Politics – In its 58-year history, Israel survived several wars and developed - though never officially acknowledged - one of the world's larger nuclear arsenals. So Israel is not afraid. Still, like many in the United States, there is concern that Bush is moving toward military action against the Iranians regardless of the consequences.
It is a game, a chess match. There are many hidden agendas intertwind in securing the entire Middle East - all dealing with oil and the un-obstructed access to it. But to do this feat, the Middle East must be controlled. That is the main task - control.
Once control is obtained, Israel has unhindered oil supplies and surounding Arab nations under heel. Pipelines will be un-obstructed from the Black Sea to Afghanistan, then on to China. The sky is the limit.
-V-
I find this very interest as you do ETproductions. But to go a little further with this I find it interesting how America and Isreal are afraid of Iran having Nukes. I wonder how Iran, Iraq, North Korea and all others have felt for so long because America and Isreal have had nukes. Does anyone see the hypocrisy here? Where do WE get off telling THEM they can't have nukes?
I understand your point, but Iran did sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and as such they are treaty bound from developing nuclear weapons and required to give free access to the IAEA Inspectors to ensure that any Uranium Enrichment they do for electrical power generation remains just for that.
Of course, the USA signed the UN Charter and Nuremberg Declarations. These documents make it illegal without the express permission of the Security Council to launch a military attack on a country that has not attacked us and poses no imminent threat of doing so. So we MUST recognize that nations can ignore or break treaties they have signed. After all, we just did it.
I think it's just their current president who makes us all so trigger happy. We all remember another leader who talked like him. Hitler. And he meant just what he said. But I think we may see Ahmadinejad muzzled by Iraninas pretty soon.
1stMarDivision---There is no hypocrisy here. Any nation who is peacful and gets along with it's neighbors and does not lay genocide on its citizens has no need to fear the US arsenal because we are not going to attack them. Believe me brother, If we didn't have the nukes we do, Your country would have been attacked long before this. Get your head out of the sand and use it to think instead of spouting off with the rubbish all the other left wingers are spewing.
WHy don't we just give nukes to every irresponsible government in the world who sponsors terrorism. That should solve the problem.
I was waiting for someone to post like yours. What is the criteria used by us Americans to classify a government as one who sponsors terrorism?
Rather than wait for a response I will continue and everyone can fill in their respective blanks.
I am an everyday American, veteran, husband and father. Good education and stable upstairs. My opinions are my own as I am tired of following blindly those who we have entrusted with our freedoms. With this said:
To answer my question above it is one who uses recognised terrorist organizations or finances these or similar organizations in the guise of legitimacy. Also, I guess you could say it is any government who would also recruit and train such organizations. If anybody doesn't agree with this definition please correct me.
With this said I can go a little further -
(cont.)
Many times on Netscape we like to tell our fellow countrymen they are wrong or crazy because of what they believe is going on. Maybe we do this because we don't want what they believe to be true? Maybe we fear what it could mean? This could be a serious mistake. Since we Americans need proof of things as we should, the following is an excerpt from a Netscape posted artical:
Target Iran: US able to strike in the spring.
"Other neo-cons elsewhere in Washington are opposed to an air strike but advocate a different form of military action, supporting Iranian armed groups, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the state department has branded it a TERRORIST ORGANISATION."
"Raymond Tanter, founder of the Iran Policy Committee, which includes former officials from the WHITE HOUSE,STATE DEPARTMENT AND INTELLIGENCE SERVICES, is a leading advocate of support for the MEK."
Irainian Armed Groups = Terrorist OrganiSations
What do you think?
With the proof being that we could even think of using known or unknown terrorist organisations, financing them, recruiting them to do our business in any way - What makes us believe that our government has not been performing terrorist acts?
Before you get angry about what I just wrote, stop and reread what I wrote. These are not all my own words. People in our government have stated these things! If it can be thought of being done now I believe it has already been done! The public is always the last to know.
