Call me naive, but after failing to take a tough line with Israel, after being humiliated by Netanyahu over the continued building of settlements and after failing to keep the promises made to the Arabs when he came to office, I still have hope that under Obama's leadership, the U.S. will assume the role of an honest broker in the Palestinian/Israeli peace talks and that there eventually will be a two state solution to the mutual benefit of Israel and the Palestinians. A final settlement to this decades long issue will solve a whole lot of problems the world is facing now and will give Iran one less reason to have beef with Israel.
Iran Invasion soon ?
- Thread starter GG20DELTA
- Start date
First, I said most of the time it works not all of the time, because it does work most of the time. Second in the case of the 3rd Reich, Germany was at one point a fully functioning modern country before they went temporarily insane. If they had been that insane all along, they would have never have progressed materially to the point that would have been a major danger to the rest of the world.
Very few dysfunctional counties embark up on the road of conquest to begin with and fewer still are capable doing it. But even at that it would have fallen eventually even without any external pressure, due to its many irrational internal contradictions. Though it might take several generations for it to have done so. But you are of course right, containment and just waiting them out will not always work especially in the age of nuclear weapons.
You see the difference between now and all of human history that preceded the first used of nuclear weapons, is that now if nuclear war comes everybody loses to some degree or other no matter how limited the form nuclear war was fought and for more reason than I have time to name. This is the case where the lessons of the past once trusted to guide us to a better future will fail us. The human race has gone through a phase transition of which it can never go back. If we continue to think in the same ways as we all once thought, before this phase transition, the consequences will be catastrophic. And nuclear weapons are not the scariest thing that man can create to destroy himself.
A very interesting paragraph with interesting insight. I'd say you are correct in this paragraph. Countries are now more interrelated due to politics, economies, and resources, than ever before. The current sanctions against Iran is a case in point, where sanctions against one country must be weighed against the difficulties these present to other countries that are not intended to be affected.
You are also correct in that nuclear weapons are not the scariest weapons mankind has developed. Sure, the thought of evaporating in a 10,000 degree fireball is scary, but the thought of a modified incurable microbe ravaging my body scares me even more.
We all know that Israel has nuclear weapons though it has never claimed that it does. It also, unlike Iran never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.ngatimozart said:
The question was asked, why the US is afraid of Iran having nuclear weapons and it is not afraid of Israel having them. It is a fair question I grant you.
Before we go any further, I must tell you I personally am not a fan of Israel nor of the arrogant aggressive Israelis I have personally met in various parts of the world in my travels, though I have never gone to Israel myself.
The Israelis are just as nasty, lying, selfish and blind to their own crimes as are the people that want to destroy them but only with a much better propaganda machine. The structure of the Israeli state it much more like Iran’s than it is like Americas’ and nether one of them shares Americas’ core values. But there are three big differences to consider.
First the Israelis just want to survive and no matter how distasteful they are they have that God given right to exist.
Two, Israel poses no threat to the US though we have the same enemies and would still have the same enemies even if the other one did not exist.
And three, there is no nice way to say this but it has to said, the Palestinians and their allies are just dumber than rocks and you cannot work with them and the Israelis are anything but dumb.
If the enemies of Israel ever succeed in their stated goal to driving them into the sea, in their last dying breath they will use their nuclear weapons to incinerate as many of their enemies homelands as they possible can but they will not use nuclear weapons under any other circumstance. I think that explains the difference very well.
Last edited by a moderator:
And it makes me wonder why these scientists, who are allegedly so vital to Iran's nuclear programme, went around the streets of Tehran without any security detail.
As to who's a terrorists and who isn't, this brings to mind the various Iranian groups in exile, who have carried out attacks on Iranian soil, and who are referred to as ''terrorists'' by the Iranian government and as ''dissidents'' by the West.
This goes back to the Cold War when Israel was [still is] a strategic ally in a region where the Soviets had a lot of influence and client states. And even if the U.S. were to suddenly decide that Israel should not have nukes, what can it do about it? It can't even get Israel to stop building settlements!!
Really?? So I guess that would explain the current mess the Palestinians are in and why the Israelis haven't made up their mind as to whether they want peace or land its doesn't own and which its occupies in violation of international law.
I was under the impression that the reason the Palestinians haven't got a state yet was because they are still undivided and have other serious internal issues, not receiving support from their fellow Arabs who are only good at announcing useless and meaningless declarations at Arab League summits and because Israel receives unconditional U.S. support at the expense of others, not because they were 'dumb''.
