorism. The PLO was considered a terrorist organization for 25 years. Terrorism is a politcally-driven activity.

No, the threat is not that Iran or terrorists will nuke Israel - if Iran gains nuclear weapons, they no longer have a need for terrorism - the threat is that the middle-east will find itself in a cold-war type situation, with two mortal enemies having the capacity to destroy each other.

The threat is that Israel would lose their nuclear advantage.