luke warm Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrTodd13 Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 Wow alot of people ready to bomb Iran..to what effect or consequences? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 "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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 "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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 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 population2. The Iranian population rallying arround the flag3. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 "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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 "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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 ".....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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 Well can we agree that India is not a small country? and pakistan has nukes....whatever that means Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keylime Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 I agree with Winston's theme: whoever shoots first is going to get pounded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 then who ever shoots first should be pounded first and shoot second/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted January 25, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 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 ...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 Well can we agree that India is not a small country? and pakistan has nukes....whatever that means Well, it certainly suffered from small international influence.....and likely still does. Hmmmn, Pakistan, an Islamic nation with a dictator as head of state. (Pervez Musharraf certainly seems to be a very intelligent and savvy leader.) Developed nuclear weapons somewhat serruptitiously. Where were the American fear-mongering and threats against this state that harbors Taliban, AlQaeda and (if he is still alive) Osama? Oh yeah, I forgot, he is "supported" by Bush et al. (He was smart enough to "say" he was with the US. (which has gotten him several assasination attempts btw.)) Wait up, how much oil is in Pakistan?.....oh yeah, none. qed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 Does anyone actually fear the country of Iran having nuclear weapons? Can anyone seriously believe that the moment nukes are available to Iran they would launch a nuclear offensive against Israel? Seems to me that the real "fear" is that Iran would provide nuclear weapons to terrorists - but I have a difficult time believing that a nuclear weapon could be smuggled into the U.S. by a terrorist - and the bombay doors on the al-Qaeda airforce don't work too well. Pakistan is in a position to do the same thing - and they harbor terrorists, supposedly - dang, we need a bigger army because we're going to have to invade darn near everyone before this is over. I do not understand the rationale of using military action to try to solve a criminal problem. The people killed by terrorists are not killed on the battlefield, they are killed on the streets. There is no "War of Terror". There are terrorists, who commit crimes - this is in the province of police work. Pakistan, India, and even North Korean have or are in the process of trying to create nuclear programs - we didn't invade any of these countries. The leader of N. Koreas is surely as insane as anyone in Iran. It is another odd coincidence that the only country we have super-hyped fear about is Iran, and Iran has lots of oil and is part of the PNAC plan for American imperialism. Should we have preemptively attacked the U.S.S.R. when Kruschev pounded his shoe on the table at the U.N. and claimed "We will buy you." He was talking about the U.S. too. Now we have Iran, who is not directly threatening the U.S., and somehow we have to stop this madman 10 years before he could produce a single bomb. It doesn't make sense. Coincidence, of course, happens. But when coincidence piles up on coincidence ad infinitum, it makes a trash heap that after a while begins to smell strongly of fish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 "1) Ok Peter votes for an in depth investigation into many complicated issues after a nuke strike on the USA." Your question implied, in my reading at least, that an independent terrorist group rather than a country launched the strike. Was I correct? If so, do you have the intellectual honesty to throw out a few scenarios, along with your judgment as to the appropriate response? Apparently you think the issue is crystal clear, so it should be easy for you. I expect that the answer to this question is no, but I can always hope :P If not, MAD applies. Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 If you wish to follow your "insane" leaders, you will swallow their tripe and do what they say. There is still time to turf them out (I hope) and get back on track. Please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 "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. Thorough investigation sounds like a good idea to me, especially when we're talking about using nuclear weapons. Back in the day, Mutually Assured Destruction "worked" because there were very few nuclear powers. If the United States were to be attacked, we could be pretty damn sure that either Russia or China was to blame. Most of the MAD scenarios involved ensuring a retaliatory capable after one side (or the other) launched a massive first strike. These days, the world looks very different. Nuclear weapons are getting easier to come by. There is a very real worry that weapons might come into the hands of a non-state actor. I would argue that the most most important deployment scenario is that a terrorist group might succeed in smuggling a single crude device inside of a container ship. One day, we wake up and Baltimore, or Houston, or Haifa is gone... Think 9/11 only two to three orders of magnitude worse. Personally, my main priority after any such attack would be trying to determine who was responsible for lauching it. Some form of retaliation would (probably) be right and proper, but it would need to be targetted appropriately. I would hope that the lessons of Iraq where we're repaing the benfits of invading the wrong country would lead people to understand the benefits of "in depth investigations". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.