world

Rice warns U.S. will do what's necessary to defend Israel; Iran answers with more missiles

85 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

85 Comments
Login to comment

Yea let's all go to war. Again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Can we please stop? Must we jump into war every time a leader barks at our shores? Yikes. I may have to move to Greenland. They don't seem to be involved in any conflicts at all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gr-r-r-r-r....Bark!!!!....Bark!!!!

I was listening to Coni today. Everytime Iran sneezes, she's right there to accuse them of having the flu.

Sure they fired a few missiles. Compoared to us that's like what?

If Isreal wants to scream, let them. They are playing this tit-4-tat game with them. Stay the hell out of it. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is a media war. Looking at the results of 2 wars in eight years, it is doubtful if anything can be achieved in 4 months time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

some14some,

I'd be careful about that. What you view as an achievement might be different from what others view as an achievement.

For example, if the new weapons reportedly being used against US troops in Iraq are traceable (or arguably traceable) to Iran, opening a new front in Iran would have to include strikes against its missile facilities. The "achievement" would be presenting the next President with a fait accompli.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kids with guns, it looks like.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It boggles my mind how Israel and the USA believe themselves above scrutiny, making threats and attacking as they please, and then claim that they are the ones being threatened.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The thing is when they test fire missiles it's considered provocative yet when the US or Israel plays toy soldiers near their borders or in the region that's normal and the Iranians shouldn't worry in the slightest. Skewed logic but might is right for those who hold power.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Rice. I swear to God or Buddha or whoever is out there that I am counting the days until I don't need to hear your voice, see your uptight face or read about you and that president you serve ever again.

Enough with the posturing. We can no more invade Iran today than I can take over leadership of Japan by lunch time. You don't have the available troops and you know as well as I do that you will need a draft to sustain a fight there. And that will mean long term dark ages for the Republican party that will seem like an iceage before you win another presidency. So attack is not really on the table is it? IS IT?

You also know that Iran has no intention of going to war with us or anyone else. They may saber rattle too, but they are not stupid. They are posturing and that is it. And understandably given the hostile situation. And you know this to be true, your intelligence community reported it to you last week.

Intelligent leaders would see these facts and make diplomatic solutions work. And that is in the best interests of both nations. So make it work! We just no longer buy your campaign of FEAR, MORE FEAR and MORE FEAR. We know that the terrorists under the bed are not our worst fear, you and what you may get us into is.

Hurry up and clear the global stage for someone with a plan to address these problems intelligently.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It boggles my mind how Israel and the USA believe themselves above scrutiny, making threats and attacking as they please, and then claim that they are the ones being threatened.

It must be because the media in the west is not free. US and Israel can claim and do whatever they want.

MadamK82, I wouldn't go to Greenland. Don't they have a conflict with Canada? I hear Canada has some quite powerful tugboats!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There Allys.

Um I think israel is the only one poking and using the US as the stick.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TKO: Rice. I swear to God or Buddha or whoever is out there that I am counting the days until I don't need to hear your voice, see your uptight face or read about you and that president you serve ever again." There is nothing wrong with Dr. Rice. Like a salesman, she has to support what ever product her company is selling. And just because you decide to have a different opinion does not put you over her.

Enough with the posturing. We can no more invade Iran today than I can take over leadership of Japan by lunch time." No we can't. But bear in mind, that Iran has been pushing the Great Satan for the past 2 and half decades and even in fact, in 89' declared war on the US. Of course we just brushed it off which is what we should have done so anyway. Is she suppose to say nothing? By saying nothing it could prove to be a green light for those who want to see Israel wiped from the map.

You also know that Iran has no intention of going to war with us or anyone else." Here you go off the handle on Dr. Rice because of her words, yet who has been doing the yelling and screaming even going to great lengths to prove the Holocaust never happened or it wasn't as bad as people it was...?

They may saber rattle too, but they are not stupid." Who said they were stupid? But if they are going to go off and act like Saddam by saying he actually had WMD's, which helped making the case to the UN, then really you get what you wish for.

Intelligent leaders would see these facts and make diplomatic solutions work." Are you implying that Iran has?

Hurry up and clear the global stage for someone with a plan to address these problems intelligently." Well, like I said, we have been having problem with Iran for almost 3 decades, which includes Jimmy the GReat, Billy boy, Ronny, Georgy, and Georgy 2. So please enlighten us as to who this person is going to be?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Um I think israel is the only one poking and using the US as the stick." Is that a bad thing? Considering the size of Israel against its enemies. Haven't you ever taken a pair of Nunchucks to school to scare that one bully in the hallway?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Skipthesong.

