Iran, al-Qa'eda and the nuclear bomb
Posted by: 7V on 30 July 2004
The 9/11 Commission has concluded that it was not Iraq that had connections with Islamic terrorists but Iran. The report claims that Iran made "concerted efforts to strengthen relations" with al-Qa'eda and that Iranian border guards were instructed to "facilitate the travel of al-Qa'eda members".
Clearly the Commissions findings have added to fears about Iran's pursuance of a nuclear programme. In fact, the US Congress recently authorised the use of "all appropriate means" to halt it. According to Senator Sam Brownback: "It's better to take forceful action now to end a terror threat and save lives, then to wait for a nuclear 9/11 to take place and then ask why".
Meanwhile, Israel has expressed extreme concern (hardly surprising given Iran's commitment to destroy the Jewish state). Aljazeera.net has reported Public relations head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Commander Seyed Masood Jazayeri, as saying that in retaliation to any attack Iran has proved itself to be "harsh, assertive, hard-hitting and destructive".
"The United States is showing off by threatening to use its wild dog, Israel," he said.
"They will not hesitate to strike Iran if they are capable of it. However, their threats to attack Iran's nuclear facilities cannot be realised. They are aware Tehran's reaction will be so harsh that Israel will be wiped off the face of the earth." he warned.
Meanwhile (according to Aljazeera), US-appointed interim Iraqi Defence Minister Hazim Shaalan warned of invading Iran if it did not stop interfering in his country's internal politics.
"I've seen clear interference in Iraqi issues by Iran," the minister said in an interview with The Washington Post in Baghdad on Monday.
"Iran interferes in order to kill democracy."
So ....
My question for debate is what would you learned gentlemen like to see happen here?
a) Ignore Iran's bomb making ambitions. They will go away.
b) Allied pre-emptive action. The US are in so much shit anyway that what difference will another foreign escapade make?
c) Let Israel deal with it. That way we can all make a lot of loud, critical noises while being secretly relieved. If Iran attacks Israel afterwards they can deal with it.
d) Wow, Iraq attacking Iran. Well there's something I hadn't thought of. Great idea.
e) None of the above.
I'm asking you guys because I strongly suspect that action will be taken soon and I'd like to hear your responses in advance, this time.
Steve Margolis
defy convention - make music
Clearly the Commissions findings have added to fears about Iran's pursuance of a nuclear programme. In fact, the US Congress recently authorised the use of "all appropriate means" to halt it. According to Senator Sam Brownback: "It's better to take forceful action now to end a terror threat and save lives, then to wait for a nuclear 9/11 to take place and then ask why".
Meanwhile, Israel has expressed extreme concern (hardly surprising given Iran's commitment to destroy the Jewish state). Aljazeera.net has reported Public relations head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Commander Seyed Masood Jazayeri, as saying that in retaliation to any attack Iran has proved itself to be "harsh, assertive, hard-hitting and destructive".
"The United States is showing off by threatening to use its wild dog, Israel," he said.
"They will not hesitate to strike Iran if they are capable of it. However, their threats to attack Iran's nuclear facilities cannot be realised. They are aware Tehran's reaction will be so harsh that Israel will be wiped off the face of the earth." he warned.
Meanwhile (according to Aljazeera), US-appointed interim Iraqi Defence Minister Hazim Shaalan warned of invading Iran if it did not stop interfering in his country's internal politics.
"I've seen clear interference in Iraqi issues by Iran," the minister said in an interview with The Washington Post in Baghdad on Monday.
"Iran interferes in order to kill democracy."
So ....
My question for debate is what would you learned gentlemen like to see happen here?
a) Ignore Iran's bomb making ambitions. They will go away.
b) Allied pre-emptive action. The US are in so much shit anyway that what difference will another foreign escapade make?
c) Let Israel deal with it. That way we can all make a lot of loud, critical noises while being secretly relieved. If Iran attacks Israel afterwards they can deal with it.
d) Wow, Iraq attacking Iran. Well there's something I hadn't thought of. Great idea.
e) None of the above.
I'm asking you guys because I strongly suspect that action will be taken soon and I'd like to hear your responses in advance, this time.
Steve Margolis
defy convention - make music
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by Steve G
If Israel were to attack Iran then the shit would hit the fan bigstyle - so I for one would rule that out as an option.
Shouldn't it be for the UN to decide on the best course of action?