But wait a minute, just who are Israel's enemies that wish to ''drive it to the sea'' and more importantly, which of Israel's neighbours have the military capability to threaten Israel's very existence?? Certainly not Saudi who would probably be more than happy to allow the IAF to overfly its territory to hit the ''heretic'' Iranians.
None of Israel’s neighbors have that capability anymore, but they tried twice in the past (1949 and 1968). Only Jordan and Egypt acknowledge that the state of Israel exists, the rest just claim that this is a lull between attacks. As for drive the Jews into the sea, actually they propose to drive the Jews to the sea and them kill everyone of them down to the last babe in arms. The Arabs don’t say this in English, but it occurs all the time in the Arabic press (which few western reporters ever bother to learn to read or speak), sermons, and school books.
As for the land for peace deal.
- The Israelis will not accept any deal that does not acknowledge the existence of Israel, the Arabs will not accept any deal that does.
- The Palestinians’ and the Israelis both insist that their controlling of Jerusalem is a non-negotiable issue. For the Israelis this is about to access to the Wailing Wall which is their most holy place. For the Muslims this is about denying access to by non-muslims to their holy sites, especially the Temple Mount of which the Wailing Wall comprises the west side.
1948 - maybe. But note that in that war, the best of the invading Arab armies achieved its main military aims - and then stopped, as it had secretly agreed in advance with the Israelis it would. The apocalyptic view of Arab plans tends to ignore such inconvenient facts.
Israel's neighbours didn't try anything in 1968: they'd been crushed by the Israeli attack in 1967.In 1969, the Egyptians felt able to skirmish along the Suez Canal ("The War of Attrition") with the aim of wearing down the Israelis so they'd agree to withdraw from Sinai (captured in 1967). When that was clearly failing, they gave up & spent a few more years rebuilding to the point where they felt able to risk a a full war with the aim of a limited victory (because they realised that was the more wasn't possible) to force Israel to negotiate, in 1973.
So . . . there;s been precisely one war aimed at the destruction of Israel, & the strongest Arab army in that war didn't share that aim. There were massacres on both sides, but most of the Jews in towns & villages overrun were not harmed, & were freed after a few months. In some cases Arab soldiers killed other Arabs while protecting Jewish prisoners - according to the testimony of the protected Jews. That behaviour shows a lack of consistency with the idea that the plan was to kill every Jew, doesn't it?
I love how any discussion where Israel is mentioned turns into a pro Israel/ anti Israel argument. Let us please avoid the argument where it is not prurient, I.E. it is OK to discuss whether Israel would attack Iran it is not OK to argue over whether Israel oppresses the Palestinians as it is not relevant to the discussion.
Contrary to what the Israelis would have the world believe the Arabs NEVER had the capability, not in 1967 and not in 1973, and the Arabs knew it. It is a myth that in 1967 a defenceless and outgunned Israel was surrounded by neighbours that were bent on its destruction. The Arabs sabre rattled, they played the nationalist card and they paid for their folly, when Israel got it's excuse to strike first.
Even in 1973, the Arab aim in the October/Yom Kippur War was NOT to exterminate the state of Israel. Both Syria and Egypt, supposedly allies, did not inform each other as to what their true objectives were. Syria's objective was to take the back the Golan and capture some Israeli territory because it believed, with some justification, that talks were going nowhere and that the Israelis would only bargain after losing the Golan. Egypt believed that the peace talks could resume after it recaptured the Sinai.
It is a popular misconception that the reason countries don't recognise Israel is because they want to destroy Israel or because they believe that Israelis have no place in the region. The reason they don't is because officially recognising Israel would give legitimacy to Israel's continued illegal occupation of land that does not belong to it - in defiance of UN Resolution 242 which Israel continues to ignore and get away with! Even Hamas, which the Israelis first courted and supported as an alternative to the corrupt and ineffective Fatah [the Israelis off course would rather everyone forget this episode], is willing to officially recognise Israel if certain conditions are met. Would you recognise someone who not only occupied your land but was also stealing it bit by bit??
I can give you numerous examples made by right wing Israelis making equally stupid and preposterous statements about Palestinians including questioning their right to live in land that belongs to them. And remember Raful Eitan's statement in 1982 that the Palestinians were cockroaches?
