[RLRWai4B]

Originally posted by germanos
An Irani nuke is no direct threat to Israel. Has everybody forgot about MAD?

If Saddam was afraid to launch chemical weapons on Israel, while he was under attack by the coalition in 1990, why would Iran strike out of the blue?


Iran's president's rethoric is for internal use. There is no better way to silence internal opposition (to the mullah's) then to point at an external enemy. Striking at Iran will strengthen the grip of the mullah's and fanatical nutjobs. why do you want to go back to MAD?

we were lucky that MAD worked for so long.. but it was really close to failling many many times.. and the results would have been catostrophic if it had

right now the only MAD relationship is India/Pakistan.. and we should be doing all we can to end that

MAD isn't a stable equilibrium, it is unstable, and can end at anytime

I don't want to move back towards a MAD world.. I want nukes to be shelved, I want protection against nukes (if possible), I want countries that call for others to cease to exist not to have nukes

JM

[st01en_lox]

and at some point things will lead to other things

and some will be deployed..

I don't want that day to ever come

and I am not going to just sit and say there is nothing to be done..

now I don't know if Israel doing a strike on Iran is the answer..

but I don't think people should just sit back and say there is nothing that can be done

I would much rather the world controlled by a few powers who are at peace with one another (and all having nuclear arms)

then there existing more nations, some of which have conflict with eachother, and all having nuclear weapons...

now generally I prefer more nations, as it allows more variety..

Jon Miller

[denwerdinoss]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

The funny thing is, Ahmadinejad got alot of votes precisey because he isn't a cleric. point?

[ViaxobbimeVar]

Could everyone please post in this thread (PS: I Told You So!) instead of Az's copycat thread...

[prmwsinfo]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


why do you want to go back to MAD?

we were lucky that MAD worked for so long.. but it was really close to failling many many times.. and the results would have been catostrophic if it had

right now the only MAD relationship is India/Pakistan.. and we should be doing all we can to end that

MAD isn't a stable equilibrium, it is unstable, and can end at anytime

I don't want to move back towards a MAD world.. I want nukes to be shelved, I want protection against nukes (if possible), I want countries that call for others to cease to exist not to have nukes

JM MAD only works when both states are relatively sane. I think it was Mao that said to the effect that even in a nuclear war, a quarter of the suvivors will be chinese. perhaps the government of Iran is working under the same premise 9i.e more irnaians than isrealis)?

[bs44MhUW]

Late October.

[Espacamlisa]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
The Israelis have a history of aggressive international pre-emptive strikes across the entire region - including the USS Liberty of their own allies!

We weren't allies in 1967. Israel was viewed with some suspicion by the U.S. because it was seen as too close to the USSR. After the Six Days War, the U.S. decided that Israel could be a very useful ally.

[Qxkmsxsx]

Another potential answer to a question I asked over a year ago...

Israelis prepare public for conflict with 'genocidal' Iranian regime

Senior Israeli politicians and analysts appear to be preparing the public for military conflict with Iran as the Iranian President again refused to bow to international demands to curb its nuclear ambitions, and Tehran announced fresh military manoeuvres.

Israeli opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu told a security forum in Herzliya yesterday that individual states and companies should go beyond the UN economic sanctions. He argued that the first step should be to invoke financial sanctions to "divest genocide" and "delegitimise the regime of Iran through economic and political pressure".

The hawkish Likud leader added: "Either it will stop the nuclear programme without the need for a military operation, or it could prepare for it. When we are talking about rallying public opinion on genocide, who will lead the charge if not us? No one will come defend the Jews if they do not defend themselves. This is the lesson of history."

Talking to journalists, Mr Netanyahu said he doubted that the "genocidal regime" of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was "deterrable". This view was shared by Shmuel Bar, an Islamic specialist at the Herzliya centre, who said that the US and Iran were engaged in "very dangerous brinkmanship". He said that seen from Tehran, "the conspiracy theory goes that the US, with the UK and Israel, will take action to topple the Islamic regime, and that this has nothing to do with the nuclear issue."

Tehran has shown no sign of yielding to UN demands to halt uranium enrichment. "The resolution was born dead and even if they issue 10 more it will not affect Iran's economy and policies," Mr Ahmadinejad said yesterday in a televised speech. Looks like we're edging ever closer to D-Day...

Just wondering, does anyone know how good that air defence system those nice Russians recently sold the Iranians is?

