Link here http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-clinton-iran23-2009jul23,0,6136414.story
This is actually an economic stimulus package to umbrella manufacturers in China, who have immediately begun retooling their machinery for one fucking huge umbrella.
I think a defence umbrella over the middle east to protect countries from Israeli nuclear weapons would be a fantastic idea. Perhaps then the Israelis wouldn’t be quite so arrogant and aggressive. I don’t see that the surrounding countries are concerned about being attacked by anybody else…
Hell, I bet Iran could be persuaded to back down from it’s nuclear program and find some sort of compromise if they got gifted an Aegis cruiser or two for starters…
How many countries had Israel ever threatened with nuclear weapons? Given its proximity to its worst enemies, Israel is well aware that launching a nuclear attack would be suicide, a last ditch show of ‘we’ll-take-you-with-us’ bravado. It’s a return to the MAD scenario of the Cold War, but it’s not an effective way of securing additional territory.
To which countries in the Middle East is Israel being aggressive? When’s the last time Israel invaded another nation? When’s the last time the US, UK, and Australia invaded another nation? Israel’s number one military issue is domestic, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. And it’s hardly likely to use nuclear weapons on these areas. What it needs to do is pull out of both the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This would inevitably result in Arab military retaliation, but that’s a risk Israel would have to take.
Except each other.
Israel has never called for Iran to be “wiped from the map”. Unlike some of their neighbours.
I note that the US is donating some F16s to Iraq. that should be interesting…
Invasion of Lebanon, 2006
“In the next ten years, during which they might consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
– Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 2008
[quote=“politbureau”]Invasion of Lebanon, 2006
[/quote]
That’s it? That’s the best you can do? A month long incursion for the purpose of subduing a non-Lebanese enemy which was raining rockets down on Israeli territory? Sure, I don’t believe they should have entered Lebanon without the cooperation and consent of the Lebanese. But this clearly wasn’t an ‘invasion’ of Lebanon. And you didn’t answer my other question. When’s the last time the US, UK, and Australia invaded another nation?
[quote]“In the next ten years, during which they might consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
– Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 2008[/quote]
Relevance?
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
How many countries had Israel ever threatened with nuclear weapons? [/quote]
Nuclear? Not that many, only Iraq that I’m aware of, but the US persuaded them to not do anything and they would go in instead. But if Syria or Iran had The Bomb, Israel’d be mighty quick on the trigger if their current rhetoric is to be believed.
Yes, I’ve heard them threatening Europe with that…
As I understand they’re not interesting in acquiring territory, so that point is moot. Pre-emptive strikes however seems something they’re very interested in, and it’s cowardly, foolish and completely immoral and unethical. The speed and regularity with which they jump to the idea of striking first is severely disturbing.
IS? Iran. Was? Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, “Palestine”… Not without cause, but cause and effect quickly becomes “who threw the egg first” and quickly becomes ridiculous.
Lebanon, 2006
UK and Australian forces tend to act with restraint, and their presence in the region is due in a large part to a misguided belief that they were doing the right thing. They’ve never threatened to bomb someone back to the stone age before they’ve done anything.
[quote]Israel’s number one military issue is domestic, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. And it’s hardly likely to use nuclear weapons on these areas. What it needs to do is pull out of both the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[quote]
Agreed!
[/quote]This would inevitably result in Arab military retaliation, but that’s a risk Israel would have to take.[/quote]
Depends how they handled it. Due to the usual Israeli way of doing things, by being arbitrary, one-sided and arrogant, quite probably. If they did it in a fair and reasonable manner, and were seen to, maybe not. If they decided to abandon the areas completely, they could for example ask the Palestinians what they want, and request an independant 3rd country to mediate. When the Palestinians start ranting about unfairness and genocide and “Get out of the Strip and the West Bank!” Israel readily agrees to do so - but on the proviso that they don’t want to be attacked, and they don’t want the areas to be used as bases of operations against Israel. Through the independant mediating country, it asks the EU to make sure this is enforced. In this way, they’ve been seen to be conciliatory, they’ve been seen to be reasonable, they’ve been seen to ask Palestinians what they wanted, and if Palestinians then continue they’re seen to be unfair, unreasonable and the aggressors. And the EU becomes responsible for maintaining peace! 
But Israel would never consider this because of their ego, and for fear of seeming weak. They’d probably just abandon the area, build a new wall, set up another dead-zone, and watch as the area becomes filled with screaming zealots pressing for redress for past injustices.
Really? I thought the presence of Israel kept them from attacking each other
[quote=“ice raven”][quote=“Fortigurn”]
How many countries had Israel ever threatened with nuclear weapons? [/quote]
Nuclear?[/quote]
Yes, that was the question.
So, not very many then. In fact only one. And how serious was that threat? Are they really about to nuke a country that close to them?
Would they really? Do you think they’re complete suicidal? Their nuclear deterrent is exactly that, a deterrent. It has no functional use in the acquisition of territory.
What? Threatening Europe with nuclear weapons?
