Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic bomb

[shootinstudent]

After the 6 Day War, Israel's leaders fully expected to negotiate a peace agreement with their neighbors that would involve some territorial compromise.

So that's why Israel started building settlements in the territory immediately, especially around the most important part for the Palestinians (Jerusalem)?

RH, please post a source for the information...I think you are relying on secondary comments from quite biased sources, and that's why you are making the claims you do. The primary documents (at least that I can find) do not support this assessment.

Indeed, there are still Israeli troops poised for the whole territory except for Gaza, which is certainly not 93 percent...in what way was it "given back"? What's the Israeli plan for East Jerusalem?

Yes, it is possible to blame Arafat for a good deal of this. But noone yet has repudiateed this. And again, the return to an armed congflict was definately unilateral on the Palestinain side (for awhile at least).

Again, given the history, why would they believe the Israelis will actually allow them a state? The first thing that happened when Israel was created was that the Israeli forces expanded to occupy a land area more than double the size of the one envisioned by the partition...they also refused all cease fires and bans on the importation of weapons and additional immigration. As for 67 being a defensive war...there's no good evidence Egypt was going to attack, and I posted a source to document that even Israeli leadership didn't believe there was.

To paint these all as "defensive wars" when religiously important targets were seized and "settlements" were built almost immediately to me defies reason...if you don't intend to keep a piece of land, why on earth would you start building houses and encouraging your citizens to move there?

I do agree though, with you on the point that the Palestinians inability and refusal to deal with the terrorists effectively is only hurting them. The problem is that if even if they don't stop those people from the Palestinian side, if the violence continues, it's possible that in the future an Israel without military allies will be victimized while an uninterested world sits by. I don't want to see that, and I think the only way to avoid it is to do everything necessary now to secure peace between the majority of the people in all the countries involved.

Shaldag, it looks like you are in Israel...I am editing this to add that I sincerely hope none of this madness ever reaches you or your loved ones (or anyone else). Good luck to you and I hope we'll see an end to this conflict that leaves the good society you have built as a model for the rest of the middle east to follow.

 

[Art Eatman]

shootinstudent, all ya gotta do is look at a map of Israel to see why Israel kept the so-called "occupied territories". After all, the Israelis were invaded. Historically, the winner sets the terms of who owns what after a war.

Israel needed the Golan Heights to stop the Syrian rocket attacks. Israel needs the occupied territories to keep from being a wasp-waisted, vulnerable ten-mile-wide strategic and tactical cripple.

Israel, faced with the unending threat of genocide, can not lose even just one battle without becoming a sepulchre. That's the why of "Masada shall not fall again."

Art

 

[Dannyboy]

Israel has given up the Gaza Strip. As long as there are wackos in charge in Syria, they will not give up the Golan Heights. King Hussein relinquished Jordan's claim on the West Bank. The West Bank is Israeli territory. Obviously, they won't annex it into Israel because they aren't stupid. That whole demographic thing with the Palestinians breeding at a 5:1 rate and all.

Egypt blockaded Israeli ports and harrased Israeli ships in 67. That right there was enough to justify an Israeli attack. Combine those with agressive troop build-ups and they would have been stupid to do nothing.

OK, what else was there? Oh yeah, Israel being helpless without the US. The only time the US hepled Israel during any of its wars was in 73' and that was more in response to the Soviets supplying the Arab states.

As for religious violence in Northern Ireland, that came about only when groups like the UDA and the UVF started shooting little old ladies on buses. The IRA never targeted anyone based on the fact that they were Protestant.
The establishment (police, military, politicians, etc.) in NI just happens to be largely Protestant.

 

[shootinstudent]

After all, the Israelis were invaded. Historically, the winner sets the terms of who owns what after a war.