No offence but speak for yourself. In all my posts I have maintained objectivity and made it clear that both the Israelis and Palestinians are equally to blame for the mess that they are in. It's not about being pro or anti-Israeli but about stating the facts
Israel's oppression of the Palestinians may not be relevant to this post, as you rightfully pointed out, but the fact remains that part of the problem with Iran has it's roots in the unresolved Palestinian/Israeli issue. And there is also the issue of Lebanon.
Going off topic here but I would also like to add that the whole idea that it is Arab armies and only Arabs armies, that misbehave and that the Israelis always follow the rules by upholding the purity of arms is false. We have numerous documented evidence of Israeli troops looting and vandalising civilian property not only in Gaza but in Lebanon, out of sheer frustration and spite. And in 1982 in Lebanon, Israeli troops were responsible for the death of UN Irish peacekeepers and they allowed their Phalange allies to shell UN positions, on a number of occasions.
Back to Iran -
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/o...at-we-never-forget-nuclear-iran-16108995.html
Last edited:
Yes - but who has said anything about that?
The argument is about whether there is an existential threat to Israel. In reality, the only time there ever was one was at the time of the British withdrawal, when the Arab states had the military strength, if used well, to defeat the Haganah, Irgun & Lehi & destroy the nascent state of Israel. But the Arab forces consisted of half a dozen organised forces (national armies & the ALA) plus multiple local militias & irregulars, with differing war aims, & no unified command or even the most basic co-ordination of forces. Some groups of Arab villages, for example, were more or less neutral, refusing to send their militia off their own land - which didn't always save them from being evicted by the Israelis. The Israelis had already made a secret agreement with Jordan, which had the second largest & by far the most efficient Arab army. Egypt, which had the largest & most heavily armed force had limited objectives (regardless of rhetoric), mostly to do with grabbing some of the proposed Palestinean state & the Negev for itself.
There has never been another attempt by any Arab force, state or coalition to destroy Israel.
In 1956 Israel attacked Egypt, in co-operation with France & the UK.
In 1967, Israel felt threatened, so launched what it thought of as a pre-emptive attack, which was blindingly successful because the Arab armies & air forces attacked were not, despite the fiery rhetoric & hostile gestures which had preceded the Israeli attack, prepared for war.
Nothing happened in 1968.
In 1969-70, one Arab state tried to exert military pressure in order to get back lost territory by negotiation, & failed.
In 1973, two Arab states attacked Israel with the limited objective of regaining lost territory. They lost the war, but one of them subsequently got by negotiation what it had fought for - and that border has been pretty peaceful ever since.
So, what does this add up to? There are undoubtedly many Arabs who would like to see the end of Israel, but they don't pose an existential threat to it. Most Arab states have devoted more effort to fighting other Arabs, or (in the case of Iraq) Iran, than Israel. They don't feel an existential threat from Israel, & without that, they're not going to unite against it. No Arab state has attacked Israel for almost 40 years. Israeli military superiority over its immediate neighbours is overwhelming.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
No one wants to have crisis in the Gulf, and skyrocketed the oil prices, in the conditions where most World economics power on the brink of economics collapse.
Iran already have the technology, and Israel will have to accept that. Obama will not going to attack Iran, not on the present conditions where most US citizens already feed-up with war (except some hard core Right Wing Republican).
Personally with Iran got Nuclear, I'm not really worried what Israel will/can do. This is not like they can bomb one site and be done with it like they've done with Iraq. Iran nuclear tech is much more advance stage than Iraqi/Saddam can dream of. I'm more worried with what the Saudi and the rest Arab Sunni block will do. Some 'unholly' alliance between Gulf Sunni block with Israel is more worrying than what Israel 'alone' will or can do.
Iran already have the technology, and Israel will have to accept that. Obama will not going to attack Iran, not on the present conditions where most US citizens already feed-up with war (except some hard core Right Wing Republican).
Personally with Iran got Nuclear, I'm not really worried what Israel will/can do. This is not like they can bomb one site and be done with it like they've done with Iraq. Iran nuclear tech is much more advance stage than Iraqi/Saddam can dream of. I'm more worried with what the Saudi and the rest Arab Sunni block will do. Some 'unholly' alliance between Gulf Sunni block with Israel is more worrying than what Israel 'alone' will or can do.
I did NOT list 1973 for EXACTLY the reason you gave. So bringing it up is a strawman argument.
But in 1967 the Arabs definitely had Israel outgunned and were preparing to attack. Israel’s preemptive attack hoping to disrupt the Egyptian and Syrian forces while taking Jerusalem, the collapse of the Egyptian forces in the Sinai was totally unanticipated.