Shouldn't it be for the UN to decide on the best course of action?
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Steve G:
Shouldn't it be for the UN to decide on the best course of action?
Silly me. I should have added "Let the UN deal with the situation" to my list of proposed options. I suppose that I felt it was so similar to "a) Do nothing" that it wasn't worth serious consideration.
Steve Margolis
defy convention - make music
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by bigmick
e)none of the above
What should happen and happen now is that the IAEA and/or teams of strongarmed weapons inspectors with the full support of the UN security council should move into Iran and Israel and neutralise any WMDs and WMD programmes.
The following should send shivers down the spine of most people and if confirmed, further damage the reputation of the US on the world stage. Just yesterday Sharon noted that Iran is under U.S. pressure to stop its nuclear weapons program, and Libya took steps to halt its nuclear development, but stated "we have received here a clear American position that says in other words that Israel must not be touched when it comes to its deterrent capability." Even though Israel has never admitted possessing nuclear weapons, the country is believed to possess dozens, perhaps hundreds, of nuclear bombs.
Shaalan is a puppet and is doing as he's told by the hawks in Washington. What Iraqi forces would undertake this invasion? I'm guessing The U.S. Third Division and the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force.
What should happen and happen now is that the IAEA and/or teams of strongarmed weapons inspectors with the full support of the UN security council should move into Iran and Israel and neutralise any WMDs and WMD programmes.
The following should send shivers down the spine of most people and if confirmed, further damage the reputation of the US on the world stage. Just yesterday Sharon noted that Iran is under U.S. pressure to stop its nuclear weapons program, and Libya took steps to halt its nuclear development, but stated "we have received here a clear American position that says in other words that Israel must not be touched when it comes to its deterrent capability." Even though Israel has never admitted possessing nuclear weapons, the country is believed to possess dozens, perhaps hundreds, of nuclear bombs.
Shaalan is a puppet and is doing as he's told by the hawks in Washington. What Iraqi forces would undertake this invasion? I'm guessing The U.S. Third Division and the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force.
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by bigmick
quote:
I should have added "Let the UN deal with the situation" to my list of proposed options. I suppose that I felt it was so similar to "a) Do nothing" that it wasn't worth serious consideration.
That'll be the same reason why you didn't offer the option f)against the wishes of western electorate and the best military advice, kill thousands of innocent people and destroy a country's infrastructure on a lie, and make a complete bollocks of the aftermath. That was b) right?
Haven't the events of last year shown the UN was absolutely right to be sceptical of the US/UK rush to attack?
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by Steve Toy
Airstrikes by Coalition forces in the region should take out Iran's nuclear capability now.
Regards,
Steve.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Toy:
Airstrikes by Coalition forces in the region should take out Iran's nuclear capability now.
Dare I point out that airstrikes on nuclear facilities aren't really all that great an idea...
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by bigmick
quote:
Meanwhile, Israel has expressed extreme concern (hardly surprising given Iran's commitment to destroy the Jewish state)
This kind of statement sounds exciting but is bogus. Sinn Fein are committed to a United Ireland, the long-term aim of Likud is that of Eretz Israel i.e. the annexation and ethnic cleansing of the whole of "biblical Israel", in practice pushing Palestinians across the river into Jordan. If one is the object of these unlikely aims it's nice to toss it in to try and ramp up a debate but the threats and references to those threats are practically meaningless. Remember who currently appears to have the taste for irrational pre-emptive strikes.
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by bigmick:
That'll be the same reason why you didn't offer the option f)against the wishes of western electorate and the best military advice, kill thousands of innocent people and destroy a country's infrastructure on a lie, and make a complete bollocks of the aftermath. That was b) right?
Yup, that was b).
In fairness though, the military options here are presumably for a limited strike with a specific objective, not regime change.
quote:
Haven't the events of last year shown the UN was absolutely right to be sceptical of the US/UK rush to attack?
Haven't the events in Rwanda and now in the Sudan shown the US was absolutely right to be sceptical of the UN's ability to do anything?
Steve Margolis
defy convention - make music
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by Bhoyo
If there's no regime change in Washington, DC then Iraq will become the beachhead for imperialist adventures all over the Middle East (and beyond). Iran, Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and North Korea are all on the hawks' hit list.