I have to rely on the primary sources that identify pre-emptive strikes in most of these wars. Israel was not invaded in 1967 until it started bombing and attacking Egypt and Syria. When it was established in 48, it ignored Palestinian and UN calls for a cease fire to double its size beyond the UN vision within a year. And sure, historically winners set terms...but if they don't do it lawfully and fairly, more warfare is guaranteed. That's what went wrong after World War I, and I think it's a good lesson about taking too much from victory. The settlements were a bad idea from the beginning, because the whole world regarded at least part of that land as rightfully belonging to Palestinian arabs...and building settlements there simply reinforced the idea that Israel never intended to allow palestine to have its own government, and that it was on a religious mission to make Israel entirely Jewish controlled. That was bad PR and it ruined any credit the Israelis had in potential negotiations. Nonetheless...

I agree with you that Israel cannot lose even one battle...but my point is that the only way to win in the long run is to make it so that its neighbors do not have any interest in doing battle. There are more than enough Arabs and supporters of the Arabs to wait out US interest in protecting Israel, and they'll find plenty of leeway for whatever they attempt from an International community that almost uniformly condemns most of historical moves that Israel has made. Failing to find a solution that gives the Palestinians what they were promised and restores confidence in Israel's willingness to adhere to the law will leave Israel vulnerable to sanctions (to address dannyboy's point) that will destroy its ability to fight if there's a period where the US loses interest.

Dannyboy,

I believe the blockade was in 56...and had a lot to do with British and French interests in the Suez.

As I noted above, the US is crucial to Israel in that it prevents the Security Council from doing to Israel what sanctions did to Iraq. That's a very real danger in the future, and if it happens...do you think the UN would intervene to stop Arab invasions into Israeli land, even that which the UN considers legally held?

As for this:

The IRA never targeted anyone based on the fact that they were Protestant.
The establishment (police, military, politicians, etc.) in NI just happens to be largely Protestant.

That is whitewashing the religious aspects out the conflict on purpose. There is absolutely zero way to do any research into the history of the Republican movement and not see the Catholic-Protestant connection.

 

[Dannyboy]

Dannyboy,

I believe the blockade was in 56...and had a lot to do with British and French interests in the Suez.

I couldn't think of the name but Shaldag said it in one of his posts. I was referring to the closing of the Straits of Tirran. That was in 67'. As far as 56', Israel was definitely in the wrong. I can understand why they did it, though.

That is whitewashing the religious aspects out the conflict on purpose. There is absolutely zero way to do any research into the history of the Republican movement and not see the Catholic-Protestant connection.

The Catholics were an oppressed minority for decades. They were oppressed by a government run by Protestants but they never targeted anyone based solely on the fact that the person was a Protestant. The same cannot be said for the loyalist groups. Obviously religion plays a part but I personally don't believe that is as important to the issue as you. If you read anything about the "Troubles", the issue of "sectarian strife" doesn't come around until the birth of the loyalist/unionist groups.

 

[Borachon]

The only time the US hepled Israel during any of its wars was in 73' and that was more in response to the Soviets supplying the Arab states.

And because Israel was about to lose. Golda Mier sent a message to Nixon telling him to "Save Israel". The only option that was about to be left was nuclear. In a small country like Israel, using nukes would have destroyed large sections of their own space.

Sadat did a great job lulling the Israelis into believing war was impossible. He had a good plan and good equipment. If the US hadn't started sending equipment, Sadat's forces would have in all likelihood beaten the Israelis....or caused them to destroy the country nuclearly.

 

[Mad Chemist]

On the radio today I heard a piece of a report that Iran is in the midst of a billion dollar deal with Russia to buy, among other things, missiles. The reporter didn't mention wether these missiles were large, guided, nuclear payload capable. Wonder if they were? Anyone else hear about this latest deal?
Josh

They're anti-aircraft, surface to air missiles.

 

[Mad Chemist]

If Iran gets the atom bomb, I think my concern will be what are the difficulties involved in bringing it into the United States in a suitcase across the Mexican border.