[kanchouska]

Originally posted by Arrian


Surely you want them to, no? The moment Israel or the US actually did something, you'd be whining like a stuck pig. So basically you're saying that I would be doing a good job imitating your irrational bleating on this thread...?

For someone who claims the moral high ground in an argument, you sure look like a dick launching into an unprovoked attack in this one...

Personally, I don't see that there is a whole lot we can do but hope MAD holds. They're gonna get nukes eventually. Were I in their position, I'd absolutely be trying to get them. Nukes = immunity. And the best yet, you then go on and say that you don't see what we can do and agree with what I think...

Basically the way I see it is that if Iran is attacked, it risks sending the entire global economy into meltdown. The stakes are simply too high.

[craditc]

That's right, Moby, it's me who looks like a dick.

-Arrian

[NanoGordeno]

How much longer does Ahmedinajad have in his term? I honestly don't think he's getting reelected.

[AnneseeKels]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


Yes, because what the world really needs right now is for it be acceptable to use limited nuclear war as a viable tactic. That would make the world so much safer What is point behind your irony? Are you saying that the dangers of fallout from a limited number of nuclear strikes are not in fact exaggerated or are you responding to perceived advocacy on my part of engaging in limited nuclear wars?

If it is for the latter not only will I state for the record that I find the idea of resumption of use of nuclear weapons in warfare dangerous and appalling but I would also point out that no where in any of my posts have I even hinted that I think contemplation of use of nuclear weapons is acceptable.

[Jffxljtw]

Originally posted by Oerdin


He will. When you have the mullahs toss out any opposition who is more popular then you then you're a shoe in to win. The mullah's man always wins. except its more complex than that. based on my impressions, there are, too simplify, broadly four factions in Iran. The revolutionary Guard radicals, the mainstream ruling faction, the "loyal opposition" reformers, and the anti-regime reformers. And ALL of these factions has clerics in its camp, even the last (notabably Gr Ayatollah Montazeri) The mainstream regime faction is largely identified as corrupt - they gave Ahmadinajad leeway in the elections while denying space to Khatamis "loyal opposition" because they wanted an outlet for discontent with corruption and economic problems. Now theres apparently growing discontent on the street with the continued and worsening economic problems, associated with the confrontation with the West. The "mainstream" regime faction may want to shift power back to Rafsanjani and its own guys, away from Ahmadinajad and his pals, but I think you are right, they still want to keep both of the "opposition" factions from gaining any real power.

Certainly its interesting that we see this ferment largely in response to our so far limited sanctions, when some said the sanctions would have no impact.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6286771.stm

[97dYA9L3]

Originally posted by Geronimo


What is point behind your irony? Are you saying that the dangers of fallout from a limited number of nuclear strikes are not in fact exaggerated or are you responding to perceived advocacy on my part of engaging in limited nuclear wars?

If it is for the latter not only will I state for the record that I find the idea of resumption of use of nuclear weapons in warfare dangerous and appalling but I would also point out that no where in any of my posts have I even hinted that I think contemplation of use of nuclear weapons is acceptable. I'm suggesting that the real danger from a limited nuclear strike isn't the actual radio-active fallout, it's the precedent that it sets in terms of acceptability of use of nuclear weapons.

[jeockammece]

I may not have been paying that much attention, it was posted right before a rush to class.

[Arratherimi]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I suggest reading Michael Oren "The Six Day War" for a more accurate view of the Johnsons admin view of Israel. In fact the US did at that point see Israel as an ally, though the relationship was not as developed as later on. And being allies did not preclude having different POVs on a number of matters. And the USSR was working closely with Egypt and Syria (though of course not Jordan). There is some controversy as to whether the USSR could have done more to restrain Syria in particular.

Israel had not received arms from the Soviet bloc since about 1950 or so. Ben Gurion had tilted "West" very early after independence was achieved.

And the relationship with France had already broken before 1967. Thanks for defending me against Che's evil commie lies...

And Oren provides an excellent and detailed explanation of what happened wrt The Liberty. The short answer is that what happened has less to do with the Mobius kind of troll - its more in line with the typical KH "Israelis arent supermen" troll. In particular pilots whove been flying far too many missions in support of a quick victory in Sinai, whove had little sleep, who arent well trained in IDing naval targets, and some related incompetence on Israels part. So what you're saying is that we have to believe that the IDF back then was even more incompetent back then, than last year when it got it's ass handed to it on a plate by Hezbollah!!?

I love you Israeli apologists - you seem to believe that if you spew the most bare-faced lies loudly and often enough everyone will believe you!