Davie
Davie
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by bigmick
quote:
Haven't the events in Rwanda and now in the Sudan shown the US was absolutely right to be sceptical of the UN's ability to do anything?
No. Rwanda was a massive humanitarian disaster in which the entire international community failed. This disaster actually happened whilst the UN and the world failed to act. Iraq was a state whose suspected threat to other nations had to be assessed before being attacked. For reasons unknown the US couldn't wait for the inspectors report, possibly because they suspected that the outcome might not justify the attck they had planned.
So Steve, what do you think of my option for dealing with nuclear weapons in the hands of dangerous, twitchy and nasty states?
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by JonR
quote:
Originally posted by bigmick:
No. Rwanda was a massive humanitarian disaster in which the entire international community failed. This disaster actually happened whilst the UN and the world failed to act.
And isn't history threatening to repeat itself in the Dafur region of Sudan?
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by bigmick:
So Steve, what do you think of my option for dealing with nuclear weapons in the hands of dangerous, twitchy and nasty states?
I tend to agree with it, although there would be some debate as to which states may be considered dangerous, twitchy and nasty.
Who decides which states?
Steve Margolis
defy convention - make music
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by Roy T
To follow on from the inspection of both Iran & Isrel as raised by Bigmick.
Both the states of Iran & Israel seem to have a number of sites and facilities that may at best be considered dual use facilities. I would suggest an even handed approach to the inspection of all facalities would go a long way to making that part of the world a safer place.
The problem is one of proliferation, I fear a state that has access to these types of weapons may be viewed as a potential enduser just as some non-state bodies like al-Qa'eda.
A view of the state of play of special weapons in Iran & Israel.
if someone has better informaton please let me know.
Roy T
Both the states of Iran & Israel seem to have a number of sites and facilities that may at best be considered dual use facilities. I would suggest an even handed approach to the inspection of all facalities would go a long way to making that part of the world a safer place.
The problem is one of proliferation, I fear a state that has access to these types of weapons may be viewed as a potential enduser just as some non-state bodies like al-Qa'eda.
A view of the state of play of special weapons in Iran & Israel.
if someone has better informaton please let me know.
Roy T
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by Harvey
quote:
c) Let Israel deal with it. That way we can all make a lot of loud, critical noises while being secretly relieved.
Who would be the "we" referred to here? I think that the opinion expressed in this forum broadly mirrors the opinion of most people I know in that the loud critical noises they make about many of Israel's actions are how they genuinely feel. Israel's position and actions are generally viewed as a huge threat to world peace so I don't think thta most people would feel any more relieved at Israel attacking Iran then they would at Iran attacking Israel. Personally I think that either would be unacceptable but agree that both should have their nuclear capabilities removed as a matter of urgency. It shows the US to be utterly hypocritical to turna blind eye to Israel's arsenal whilst getting so indignant about the possibility of Iran having nukes
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by bigmick
JonR you're not wrong, but lessons should be learnt, people and structures should be changed. The notion that because the UN has had some failures doesn't mean that the future is for everybody to do what they like subject to the whim of the current US administration.
Sorry if it wasn't clear Steve; this is the option I proposed:
The Middle East is a powder keg and none of the countries in the region, including Iran or Israel, are stable enough to possess secret nuclear installations or programs. They must be disclosed and dismantled. Is this what you're agreeing with? If not, what would be the downside of this as an option?
Sorry if it wasn't clear Steve; this is the option I proposed:
quote:
What should happen and happen now is that the IAEA and/or teams of strongarmed weapons inspectors with the full support of the UN security council should move into Iran and Israel and neutralise any WMDs and WMD programmes.
The Middle East is a powder keg and none of the countries in the region, including Iran or Israel, are stable enough to possess secret nuclear installations or programs. They must be disclosed and dismantled. Is this what you're agreeing with? If not, what would be the downside of this as an option?
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by bigmick:
JonR you're not wrong, but lessons should be learnt, people and structures should be changed.
bigmick, thousands are being slaughtered and raped now. Does anyone really trust the UN to 'change people and structures' in time to make a difference?
quote:
The notion that because the UN has had some failures doesn't mean that the future is for everybody to do what they like subject to the whim of the current US administration
Some failures! Would you care to list their successes in this area?