They are still working on the early "gun model" fission weapon, similar to Little Boy. They are nowhere near developing miniature thermonuclear weapons.

If one is worried about a nuclear attack on CONUS, then who gives a tin sh$% about Iran. I'm MUCH more concerned about the unsecured stockpiles of: Russia, Ukraine, Kyrzigstan, etc.; which BTW DO include miniature and tactical thermonuclear weapons.

Of course, the Chechens will probably set one off in Moscow before they start selling them to Al Qaeda.

Sorry, I just felt it was necessary to inject a little bit harsh reality into this thread.

 

[R.H. Lee]

When it was established in 48, it ignored Palestinian and UN calls for a cease fire to double its size beyond the UN vision within a year.

Now see, you're wrong again. Since the beginning, the Arabs have been the aggressors. Here's what happened:

The chairman of the Arab Higher Committee said the Arabs would "fight for every inch of their country." Two days later, the holy men of Al-Azhar University in Cairo called on the Muslim world to proclaim a jihad (holy war) against the Jews. Jamal Husseini, the Arab Higher Committee's spokesman, had told the UN prior to the partition vote the Arabs would drench "the soil of our beloved country with the last drop of our blood . . . ."

Husseini's prediction began to come true almost immediately after the UN announced partition resolution on November 29, 1947. The Arabs declared a protest strike and instigated riots that claimed the lives of 62 Jews and 32 Arabs. Violence continued to escalate through the end of the year.

The first large-scale assaults began on January 9, 1948, when approximately 1,000 Arabs attacked Jewish communities in northern Palestine. By February, the British said so many Arabs had infiltrated they lacked the forces to run them back. In fact, the British turned over bases and arms to Arab irregulars and the Arab Legion.

In the first phase of the war, lasting from November 29, 1947 until April 1, 1948, the Palestinian Arabs took the offensive, with help from volunteers from neighboring countries. The Jews suffered severe casualties and passage along most of their major roadways was disrupted.

On April 26, 1948, Transjordan's King Abdullah said:
"All our efforts to find a peaceful solution to the Palestine problem have failed. The only way left for us is war. I will have the pleasure and honor to save Palestine."

On May 4, 1948, the Arab Legion attacked Kfar Etzion. The defenders drove them back, but the Legion returned a week later. After two days, the ill-equipped and outnumbered settlers were overwhelmed. Many defenders were massacred after they had surrendered. This was prior to the invasion by the regular Arab armies that followed Israel's declaration of independence.

The UN blamed the Arabs for the violence. The UN Palestine Commission was never permitted by the Arabs or British to go to Palestine to implement the resolution. On February 16, 1948, the Commission reported to the Security Council:

"Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."

The Arabs were blunt in taking responsibility for starting the war. Jamal Husseini told the Security Council on April 16, 1948:

"The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight."

The British commander of Jordan's Arab Legion, John Bagot Glubb admitted:

"Early in January, the first detachments of the Arab Liberation Army began to infiltrate into Palestine from Syria. Some came through Jordan and even through Amman . . . They were in reality to strike the first blow in the ruin of the Arabs of Palestine."

Despite the disadvantages in numbers, organization and weapons, the Jews began to take the initiative in the weeks from April 1 until the declaration of independence on May 14. The Haganah captured several major towns including Tiberias and Haifa, and temporarily opened the road to Jerusalem.


The partition resolution was never suspended or rescinded. Thus, Israel, the Jewish State in Palestine, was born on May 14, as the British finally left the country. Five Arab armies (Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq) immediately invaded Israel. Their intentions were declared by Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."