Correct. They aren’t interested in acquiring territory. Which is precisely why the point is not moot.
Pre-emptive strikes are ‘cowardly, foolish and completely immoral and unethical’? On what basis?
No it isn’t, it’s a standard rule of war. But most of the time, as we both know, they don’t get to strike first.
There’s no such country as ‘Palestine’, but anyway. So we have one country to whom Israel is being aggressive. In what way is Israel being ‘aggressive’ to Iran? Threats of invasion? Threats of destruction?
Done and dusted, see again.
So the question again, when’s the last time the US, UK, and Australia invaded another nation? I note with interest you didn’t suggest that the US forces tend to act with restraint. 
Well that’s somthing.
Goodness, you’re objective aren’t you?
In reality, Iran and the Arab nations don’t want Israel out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip at all. They actually want Israel to maintain her presence there. That’s precisely why they have no real interest in providing substantial assistance to the ‘Palestinians’. They learned the futility of that decades ago, and changed their tactics accordingly.
Can we perhaps address this subject in the context of reality rather than this kind of meaningless partisan rhetoric?
Whatever gave you this idea? Israel’s presence didn’t stop the Iran/Iraq war.
Ask the Iraqi people when the last time was that the U.S., UK and Australia invaded another nation.
[quote=“urodacus”]Israel has never called for Iran to be “wiped from the map”. Unlike some of their neighbours.
Ah yes, wondered when someone would mention that. The much misquoted “wiped from the map” quote, with no map, no “wipe out”, and no “Israel”.
What he actually said was:
“Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).”
“The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”.
globalresearch.ca/index.php? … a&aid=4527
Now that sounds suspiciously similar to another quote:
Exodus 17:14-15
The Lord says: “I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.”
He’s taking the piss! He’s using Jewish and Christian religious books back apon themselves! So who’s threatening who?
Shimon Peres, on the other hand, has more than once threatened to wipe Iran off the map.
And then there’s this little gem:
"I recently asked one of his advisers to gauge for me the depth of Mr. Netanyahu’s anxiety about Iran. His answer: “Think Amalek.”
As related in 1 Samuel 15, God instructed the Israelite king Saul to “go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”
ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=251
There are a few more books that may need to be investigated for suspected incitement to hatred of Amalekites, below is a list of the offending books (with the relevant chapters and verses):
What’s annoying in the extreme is that every time Iran is mentioned, that quote is thrown in by some irresponsible journalist. Every time Israel is mentioned, that quote is thrown in. “Iran, who has threatened to wipe Israel from the face of the earth, …” “Israel, whose neighbours wish to erase from the face of the earth,…” but there’s NEVER any reciprocal reporting. You NEVER read “Israel, who has threatened to bomb Iran back to oblivion, today asked the US for more new bagel recipes.” It’s the hypocrisy of it all, the constant one-sided reporting presenting Israel as angelic innocents valiently defending their land from mad rabid fanatics on all sides. It’s nothing like the truth, and if both sides would drop their damn rhetoric and propaganda wars and started being honest then it would be a start for working towards a viable solution. I’ll go so far as to say it’s a necessary precondition to peace. There is no right or wrong side, there’s a hell of a lot of grey areas filled with blood. So shut up, recognise that, and start working towards resolution, reconciliation and peace, for fuck’s sake!* The constant tit for tat violence, the constant finger pointing and accusations is just circular, cyclical and never ending.
*Israel, Iran and all the other shitstirring countries involved, not the OP
[quote=“ice raven”]Ah yes, wondered when someone would mention that. The much misquoted “wiped from the map” quote, with no map, no “wipe out”, and no “Israel”.
What he actually said was:
“Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).”
“The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”.
globalresearch.ca/index.php? … a&aid=4527[/quote]
From your link:
[quote]Confusing matters further, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pontificates rather than give a direct answer when questioned about the statement, such as in Lally Weymouth’s Washington Post interview in September 2006:
We need to look at the scene in the Middle East — 60 years of war, 60 years of displacement, 60 years of conflict, not even a day of peace. Look at the war in Lebanon, the war in Gaza — what are the reasons for these conditions? We need to address and resolve the root problem.
Our suggestion is very clear:… Let the Palestinian people decide their fate in a free and fair referendum, and the result, whatever it is, should be accepted… The people with no roots there are now ruling the land.
What I have said has made my position clear. If we look at a map of the Middle East from 70 years ago…
Are you asking me yes or no? Is this a test? Do you respect the right to self-determination for the Palestinian nation? Yes or no? Is Palestine, as a nation, considered a nation with the right to live under humane conditions or not? Let’s allow those rights to be enforced for these 5 million displaced people.[/quote]
Yes, I’m convinced. There’s more. Your link also makes the point that this statement was originally made by Iran, prior to Ahmadinejad’s words:
So where did it really come from, this unfortunate phrase? It came from Iran. Whatever interpretation is placed on Ahmadinejad’s words, the fact is that the original statement was made by Iran, and Ahmadinejad deliberately avoided repudiating it when given repeated opportunities to do so.