Then why do the Arab text books used in the schools show all of Israel as part of Arab Palestine, not just those parts outside of the UN Resolution 242 borders?
And those people were the leader of their states at the time that those statements made? Your argument would be that any statement by any person is their official government policy. It was official Arab policy before 1973 that Israel had no right to exist. Still is except in Egypt and Jordan.
Then why state something as ludicrous and downright false as this - ''Only Jordan and Egypt acknowledge that the state of Israel exists, the rest just claim that this is a lull between attacks''.
Irrespective of what may be written in schoolbooks in certain Arab countries and more relevant to the present day is the fact that the Arabs have publicly indicated that full diplomatic and trade ties with Israel will be established once a peace deal is signed. They have also publicly made clear that they have they are willing to compromise as to the final borders that will be drawn up as part of a future peace deal as well as the right of return for refugees that were displaced in 1948.
..
And what difference does it make if whether statements were made by heads of states or other officials that were part of the Israeli government? When her statement - ''Palestinians don't exist was made'' - Golda Meir was PM. Yitzhak Shamir and Sharon made similar statements when they were in charge......
Could it possibly be due to the fact that both Egypt and Jordon have signed peace treaties with Israel and that Israel does not occupy and land claimed or once owned by both these Arab countries?
Last edited:
Time to get back on topic - note the thread subject header.
I do not know exactly how the ongoing failure of any kind or real peace process between Israel and the Palestinian has any relevance to an armed confrontation in the Gulf. I do know that it is a common straw man razed by many people in the Middle East to justify things that cannot by another means ever be justified rationally and as a common tool used by certain groups and governments to deflect popular opinion away from the bad things that they do onto someone else.
Let us be real for a just a moment, the greatest danger to Muslim life, liberty and property in the world comes from other Muslims. As just one example, how many of the Muslims that died in the Iraq war were killed by US troops, including all causes, and how many Muslims were killed by other Muslims? About ten to one I bet and yet they all blame someone else for what they themselves have done. But Muslims everywhere wants to adopt the fiction for a reason that someone else is reasonable. And someone else will have to explain why this is true because I can’t. They are always claiming that it is outside forces that pose the ever present danger but is that true?
Now back on topic. Though the Israeli question will not go away the primary motivation of Iran’s actions is to spread their form of religious dominated government first, to all parts of the Islamic world and then to all of the world. To achieve their dream of a united world under God’s (their version) one and only law. Any other issues are only secondary distraction from their ultimate goal.
Actualy it does have some bearing because there are quite violent conflicts between the Sunni and Shia sects of Islam. IIRC the Iranians are Sunni and the Saudis are Shia. Secondly, the Iranians are not Arabs but Persians, so that also creates a lot of tension. Thirdly, Binyamin Netanyahu and the Israeli right wing, who are very strong at the moment have a very strong hold on the US Congress and Senate through the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC is a very well funded lobby group that works solely for Binyamin Netanyahu and the Israeli right wing. They are the main reason why Obama and previous administrations have not told Israel to back down. And AIPAC are the ones who are pulling the strings behind the scenes pushing for war against Iran. It's all money, campaign funds and favours owed and called in. In NZ and Australia it would be called corruption. Yes I do have evidence in publishd artcles by reputable academics and writers.
So yes the whole preceding argument regarding Israel and the US does have bearng upon this thread. One more thing. Israel will not give up any conquered territories because of water and it will increase illegal settlements because of water. That is also why it will never agree to Palestinian statehood. However, I would argue it has the money and since it gets US$3.2 billion in military aid (which is crap), that money could be redirected into building desalination plants on the Mediterranean coast, then negating the water argument.
Interestingly the USAF is now having to work on their 13.6 tonne bunker buster bomb so that it can penetrate the mountain that the Iranian nuclear plant is in.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Correction here. The majority of Iran is ethnic Persians who are Shia Muslims, while most of the other Gulf states (excepting Iraq) are ethnic Arabs who are a majority of Sunni Muslims. Iraq itself IIRC has an ethnic Arabic Shia majority with a minority composed of ethnic Kurds and Arabic Sunni Muslims.
Also just a friendly reminder, the Mod Team does want the discussion to stay focused on the thread topic, which does mean that Israel and the US are off topic, apart from discussions of if they want to/can they actually act against Iran.
-Cheers
Last edited:
Last warning