I probably hold unconventional views regarding "the whim of the current US administration". I tend to take a historical perspective in which it's clear that the country with the most power has 'ruled the world roost'. Throughout human history it has been thus. The USA are no different. True, they have had many failures but also some successes. I'd site the 2nd World War, the rebuilding of West Germany after it and, more recently, their intervention in Bosnia as, at least partial, successes.
How does the world's current superpower compare with the British Empire? Well, the US tends to go in, screw up and get out, leaving a mess in its wake. Britain went in, stayed in, occupied, got forced out AND left a mess in its wake. Look at Palestine.
I also believe that the days of the US as world's superpower are numbered. China will be next and I'd be surprised if most of us don't look back with nostalgia upon the days of the US empire.
My point is world superpower - someone's always done it and, probably, someone's always got to do it.
As for the point raised earlier about regime change in the US... I for one certainly hope so. I'm anti-Bush and would welcome a more enlightened government. Will it make much difference though? Probably not as much as we'd hope.
quote:
Sorry if it wasn't clear Steve; this is the option I proposed:quote:
What should happen and happen now is that the IAEA and/or teams of strongarmed weapons inspectors with the full support of the UN security council should move into Iran and Israel and neutralise any WMDs and WMD programmes.
The Middle East is a powder keg and none of the countries in the region, including Iran or Israel, are stable enough to possess secret nuclear installations or programs. They must be disclosed and dismantled. Is this what you're agreeing with? If not, what would be the downside of this as an option?
Yes, bigmick, you were quite clear and I know what option you were proposing. I was just (as I think you know) hoping to avoid giving an answer. However, since you insist...
Israel has not, as far as I know, ever announced or admitted that it has nuclear weapons capability. On the other hand, everyone would be shocked if it turned out that they didn't have it and so would I. In fact, I would guess that Israel has had a nuclear capability since the 1950s, nearly as long as the UK. I don't believe that they are 'twitchy' and I do believe that their assumed nuclear capability has and does act as a deterrent to worse conflict and catastrophe in that region.
I'm not going to pretend to be politically correct here and I certainly don't expect my views to be popular or BBC approved but I am considerably more secure in the knowledge that Israel has the bomb than Iran or Syria. After all, Israel has probably had it for nigh-on 50 years. It is difficult for me to envisage a situation where Iran or Syria would have a bomb for 50 weeks without either setting the damn thing off or passing it on to some terrorists who would.
There you have it. For what it's worth, I'd also be in favour of the UK maintaining its own nuclear deterent, although the governments of Iran, Syria and North Korea would doubtless be less in favour.
Steve Margolis
defy convention - make music
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by Steve Toy
Steve (7V)
Excellent post, I have nothing to add other than to bring up the issue of political correctness and international security. As far as I'm concerned these two entities are irreconcilable.
In the US, Air Marshals are only allowed to search up to two Arabs on a flight even if there are a dozen of them who all know each other, and are all acting suspiciously. If, say, six out of the dozen have bits of bomb-making materials on themselves to be assembled in the toilet during the flight, the Air Marshals' hands are tied by political correctness.
By the same token, I'd be surprised to learn that Israel hadn't in fact possessed nuclear weapons since the fifties, and I'd be extremely alarmed to learn that Iran had just acquired its first nuclear warhead and the means to deliver it.
Iran needs to be warned that the first city to be flattened by an Al Quada nuke sourced from there would result in Tehran being wiped off the face of the Earth.
Not very PC I know, but that is how nuclear deterrents work.
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Sat 31 July 2004 at 5:07.]
Excellent post, I have nothing to add other than to bring up the issue of political correctness and international security. As far as I'm concerned these two entities are irreconcilable.
In the US, Air Marshals are only allowed to search up to two Arabs on a flight even if there are a dozen of them who all know each other, and are all acting suspiciously. If, say, six out of the dozen have bits of bomb-making materials on themselves to be assembled in the toilet during the flight, the Air Marshals' hands are tied by political correctness.
By the same token, I'd be surprised to learn that Israel hadn't in fact possessed nuclear weapons since the fifties, and I'd be extremely alarmed to learn that Iran had just acquired its first nuclear warhead and the means to deliver it.
Iran needs to be warned that the first city to be flattened by an Al Quada nuke sourced from there would result in Tehran being wiped off the face of the Earth.
Not very PC I know, but that is how nuclear deterrents work.
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Sat 31 July 2004 at 5:07.]