You know I realise that Iran signed a treaty, but like you said we have done things against signed treaties and documents. I love the American people but right is right and wrong is wrong. Have we put weapons in space yet? If so, there goes another treaty. Hypocrisy everywhere - know what I mean. If one rule is bent the entire credibility is shot. Look at the mess Bush has his credibility in. So with that said, do you blame Iran for wanting a nuke?
I hear ya KelLuv,
But as you stated ONE nutjob. Is that enough to kill my child for? Is that enough to drop a nuke on Iran for - some people on netscape have stated they would nuke Iran. I have also read articals that certain members of OUR GOVERNMENT support using Iranian armed groups such as "Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the state department has branded it a terrorist organisation." So would this make us a terrorist state? Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy. And if it does make us apart of the Axis of Evil!, will we be able to count on England, Australia or RUSSIA? to intervene and liberate us?
Sometimes the truth is hard to swallow.
"Sometimes the truth is hard to swallow."
1stMarDivision------It's not the truth that's hard to swallow. It's the left-wing bull crap that you and your comrades spread across ciber-space. And yes, I meant to use the word comrades.
If you mean anyone that would stand up in the face of adversity. Anyone who stands up and states something other than what is the excepted percieved truth offered. Than my friend thank you for your compliment.
I will give you this - If you truely feel that what our government is doing is correct and righteous then you should support the cause in every way possible. This is your American right! Furthermore, don't just talk the game, anyone can do that - play the game! Volunteer and do the do! I am not being a smart***. I truely mean it. I will support you and not let you go hungry or suffer from the cold or heat if I can. But you should go and support your beliefs by helping your fellow countrymen who are there now. Because no matter what they believe they are the only heros in this whole mess! No one can or will deny that! When this is all said and done we will only be able to reflect on what we did to support our countrymen be it war or peace.
God Bless
The argument of the USA having nukes and Iran having them is a simple one. We don't go around saying we want Iran wiped of the face of the earth>>>>>
What do you think 'Axis of Evil' is? Have you paid no attention at all? We preemptively attacked Iraq, the neighbor of Iran! Would you feel safe from the U.S. if the same man that did that called you part of the 'axis of evil?' You've got be kidding. Our country has LOST its credibility! NO ONE trusts us any more. We have disregarded treaties, and then bi*tch that Iran disregards the nuclear proliferation treaty. We refused to talk to Iran when they offered. We sold the weapons to Israel that bombarded Lebanon. HELLO!
In calling the world attention to these types of regimes it was not necessary to hurl childish rhetoical insults and then refuse to openly talk to them.
Of course it was a pre-emptive strike against Iraq. It was not a war based on Iraq breaking the UN Cease fire agreement. It was entirely based threats. Trumped up threats at that, parroted by the so call 'Liberal Media' that has the American sheeple (opps did I say sheeple, I meant people) so fright ----d of Iraq that they thought Iraq was behind 9-11.
Iran of course has been the problem in the ME for some nearly 30 years now too. Why GW had to destroy it's enemy in the area I just don't know.
There were no longer WMD, either a nuclear program nor a chemical/biolgical programs producing weapons. No large stockpiles that we were assured existed were ever found. Therefore this paragraph is flawed.
"Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998.
There was no immediate threat from Iraq, but now the threat has increased because of the multiple blunders of this administration. Attacking Iran will be another blunder.
any serious plan to attack iran represents, from my point of view, a willingness to really start ww3. thus it qualifies as sheer insanity.
netscape has had dozens of articles about the unknown consequences of such a possibility. they have also been debated in the israeli press for months, much more so than here. every high-ranking military figure has admited that the risks are much too high to even seriously consider.
"wait and see" is better than "attack," but not by much. diplomacy is the only realistic option.
Bush has dilusions of grandeur! Just that simple, but it makes him very dangerous, not only to the rest of the world, but to us moreso!
i think patton oswalt hit it on the head. bush doesn't want to be president... he wants to be 'the last' president. everything he and his administration have done since taking office has accomplished nothing except to further destablize the world.
the slaughter of innocent civilians in iraq is probably the most shameful example since vietnam, and completely unnecessary.
there are many countries that desperately need intervention more than the middle east (like, oh say, almost all of africa), but they don't have oil. which is what the whole middle-east situation boils down to. the leaders of these countries use radical islam to mobilize their people, the US admin uses rhetoric about 'fighting terror and spreading democracy' to mobilize it's people. but it comes down to black gold.
which, oddly enough, cars were never intended to run on anyway (a little thing called ethanol, which unlike oil is a renewable resource). but the demons who run big oil would rather not see that happen.