All through history countries have blown hot air about this or that platform or ideology. With repressive regimes most of that is intended for local consumption anyway. To stay in power they need to maintain control. And what controls people better than fear of some enemy?

I don't like the President of Iran any more than I like dear Dr.Rice and the reactionaries she supports. To me they are two different voices of unreason shouting on the same street corner. Both fortelling the doom of peace because of the other.

Iran is sandwiched between the US and Afghanistan and the US in Iraq. From their point of view they are surrounded. And they are hoping to gain the support of the Islamic world by playing the cards they are. Including their stance against Israel and their refusal to give up their nuclear research.

But if you look deeply here, Iran is not looking for war. At home they have a population that is eager to join the rest of the world. The government knows this and has been clamping down. A war would end that for them either by force or by internal revolution.

If you really want to change Iran and elminate this problem, engage with them. Get them onboard with some ideas about improvements and economic aid. Help them become a real player in the region and it will help encourage the population to demand more change. This WILL WORK. But it means taking a new point of view and working to make diplomacy not force the primary means of change.

As for Dr.Rice. My disdain does not end with her. It is for the entire administration and government that squandered global sympathy on 912 in favor of some archaic war mongering approach to solving problems. They have ravaged the economy, been responsible for the deaths of well over 130,000 people in Iraq, no one knows how many in Afghanistan and that is before you count all the Americans who have died.

And this is before we even start talking about how they have manipulated our own people with fear and the tragedy of 911 to forward their own repressive agenda against personal liberty and privacy.

When we prosecuted the Nazis and Japanese for war crimes post WWII we laid blame on all the government officials who mad those crimes possible. With Rendition, Guantanimo, Abu Graeb, torture and the murder of so many people the Bush administration and Rice along with them are war criminals and criminals for their lies and misinformation that led to the Iraq war. It is just a shame that it will take 50 years or more for history to look at this with a clear perspective and to lable this administration as the worst for American interests in our history.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“We are sending a message to Iran that we will defend American interests and the interests of our allies.” Israel is a strong ally (accomplice)of the American government, but not its people. If the American people learned what Israel has done to the US, they would understand that Israel is not America's ally, far from it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Skipthesong.

Re:Isreal. This is not a nation of absolute purity. Their policies in the MidEast are not helping. How would you like to be Palestinian? Have your land taken, homes torn down, jobs cut off, country fenced in and all your political representation labled as terrorist groups.

Keep in mind that Palestine supported the Allies in WWII and their people did so in WWI. These were friends and allies that we betrayed by giving over their land to better armed immigrants claiming it as Zion. How would you like it if someone claimed a US state as Zion and marginalized and pushed out the locals by force?

The UN, UK and US created this mess out of bad thinking and poor long term diplomatic thinking. A mutual state may have worked from the start with protections for both Jews and Arabs. But that opportunity was lost. Now most of the conflict between the Arab world and the West is rooted in this self inflicted conflict.

I am not anti-semitic, before you accuse me of it. I know many Jews who share an anti-Zionistic view of the Israeli situation. I support a shared state of Israel and Palestine that would empower both communities. Sadly this is unlikely to happen. So I support Israel but they must support and help create a viable Palestine. We all must.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I get so tired of watching people and the media wring their hands and fret over poor little Israel. Israel is a nuclear power. She can deliver nukes with her aircraft and her submarines. The Israelis know this. The Iranians know this. Israel can defend herself.

If American politicians want to defend something, they should start with their borders.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We can no more invade Iran today than I can take over leadership of Japan by lunch time.

tkoind2/Sez....I've heard this quite a bit....the same people who insist the US is just about to invade are the same people who insist that the US cannot invade.

The only thing I can conclude is that this is Bush Derangement syndrome in hyperdrive. It's the only thing that makes sense. Some people are creating their entire position over their insane belief that Bush simply wants to invade and kill people. They've come to the conclusion that the man is pure evil and it's their duty to stop him from giving in to temptation. It also explains how Europe and just about every other country can be standing with the US right now yet not be seen as an accomplice to the "madness." Bush is acting this way because he is evil and any other leader with the same position is simply blocked out of reality. We've literally reached that level of tunnel vision.

To use your example I suppose I would be begging you to not take over Japan by lunchtime.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I get so tired of watching people and the media wring their hands and fret over poor little Israel." Yes, let's fret over 1.9 billion people. Israel is a nuclear power" She wasn't always and when she wasn't, nobody gave a damn. While 6 million of her kind, which was basically kicked out of their land, nobody gave a damn - in fact turned the other cheek.