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by Mitch
The UK is a lot closer to Iran than the US. As much as they might hate the US the UK will be a lot easier to hit. For your sake you’d better hope Israel does the right thing and stop Iran since the UN will not do anything.
Israeli Nuclear Weapons are defensive tools. They aren’t threatening anyone. Iran on the other hand is a threat and must be stopped.
Yes please point out a UN success? The Korean conflict comes to mind.
Mitch
Israeli Nuclear Weapons are defensive tools. They aren’t threatening anyone. Iran on the other hand is a threat and must be stopped.
Yes please point out a UN success? The Korean conflict comes to mind.
Mitch
Posted on: 31 July 2004 by bigmick
I’m not sure that I need to say anything now that you’ve got Mr. Toy on your wing with his insight into how nuclear deterrents work and desire to see cities wiped off the face of the earth. I suppose we’d be relying on US/US middle east intelligence to ascertain the origin of the warhead? That’d be comforting. Christ. Yeah and when they find out where they got those box cutters and mace, we should nuke that capital!
So are you suggesting that the solution is
There have been successes such as El Salvador and Mozambique, Namibia but yes it has messed up badly, but so have administrations and governments and I hear people screaming for radical change not revolution and the abolition of our democratic models.
It's been mentioned in another post, but it's relevant to note again that Israel is perceived at large as being a major threat to world peace. That notion is buoyed up by the rather frequent and almost casual use of force by the IDF; missile into a apartment block full of sleeping families in the hope of killing a suspect. That mightn't be twitchy to you, but a force with such disregard for life shouldn't have access to the big stuff.
According to that logic anyone who doesn't share your prejudices or your blind faith in Israel could equally argue the case for Iran having a WMD capability. Wasn't that a theory as to why Saddam kept up the bluff to the end, so that no one would be tempted to attack and that he would retain respect in the region. if Israel knew for a fact that Iran had a ready nuclear deterrent, then I don't suspect that your option c) would be much of a goer. It's a poor reason and the only true reason to reject inspections on both countries is simply to admit hypocrisy and double standards.
Back on thread
I refer you to the paragraph above. Why do you think Israel is perceived across the world as such a threat? I may be proved wrong but I have a gut feeling that this ramping up of the tension re. Iran is Israeli/neocon hype feeding the ignoramus’ of the world who on the one hand view all Arabs as terrorist threats whilst on the other Israel and the US, even whilst blowing men, women and children to bits, can do no wrong. If Iran has a nuclear weapons program it must be neutralized but so must everyone else’s in the Middle East. IIRC last year, the media was full of speculation that Israel and/or the US were going to launch attacks on Iraq. I’m no expert in Iranian matters so can you help me with details of Iranian attacks on Israel or specific threats?
If anyone has to have nuclear deterrents, it should be restricted to permanent members of the Security Council. Israel doesn't need them and hasn't shown itself mature enough to restrain its use of conventional weapons. It's amazing that such a small country has attracted so much hate throughout the world and I think that rather than spending billions of US tax dollars building walls and increasing it's arsenal with WMDs, an Israeli government would be better employed working out why they've engendered so much loathing and addressing the problem.
So are you suggesting that the solution is
quote:Then whenever the next superpower comes along, China as you’ve said, or a reinvigorated Russia, we can dance to their tune. If that's the choice, I'll take a body of the world's nations talking matters over before acting any day. Instead of continuing this failed attempt to remain a global hegemony, the U.S. should instead recognize the likelihood of its weakened future position and work to create powerful global institutions that could prevent one state or an alliance of states from ever possessing too much power. Let’s be clear the undermining of the UN has been largely due to US abuse which has created the perception of the UN being the servant of the US. The US has used it’s economic power to cajole smaller countries to support it’s aims, happily used UN resolutions as justification for punishing states that it does not support or ignoring breaches by friendly states, vetoed otherwise unanimous security resolutions for purely political reasons, and of course when it has failed to bully or buy off support, it has defied the rules and acted unilaterally.
for everybody to do what they like subject to the whim of the current US administration.
There have been successes such as El Salvador and Mozambique, Namibia but yes it has messed up badly, but so have administrations and governments and I hear people screaming for radical change not revolution and the abolition of our democratic models.