There is truth in this. Hawks in a number of US administrations, dating back to 1980 have been itching to attack Iran, mistakenly considering that it has not yet been paid back for the humiliation of the Embassy takeover.
And everyone knows that George W. Bush wishes to be seen as a very tough president indeed.
Would you be paranoid if your neighbors attacked you five times, poured rocket down on your cities and called for your total destruction. I think Israel has every right to feel a little less than secure in the region.
you forgot to mention that the reason their neighbors are so cranky is because the Israeli's went in with western support and stole the land in the first place and oppressed all the natives.
Next you'll be saying that Israel started the land grab soon after the UN voted for the partition plan (with all 13 Arab nation against,) and that by the time the Brits had pulled out, the newly formed Israel was already in control of more land than was granted to it by the UN partion plan. Furthermore, you'll probably say, that the Arab nations that declared war on the poor infant Israel, did so to protect what was left of the Arab side of the partition, and had they not done so, the Israelis would have taken it all.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
lawrencee
dr_martin
spikogram
MaryLynn_
flicktrick
arun123
sundaypost
foxtrotcrew
GrainOfSand
roughtouch
AngelMCain
zxpetra
KedoZhopiy
stalker20
dr_key
vadimir
JohnCKent
DianeSBlack
NormanSWofford
WilliamKTurner
followme
misterkju
linna4linna
fuzzylog
stwor
philbutler
Alexey
kate.moss
lovingu
toolcrib
DoriMatt
eternalsky
nicholaihel
Patience
SaintCheez
lovelytxwoman
siliconoff
topperjax
Beau7890
getreal1
populist
Jayce
babyanimal
eugenegerard
wredal75
aulick70
Burento
Schochee5
368)
I found Israel's perspective on the idea of a preemptive strike on Iran to be interesting and to the point of whether it's a good idea for us to be considering right now.
the idea of the US attacking iran is crazy...the iranian presidant has been told not to provoke pres bush by the real power in iran the relgious council...and china has told the US to step back
the iranians r being inspected by the UN and the UN has found nothing that says they r developing nucluer weapons... we need diplomatic talks
and while isreal says they r taking a wait and see attitude they r stirring the pot by making palestinians mad ovr that temple..which im sure ever islamic in th ME knows about
if we can talk and trade with china which is a truely evil govt y not talk to iran?
In light of history, I am more worried about Israel's possible actions than Iran's.......
I suspect Israel knows a great deal about what is happening inside Iran.
I am just wondering when the UN will be allowed to inspect Isreal's weapons programs, perhaps sanctions should be placed on Isreal until they sign Non-poliferation treaty and allow UN inspectors in.
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/02/11/nucle
Don't count on it. Israel is sacrosanct. International law applies to everyone else.
Aming and financing the perpetually embattled state of Israel is crucial to the military industrial complex's efforts to maintain a permanent presence in the oil rich ME. A real peace would undermine that effort. The right wingnuts in Israel exploit that effort and as we can see (Feith, Libby, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristal, etc.) they have effectively exacerbated US policy in this respect transforming the image of the US into that of an international pariah.
You're right!!!! Israel has acted recklessly in the past. It has been attacked 5 times by it's neighbors, and has had rockets fired upon its cities for almost 40 years now. It's been real reckless of them to have restrained themselves and not used nuclear weapons even when backed up against the wall. And in light of history, I can't think of any other country that would have restrained themselves for so long. If I were you, I'd be more worried about Iran. Israel has proved itself to be a responsible nuclear power.
wait wait.. so you're saying that "hey everyone, we could easily bring about a nuclear apocolypse, but we haven't.. yet" is deserving of applause? well, yippee skippy, someone send some roses my way, because i have fists and i don't walk around punching people.