 

[seansean]

I don't know if this has been posted already, but elbaradei didn't quite say what everyone says he did...
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Drudge_Jerusalem_Post_sensationalize_story_about_1205.html

 

[Cousin Mike]

I still don't see how that changes the fact that had they left Palestine alone, instead of forcing migration on the local population, things would be a lot better off than they are today. The migration of Jews on a large scale to Palestine started in the 1880's, not the 1920's or 1917, or 1948, or 19-anything. The problems in the region, even back then, were not what they are today but what country doesnt have problems? Especially in that particular part of the world. Guess I have to eat my foot on the whole "they lived together in peace" thing, but British control over the area and migration policies made the situation a lot worse. Someone also asked about the borders of Palestine earlier, it was pretty much all of present-day Israel and Jordan.

All of this is beside the point anyway, but I still think Israeli government policy is excessive sometimes. And I don't think they have the right to nuke Iran, or bomb anything inside their borders just because some think Iran is building a bomb. My personal belief, Iran wouldn't be stupid enough to send a nuke towards Israel. And I really don't think they would be stupid enough to try and get one across our borders, regardless of what the fear-mongers on TV say. A country that might be building one nuclear weapon would be committing suicide attacking the country with the most nuclear weapons in the world. Just my $0.02 again

 

[NineseveN]

I don't think they have the right to nuke Iran, or bomb anything inside their borders just because some think Iran is building a bomb.

The problem is, they live there, you don't, I don't think they care much what you feel is right or wrong. If you're right, and they do it, they're bad folks...if they're right and they don't do it, their country may be obliterated...I have a hard time judging them when their survival is at stake, especially given the history in that region. But I understand your point.

 

[Silver Bullet]

A country that might be building one nuclear weapon would be committing suicide attacking the country with the most nuclear weapons in the world.

The terrorists aren't specifically aligned to a particular government or even a country. They'll be (or be like) Al Qaeda, reigning down destruction in the USA and then expecting zero retaliation because there was so little official connection between them and any political or sovereign entity.

If a suitcase nuke goes off in the U.S., and the perpetrators are determined to be Saudi terrorists with no connection to the government, are you going to counter strike with nukes against Saudi Arabia ?

Maybe we would, because maybe it's the only thing we can do to prevent additional occurrences, but there are some awesome implications here.

 

[longeyes]

The terrorists aren't specifically aligned to a particular government or even a country. They'll be (or be like) Al Qaeda, reigning down destruction in the USA and then expecting zero retaliation because there was so little official connection between them and any political or sovereign entity.

If a suitcase nuke goes off in the U.S., and the perpetrators are determined to be Saudi terrorists with no connection to the government, are you going to counter strike with nukes against Saudi Arabia ?

Want to stop the problem? The answer is YES.

You don't get nukes without "help." From high places. Let's end the masquerade.

 

[shootinstudent]

R.H. Lee,

Please post the primary source that supports your claim of the UN blaming Palestinians. I posted a link to virtually all of the commission reports and resolutions on the subject...and I've read the hard copy versions of the UN debates and hearings at the security council. That includes the whole of the April 16th debate, where the Jewish Agency rep and the Russian rep refused to discuss a cease fire or hiatus on immigration, which Hussein wanted. That was a debate where the Palestinians wanted a cease fire in order to refer the matter to the Security Council for resolution, but the Jewish Agency refused.

Why do you continually refuse to post a source for this information? I think if you will, it will be pretty clear why it has the slant that it does...

Edit:

Nevermind, since you ignored the question twice, I used google. Your post is copied in its entirety, and unattributed to:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf4.html

 

[Art Eatman]

shootinstudent, I was 33 years old in 1967. I remember it pretty well. Sources such as the daily papers, live TV and Time/Newsweek et al. Sorry, but I'll still go with the Israelis as being righteous. the Israelis weren't doing squat to Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iran or Saudi Arabia--all of whom provided some sort of either financial support or direct troops/tanks/artillery in the invasion.

I still see it as no different from some dude with an ax, cussing my name and looking my way. He heads toward me, I'm gonna shoot--not psychoanalyze his motives.

One of my more favorite TV memories is Abba Eban, drawing himself up to his full 5'-4" in the UN General Assembly, and saying to a whining Arab, "There are three million Jews. There are 200 million Arabs. Is the distinguished delegate from Egypt trying to say we surrounded them?"