It's been mentioned in another post, but it's relevant to note again that Israel is perceived at large as being a major threat to world peace. That notion is buoyed up by the rather frequent and almost casual use of force by the IDF; missile into a apartment block full of sleeping families in the hope of killing a suspect. That mightn't be twitchy to you, but a force with such disregard for life shouldn't have access to the big stuff.
quote:
I do believe that their assumed nuclear capability has and does act as a deterrent to worse conflict and catastrophe in that region
According to that logic anyone who doesn't share your prejudices or your blind faith in Israel could equally argue the case for Iran having a WMD capability. Wasn't that a theory as to why Saddam kept up the bluff to the end, so that no one would be tempted to attack and that he would retain respect in the region. if Israel knew for a fact that Iran had a ready nuclear deterrent, then I don't suspect that your option c) would be much of a goer. It's a poor reason and the only true reason to reject inspections on both countries is simply to admit hypocrisy and double standards.
Back on thread
quote:
Israeli Nuclear Weapons are defensive tools. They aren’t threatening anyone. Iran on the other hand is a threat and must be stopped.
I refer you to the paragraph above. Why do you think Israel is perceived across the world as such a threat? I may be proved wrong but I have a gut feeling that this ramping up of the tension re. Iran is Israeli/neocon hype feeding the ignoramus’ of the world who on the one hand view all Arabs as terrorist threats whilst on the other Israel and the US, even whilst blowing men, women and children to bits, can do no wrong. If Iran has a nuclear weapons program it must be neutralized but so must everyone else’s in the Middle East. IIRC last year, the media was full of speculation that Israel and/or the US were going to launch attacks on Iraq. I’m no expert in Iranian matters so can you help me with details of Iranian attacks on Israel or specific threats?
If anyone has to have nuclear deterrents, it should be restricted to permanent members of the Security Council. Israel doesn't need them and hasn't shown itself mature enough to restrain its use of conventional weapons. It's amazing that such a small country has attracted so much hate throughout the world and I think that rather than spending billions of US tax dollars building walls and increasing it's arsenal with WMDs, an Israeli government would be better employed working out why they've engendered so much loathing and addressing the problem.
Posted on: 31 July 2004 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by bigmick:
So are you suggesting that the solution isquote:Then whenever the next superpower comes along, China as you've said, or a reinvigorated Russia, we can dance to their tune. If that's the choice, I'll take a body of the world's nations talking matters over before acting any day. Instead of continuing this failed attempt to remain a global hegemony, the U.S. should instead recognize the likelihood of its weakened future position and work to create powerful global institutions that could prevent one state or an alliance of states from ever possessing too much power.
for everybody to do what they like subject to the whim of the current US administration.
No, that's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm merely pointing out that throughout history the superpower of the time has generally used its position to act in its own self-interest and not always in the best interests of everyone else.
Yes, it would be good if the US could "recognize the likelihood of its weakened future position and work to create powerful global institutions that could prevent one state or an alliance of states from ever possessing too much power."
Of course it would be the first superpower in history to act in this way and, it's far easier said than done. The league of Nations was not a rip-roaring success and nor is the UN.
quote:
Let's be clear the undermining of the UN has been largely due to US abuse which has created the perception of the UN being the servant of the US.
Of course the fact that the UN is driven primarily by the self-interest of its members also undermines its legitimacy and, ultimately, its effectiveness.
quote:
It's been mentioned in another post, but it's relevant to note again that Israel is perceived at large as being a major threat to world peace. That notion is buoyed up by the rather frequent and almost casual use of force by the IDF; missile into a apartment block full of sleeping families in the hope of killing a suspect...
There is a difference between the truth and what is "perceived at large". For example, Jeremy Paxman and the BBC's Newsnight were pretty quick (in fact instant) to heavily condemn the "Israeli massacre in Jenin". When the UN and subsequent investigations showed that this was not the massacre reported there was no retraction by Newsnight; in fact not a word was said. I would certainly not defend every action of the IDF and, as I've already stated above, they have certainly committed bad acts. However, the situation is extremely difficult and we have to ask how other countries, such as the UK, would deal with a similar situation. It's difficult to draw parallels and I am a strong believer in the professionalism and competence of the British army. However, their actions in Northern Ireland haven't always been perceived as whiter than white. Nor are they perceived as whiter than white in Iraq.
quote:
... Wasn't that a theory as to why Saddam kept up the bluff to the end, so that no one would be tempted to attack and that he would retain respect in the region. if Israel knew for a fact that Iran had a ready nuclear deterrent, then I don't suspect that your option c) would be much of a goer.