When she wasn't a nuclear power, she still managed to fight back and defend herself not against one country, but several in addition to billions of people's support.

TKO: "Keep in mind that Palestine supported the Allies in WWII and their people did so in WWI." That is completely a lie. You referring to an area whose people did, not what you have now. In fact, http://www.themiddleeastnow.com/musnazi.html will prove it a lie.

I am not in support of Israel, neither am I against it. I do believe it has a right to exist, but with some limitations. But I refuse to support a force of people spanning from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean. Iran has that support, yet the media, people here on JT would prefer to believe that the people of Islam are the down and out and the under dog.

The UN, UK and US created this mess out of bad thinking and poor long term diplomatic thinking. A mutual state may have worked from the start with protections for both Jews and Arabs." YOu are kidding us, aren't you? This mess goes further than that. Where Iran fits into the picture I don't know. Really, what have the Jews done to Muslims that was so bad, that centuries after they were kicked out and/or conquered of the holy lands, that they still garner such a hatred from Muslims? Don't give me the GWB crap of 911, or US policy of the post WWII, I am talking all the way back to the Ottomans.

So I support Israel but they must support and help create a viable Palestine. We all must." Its been tried, time and time again and both sides seem to kill it as things get going. Besides, we are talking about a pimple on an elephant's butt sized piece of a sand box. Basically, for many of the leaders on Islamic lead countries giving the Jews one spec of that sand is too much. There is no denying that.

Lastly, "If the American people learned what Israel has done to the US, they would understand that Israel is not America's ally, far from it." If more supporters of the Palestinian cause would understand that how much of the problem is also rooted in Islamic countries, they would understand that they have been played.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tko: I can understand your disdain for the Bush admin, but I would prefer you leave Dr. Rice alone. Any country should be happy to have her as one of its citizens. She is not a politician. Don't you know what this women has been through in her life?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i think Japan should stay out of this mess. we have vitally important oil deals with iran also. since the end of wwII, i wonder what drug keeps the us rattling its saber. or is it because of rambo, the movie?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the US where to attack Iran, what would be the objectives? As we know from Gulf War I, we wont be able to accomplish anything unless we go for regime change, and in this case we would be replacing a legitimate government which their people want and respect, with another dictatorship that the locals will insurrect against.

The US military is dying to play the Nintendo Videogame war that Gulf War I was. They assume that Iran will try to use conventional methods such as tanks, missiles and troops, which we all know they can take out easily. This is another mistake waiting to happen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am not anti-semitic, before you accuse me of it.

This comment reminded me of Norman Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History in which he notes the tendency of some defenders of the Jewish state to use spurious charges of anti-Semitism to deflect and discredit legitimate criticism of Israel, essentially "playing the race card."

Now the Israelis certainly have a right to regard the Iranian posture as hostile, to say the least. But Tehran is betting that the rapid rise in oil prices constrains the range of responses from either the US or Israel. Many on both ends of the political spectrum have long predicted a bombing campaign is imminent, divided only on whether this would be a good or bad thing. At this point I think GWB will leave Iran's nuclear ambitions to his successor.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Let us not forget that Iran tested missiles after Israel staged war games, overtly threatening Iran. Whatever happened to diplomacy? See: http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=l1y47K29J1o If six countries can talk with North Korea and find a diplomatic solution, why can no similar solution be found for Iran's situation. Under the NNPT and with IAEA stringent inspections, Iran is making 3%-purity Uranium for power. No matter how much 3% Uranium they make, they can never reach the 90% plus needed for a bomb. Rice, is a mouthpiece for israel, pushed by Cheney. Iran has attacked nobody, unlike israel and the once great U.S. of A. Gates, Fallon and Mosley are the coolest heads in DC. SOMEBODY please listen! Nobody wins a nuclear war! Nobody!"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We can no more invade Iran today than I can take over leadership of Japan by lunch time. You don't have the available troops

The only thing being discussed is targeted airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. No one's talking about an invasion with troops. Seems a waste of time to be arguing points that are irrelevant.

If the US where to attack Iran, what would be the objectives?

To take our their nuclear facilities so they can't build a nuclear weapon. It's all over the newspapers, try reading one.