Which led to such notions as Egyptian tanks having a four-speed transmission: One forward, three reverse.

Or, an Egyptian tank collided with an Israeli tank. The Egyptians jump out, crying, "We surrender!" The Israelis jump out, crying, "Whiplash!"

Arabs, being slow learners, tried again in 1973. So, finally figuring out that the Israelis are pretty serious about such things as avoiding genocide, they started this "Intifada" strategy, which of course includes propaganda and spin in such anti-Israel strongholds as the UN.

Same sort of propaganda and spin as are used against pro-gun folks--and just as factual.

Art

 

[R.H. Lee]

Cousin Mike: My personal belief, Iran wouldn't be stupid enough to send a nuke towards Israel.

Iran's President, Ahmadinejad, has said he wants "Israel wiped off the face of the map". This has been the Arab position since the beginning. When you start from the premise that the Jews have no right to the state of Israel, you have no basis for negotiation. The Arabs don't want peace with Jews; they don't want to co-exist with Jews; they want the Jews "pushed into the sea". The 'Palestinians' will never have a homeland so long as their overriding goal is to eliminate Jews.

 

[shootinstudent]

Sorry, but I'll still go with the Israelis as being righteous. the Israelis weren't doing squat to Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iran or Saudi Arabia--all of whom provided some sort of either financial support or direct troops/tanks/artillery in the invasion.

Well, what's relevant is what the Israelis thought...I posted a speech by Menachem Begin himself on that, and he said: "let's be honest..." before explaining that he really had no idea if the Egyptians were going to attack or not. He specifically described the war as chosen and initiated by Israel in response to factors that did not threaten the existence of the State. I have to believe that he would have a good picture of what Israeli leadership believed at the time.

Arabs, being slow learners, tried again in 1973. So, finally figuring out that the Israelis are pretty serious about such things as avoiding genocide, they started this "Intifada" strategy, which of course includes propaganda and spin in such anti-Israel strongholds as the UN.

The same spin goes on against Arabs. It is something that all politicians do. And I think it's bad in every case. My point is, what's going to happen when the spin in the West (as it has been for most of history) returns to being unhappy with or disinterested in protecting Jews and Israel?

That's a very real possibility in the future, and the only way to secure against it now, IMO, is to find a settlement that gives the Palestinians what they were promised and what they expressed willingness to accept in 1948...their own state, with a piece of Jerusalem or an international Jerusalem. If that doesn't happen, there will remain disastrous potential for gross abuses of both Arabs and Jews in the future. Whatever your view of 67 and 73 and 80...that's got to be a factor in how you think we should go about moving forward.

 

[idakfan]

More American troops dead so Israel, land of "Gods chosen people" (ROFL - yeah right), can have 200 nukes and Iran 0?

I'm not buying it.

 

[R.H. Lee]

More American troops dead so Israel, land of "Gods chosen people" (ROFL - yeah right), can have 200 nukes and Iran 0?

I'm not buying it.

How do you suggest nuclear arms be apportioned? Maybe the U.N. should establish an 'Equal Nuclear Capability' commission to ensure that every country has just the right number of nukes. Maybe it could be based on population or the number of miles on borders. You know, something 'fair'.

 

[scout26]

Cousin Mike: My personal belief, Iran wouldn't be stupid enough to send a nuke towards Israel.

Then why are they building them ??? The stated goal of most/some Arab nations is destruction/elimination of Isreal. Heck, even the President of Iran stated that Isreal does not have the right to exist.

Remember how you felt on the afternoon of 9/11/2001, after watching the towers fall ??? Now imagine you're an Isreali and have just witnessed Tel Aviv go up in a mushroom cloud.

What do you think would happen next...........

 

[Manedwolf]

They are still working on the early "gun model" fission weapon, similar to Little Boy. They are nowhere near developing miniature thermonuclear weapons.