[quote]Now that sounds suspiciously similar to another quote:
Exodus 17:14-15
The Lord says: “I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.”
He’s taking the piss! He’s using Jewish and Christian religious books back apon themselves![/quote]
You’ve just ruined your original argument. If the Imam’s original statement was supposed to be a satirical comment on Exodus 17:14-15, it must necessarily have referred to the utter destruction of Israel and its entire population. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim he was only speaking of a regime change and then claim he was hijacking a Judeo-Christian statement of intended annihilation.
The Imam was threatening Israel.
Really? In what context? What steps has he taken to do this?
[quote]And then there’s this little gem:
"I recently asked one of his advisers to gauge for me the depth of Mr. Netanyahu’s anxiety about Iran. His answer: “Think Amalek.”
As related in 1 Samuel 15, God instructed the Israelite king Saul to “go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”
ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=251[/quote]
This is a mismatch. You take a statement about Netanyahu’s anxiety about Amalek, and try to pair it with a statement concerning what Saul was commanded to do to Amalek. It seems you’re trying to encourage people to draw the conclusion that Netanyahu was so concerned about Iran that he wanted to ‘slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass’. But that’s not what he said.
[quote]There are a few more books that may need to be investigated for suspected incitement to hatred of Amalekites, below is a list of the offending books (with the relevant chapters and verses):
[/quote]Translation, ‘I have Googled for anything I could find which suited my prejudices and appears to substantiate my argument, but I have no intention of verifying it’. Just so we understand.
Quite. Welcome to Western capitalism. Enjoy your stay.
So who is threatening whom with nuclear weapons?
[quote]Israeli navy in Suez Canal prepares for potential attack on Iran
– July 16, 2009
Two Israeli missile class warships have sailed through the Suez Canal ten days after a submarine capable of launching a nuclear missile strike, in preparation for a possible attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.[/quote]
Well no one, on the basis of that article. But this was interesting:
That’s a fact you don’t hear very often. I wonder why.
Israeli warships regularly transit the Suez Canal, to no fanfare at all, and why not? they have ports in seas at both ends of the canal. The only difference this time was that it was publicised to send a not-too subtle hint that they do actually have a navy, to any of those who might care to listen. Not specifically to Iran, i am sure, but hey, if they’re there and moving their own navy around, why not?
I can’t believe there is any one here supporting Iran. To what ends? explain yourself!
True. Last time I looked, the Suez was owned by Egypt. I’m fairly sure they’re allowed to let anyone they want play in their pool. So the real issue is not Israel’s presence in the Suez, but Egypt granting them permission to be there. Of course that doesn’t play to the anti-Israel agenda, so it is quietly suppressed.
Because the enemy of my enemy is my friend. People aren’t really supporting Iran, they’re just finding reasons to beat their anti-Israeli drum.
Damn it, had been typing form most of an hour and my computer crashed. Pissed off. You’ll have to wait till tonight, if I have time…
I commiserate. If you use Firefox, there’s a ‘session saver’ setting which enables you to record your entire session (including open tabs), and everything in any text boxes which were open at the time. It records what you type even as you type it. This means that no matter how abruptly your computer crashes, when you restore the previous Firefox session it will restore all the text you had typed up to the moment of the crash. I’ve found it very useful in such situations as you describe.
For those of us who are used to having to repeat ourselves, there’s Clippings.
True. Last time I looked, the Suez was owned by Egypt. I’m fairly sure they’re allowed to let anyone they want play in their pool. So the real issue is not Israel’s presence in the Suez, but Egypt granting them permission to be there. Of course that doesn’t play to the anti-Israel agenda, so it is quietly suppressed.
[/quote]
No, it’s not discussed simply because your point is wrong. Egypt is bound by treaty to let any nation, including Israel, to use the Canal for transit- including warships.
If Iran decided it wanted to sail part of its Navy into the Med, Egypt would be obliged to allow that.
What point is wrong? That the Suez is owned by Egypt? That they are allowed to let anyone they want go through it? Neither of these points are wrong.
[quote]Egypt is bound by treaty to let any nation, including Israel, to use the Canal for transit- including warships.
If Iran decided it wanted to sail part of its Navy into the Med, Egypt would be obliged to allow that.[/quote]
This doesn’t weaken my point, it substantiates it. Israel is exactly where they are allowed to be.
As for Ahmedinejad, he called for Israel to vanish from the pages of time (or history), and he directly compared that to three situations
a)The collapse of the Soviet Union (remember Iran was the main supporter of the Afghans after the Soviet invasion, and before the involvement of the US- just as they were the main supporters of the Northern Alliance against the Taliban)
b) The fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq
c) The overthrow of the Shah in Iran
His position is that the state of Israel be dissolved and that the Palestinian people- Muslims, Christians and Jews -have a referendum. The kicker is that those eligible should be restricted to the original inhabitants- i.e. no Jews who moved to Israel after the start of Zionism. The rest, about 99% of the Jewish population, would have to abide by the results.
If I was an Israeli, I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him, but that’s actually what the man said.