You've probably forgotten but Iraq did have a nuclear reactor which was destroyed by Israeli fighters on Sunday, June 7th 1981 (a Sunday was chosen because the French scientists, who were working to give Saddam Hussein his very own nuclear button, would not be working on the reactor that day).
The public 'perception' was, of course, that this was another evil act of aggression by Israel and the action was condemned by many peace loving countries.
We'll never know what might have happened if Saddam had had nuclear warheads on the missiles he sent into Israel during the first Gulf War but we can be fairly certain that, had Iraq had a nuclear capability, the events of the last 10 years would have been very different.
Iran does not currently have a nuclear capability but the outside world, including Israel, have a pretty good idea of when it will come on-line.
quote:
... Why do you think Israel is perceived across the world as such a threat?
I have my own views on why Israel is perceived as such a threat. I have mentioned media bias. I should also mention the the power of the Arab oil states to have most of their customers (certainly the British) with their tongues generally in licking position. Large scale immigration of Arabs and Muslims into Western Europe also has an effect on our own perceptions and on the actions of those countries housing them.
Lets be honest, there is also, and generally has been, a large amount of Anti-Semitism.
In the US, there is a larger Jewish lobby and relatively less Arab immigration so the balance of public perception, shaped by the media, is different.
quote:
I may be proved wrong but I have a gut feeling that this ramping up of the tension re. Iran is Israeli/neocon hype feeding the ignoramus' of the world who on the one hand view all Arabs as terrorist threats whilst on the other Israel and the US, even whilst blowing men, women and children to bits, can do no wrong.
I think that we can ignore the views of such ignoramus' here. Clearly the vast majority of Arabs are peace-loving non-terrorists and Israel and the US both do plenty of wrong. We're not disputing that, are we? At the same time, we should accept that there are serious threats from Arab terrorists and we have to deal with these without demonising Arabs in general. Ignoring such threats is not the wisest action we can take. Blaming all terrorism on the actions of the State of Israel is a position, that whilst currently trendy in some circles, is not accurate or helpful.
If or when peace comes between Israel and it's neighbours, as most of us hope will one day happen, terrorism will not stop, although, hopefully, the threat will be considerably reduced.
quote:
... I'm no expert in Iranian matters so can you help me with details of Iranian attacks on Israel or specific threats?
Tehran has been linked to numerous anti-West and anti-Israel terrorist attacks ranging from taking hostages and hijacking airlines to carrying out assassinations and bombings. Some of these incidents include the taking of more than 30 Western hostages in Lebanon, the bombings of the U.S. Embassy and the French-U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut and the Buenos Aires terrorist attacks on the Israeli Embassy in 1992 and on the Argentine Jewish communal building in 1994.
Iran also provides at least transit and temporary safe haven to members of al-Qa'eda.
Deadly terror weapons have also been smuggled into the hands of Iranian-sponsored groups such as Hezbollah and used against Israeli civilians in commando-style raids. New rockets, more advanced than the Katyusha, were recently delivered to Hezbollah by Iran and may soon begin bombarding northern Israel. Iran flew thirty 747 flights to Damascus to supply Hezbollah with these armaments.
Does that answer your question?
quote:
If anyone has to have nuclear deterrents, it should be restricted to permanent members of the Security Council. Israel doesn't need them and hasn't shown itself mature enough to restrain its use of conventional weapons. It's amazing that such a small country has attracted so much hate throughout the world and I think that rather than spending billions of US tax dollars building walls and increasing it's arsenal with WMDs, an Israeli government would be better employed working out why they've engendered so much loathing and addressing the problem.
I think I've given my views on most of these points.
"why they've engendered so much loathing"
- because they're there.
Steve Margolis
defy convention - make music
Posted on: 31 July 2004 by Steve Toy
quote:
I’m not sure that I need to say anything now that you’ve got Mr. Toy on your wing with his insight into how nuclear deterrents work and desire to see cities wiped off the face of the earth.
Desire for what exactly?
Iran needs to understand from the outset that Nuclear weapons are only efffective deterrents against being attacked. If they choose to build them, pass them onto Al Quada, wait and watch a city somewhere in the US or Europe be reduced to rubble, shrug their shoulders and say it had nothing to do with them, they will face the consequences in kind. If they understand these consequences of passing nukes to terrorists they won't even go there.