If one is worried about a nuclear attack on CONUS, then who gives a tin sh$% about Iran. I'm MUCH more concerned about the unsecured stockpiles of: Russia, Ukraine, Kyrzigstan, etc.; which BTW DO include miniature and tactical thermonuclear weapons.

Of course, the Chechens will probably set one off in Moscow before they start selling them to Al Qaeda.

Sorry, I just felt it was necessary to inject a little bit harsh reality into this thread.

At current funding levels for the "find and secure" programs, I believe the last figure was 13 years till they're all accounted for. Increasing funds could make that just a couple of years.

But a $200 million bridge to nowhere in Alaska for pork barrel is more important, right? I think THAT thankfully got defeated, but someone does need to slap around legislators on both sides, as with this sort of issue, pursuing home-district pork barrel over national security funding, (this, port security, first-responder funding, etc) is tantamount to treason.

 

[Cousin Mike]

Then why are they building them ??? The stated goal of most/some Arab nations is destruction/elimination of Isreal. Heck, even the President of Iran stated that Isreal does not have the right to exist.

Remember how you felt on the afternoon of 9/11/2001, after watching the towers fall ??? Now imagine you're an Isreali and have just witnessed Tel Aviv go up in a mushroom cloud.

What do you think would happen next...........

I'll try to answer a few posts that were directed at me, and keep it short.

1.) I think Iran is bluffing. I think Iran wants nuclear weapons because (and they've basically said so when they're not trying to be so careful) they see having nukes as a sort of a bargaining chip. I also think this is the same reason North Korea constantly raises the issue of nuclear weapons. It keeps the world talking. It keeps the world guessing. Once a country has nuclear weapons, people take them more seriously. I think Iran wants to be recognized as a nuclear state because they see some type of reward in it. Just my opinion.

2.) Arabs threatening Israel, that's not going to change. That's part of the cultural crap that goes on over there, and it's been going on for thousands of years. I don't condone it, but I try to keep it in perspective. Ahmadinejad is a loudmouth IMO, nothing more. I think he is more interested in the survival of a theocratic government in Iran than he is in committing suicide and taking millions of Iranians with him. Also, what he said was "Israel should be wiped off the map,"

not "We're going to knock Israel off the map once we acquire the technology to deliver a nuclear payload to such distances."

To me, that's a significant threat. Not some off-the-cuff remark by a young, cocky, newly elected president. To keep it short, I think he was full of it, and making a comment that would incite panic among Israel's supporters, and rally those who are against Israel. They do and say stuff like that all the time over there. Pakistan has also made comments recently about Israel, why aren't we discussing them? We know for a fact that they have nuclear weapons.

Let me get something straight. I am not anti-Israel. I think Israel has the right to defend itself if they have reasonable, solid intelligence that Iran is planning to point a nuke in their direction. I don't think they, or anyone has a right to fly into a foreign country and bomb the place on a suspicion. Let's at the very least confirm that they have the capability to make one. There's too much speculation at the moment, IMO, to start bombing.

The region didn't become this way overnight. These people have hated eachother for 5,000 years, give or take a few centuries. Nothing is going to fix it overnight. Israel is not well respected in the world community because of its violent and illegal occupation of the Palestinians. The Arab world is not respected because of the terrorist tactics they use/fund against the Israelis. As I said before, I do not prefer one side over the other, simple as that. IMHO, both do terrible things to eachother. One bomb isn't going to fix the problem, no matter how big that bomb is, and no matter who sets it off first.

I still don't see why Israel should be the only country in the region that can posess nuclear weapons. I don't see why Israel has a free pass to use illegal tactics in their occupation of the territories, and I think it harms the U.S. to support such a blatant double standard. If the world wants a nuclear-free middle east, then they have to start with Israel.

 

[ArmedBear]

 

[NineseveN]

ArmedBear, now that's good.