Nuclear deterrents ensure that no city gets wiped off the Earth.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 31 July 2004 by Harvey
quote:
In the US, Air Marshals are only allowed to search up to two Arabs on a flight even if there are a dozen of them who all know each other, and are all acting suspiciously. If, say, six out of the dozen have bits of bomb-making materials on themselves to be assembled in the toilet during the flight, the Air Marshals' hands are tied by political correctness.
What does this have to do with anyhting? Is this irrelevancy corner? Should I start talking about my granma's cheesecake or something?Posted on: 31 July 2004 by Harvey
quote:
Desire for what exactly?
It kind of says it in the quote you used........after the word "desire"
I think he ws probably a bit taken aback at your ridiculous and needlessly inflammatory gungho language. Did you think you were posting on the Daily Mail forum?
Oh and thanks again for clearing up that nuclear deterrent mystery..again!
Posted on: 31 July 2004 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Harvey:
[QUOTE]
Steven was making a point on the subject (that I brought up) of political correctness.
Not allowed?
Steve Margolis
defy convention - make music
Posted on: 31 July 2004 by keef
quote:
Originally posted by 7V:
The 9/11 Commission has concluded that it was not Iraq that had connections with Islamic terrorists but Iran. The report claims that Iran made "concerted efforts to strengthen relations" with al-Qa'eda and that Iranian border guards were instructed to "facilitate the travel of al-Qa'eda members".
Let's pose one salient question:
If you take the endless violence in Ireland out of the equation, who has perpetrated most of the acts of violence and terrorism in the world in the past 40-50 years?
Do you ever see a headline that says, "Sweden blew up a train full of people today because they refused to worship lefse"?
Are Canadians planting bombs in Argentina because they don't play hockey? etc etc.
The answer is that 90% of world terrorism has originated from middle eastern, Islamic extremists.
They continue to get a pass on receiving the big thumping because they have oil. At some point, the rest of the world is going to get sick of this small region being the tail that wags the dog, and explain that they can either join the world community created by a shrinking globe and play nice, or get shit kicked out of them.
And I'm not interested in any revisionist history here. All regions have been screwed at one time or another. They have the resource to provide enough money to feed and educate their people, and to join the rest of the world on equal footing while putting an end to the madras schools of hate that teach new terrorists each year.
The choice should be join the world and be embraced, or continue to terrorize the world and get smoked.
Clearly the Commissions findings have added to fears about Iran's pursuance of a nuclear programme. In fact, the US Congress recently authorised the use of "all appropriate means" to halt it. According to Senator Sam Brownback: "It's better to take forceful action now to end a terror threat and save lives, then to wait for a nuclear 9/11 to take place and then ask why".
Meanwhile, Israel has expressed extreme concern (hardly surprising given Iran's commitment to destroy the Jewish state). Aljazeera.net has reported Public relations head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Commander Seyed Masood Jazayeri, as saying that in retaliation to any attack Iran has proved itself to be "harsh, assertive, hard-hitting and destructive".
"The United States is showing off by threatening to use its wild dog, Israel," he said.
"They will not hesitate to strike Iran if they are capable of it. However, their threats to attack Iran's nuclear facilities cannot be realised. They are aware Tehran's reaction will be so harsh that Israel will be wiped off the face of the earth." he warned.
Meanwhile (according to Aljazeera), US-appointed interim Iraqi Defence Minister Hazim Shaalan warned of invading Iran if it did not stop interfering in his country's internal politics.
"I've seen clear interference in Iraqi issues by Iran," the minister said in an interview with The Washington Post in Baghdad on Monday.
"Iran interferes in order to kill democracy."
So ....
My question for debate is what would you learned gentlemen like to see happen here?
a) Ignore Iran's bomb making ambitions. They will go away.
b) Allied pre-emptive action. The US are in so much shit anyway that what difference will another foreign escapade make?
c) Let Israel deal with it. That way we can all make a lot of loud, critical noises while being secretly relieved. If Iran attacks Israel afterwards they can deal with it.
d) Wow, Iraq attacking Iran. Well there's something I hadn't thought of. Great idea.
e) None of the above.
I'm asking you guys because I strongly suspect that action will be taken soon and I'd like to hear your responses in advance, this time.
Steve Margolis
_defy convention - make music_