Keep in mind that Palestine supported the Allies in WWII

LOL!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"In the same way as israel had war games recently, threatening to attack Iran's (legally constructed and inspected by the IAEA) two nuclear power plants, Iran has the same right to conduct defense games, to ward off such a belligerent threat. israel is the rogue state in the region with 150+ nukes and a history of regional aggression. The US, a vassal state of israel should listen to the cooler heads right now, and avoid a strike, or support for a strike by proxy, israel. Remember, one of Iran's plants was bought and paid for by Russia, the other by China, both of whom have told Rice that an attack on either of those spots would be seen as a declaration of war against their countries. Has Bush thought that far in advance? Gates has! Either way, israel has way more to lose than to win."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To go further, as I watch and read all these post of evil West, bear in mind when Iran changed its name to Iran and why?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2/Sez....I've heard this quite a bit....the same people who insist the US is just about to invade are the same people who insist that the US cannot invade.

The only thing I can conclude is that this is Bush Derangement syndrome in hyperdrive.

This is, like the anti-Semitism card described above, another example of using a spurious charge (BDS) to deflect and discredit legitimate criticism of the current administration by accusing other posters of taking positions they never advocated.

No one's talking about an invasion with troops.

Thank you for pointing that out, Helter Skelter.

Seems a waste of time to be arguing points that are irrelevant.

Indeed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Remember how we were supposed to believe that as soon as we reached Baghdad, the Iraqi people will sing and throw flowers at our feet.

Don't believe that a few "targeted airstrikes" is all that will happen.

You can bank on one hell of a retaliation. Who ever attacks Iran will be doing the absolute dumbest thing possible. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Muslim nations must never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Seemingly half the countries in the world have been victims of Muslim terrorism and the last thing they need is access to nukes. We can't make the same mistake with Iran that we did with Pakistan which could very well come back to bite us.

Iran's nuclear program could easily be taken out by the US, probably in about a week. I'm sure the plans are already drawn up. No invasion, no occupation, minimal casualties. And what ever retaliation there is by Iran, keeping in mind Iran's military budget is about one hundredth the US, will only be with conventional weapons.

I look forward to seeing Iran's nuclear facilities leveled. What a blow it will be to the Islamists and Nazis that their holocaust-denying hero Ahmadinejad won't have access to nukes. These two groups have a long history of cooperation dating back to WWII and their quest for the final solution No wonder they're defending Iran so enthusiastically.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

helter-skelter.

LOL, you know about the high-yield reactors used in europe, etc. They chuck out weapons grade plutonium like there is no tomorrow.

France alone holds more weapons-grade plutonium than the whole of the middle east combined.

Yet, you worry about a small state refining a small amount of it and they haven't even got the tech to hit USA soil.

Get real.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Super Lib. My stance is not in conflict with itself if you look at it logically.

The US may be preparing to invade: It is very possible that a combination of airstrikes and groud strikes could take place. These would initiate a conflict under the belief that an effective attack would eliminate military key targets while avoiding an expanded conflict. This is a common US practice.

The US does not have the troops to invade. What I mean here is that we lack adequate troops to sustain an invasion or to escalate to a full war. This means that should a limited attack escalate, the US has inadequate forces to follow through or sustain a long term occupation without a draft. Again a sensible conclusion based on the status of the military today.

I don't anyone believes that GWB just wants to go kill people. But I do elieve that he and those who share his views have an agenda for the region that an invasion would help facilitate, if successful. There are also strong political motivations for the domestic front to maintain an enemy to be in conflict with.

Do I think Bush is evil. Sure. Do I think that is enough reason to fear an attack on Iran? No! There are plenty of rational issues that my other posts have raised that support the view that this administration and their supporters are a threat to peace. You need only look at Iraq to validate this. Look at all the misdirection and lies that led us down that path.

You may fear my leading Japan by lunch time, but I fear your inability to see the clear and present danger another war would bring. And I fear your inability to separate the difference between people who understand the regional polictical situation enough to know that the American position on this issue is wrong. And that the consequences of getting this wrong, as we clearly did with Iraq, are dire for both the US and the world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The USA, a very powerful, yet, insecure country.

Insecurity may cause paranoia and social withdrawal, or alternatively it may encourage compensatory behaviors such as arrogance, aggression, or bullying, a principle enshrined in the phrase "all bullies are cowards." Many people suffer a period of insecurity during puberty, which gives rise to a lot of the stereotypical behaviors of adolescents.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zen

My concern is only with Muslim countries having nuclear facilities. And that is they don't get any, not even a "small state" like Iran. Europe isn't a Muslim nation...at least not yet. However, you bring up an interesting point. If the Islamization of Europe continues, the nuclear issue will become a huge problem. Imagine an Islamic France with nukes. Yikes!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

any country that leads/runs itself on religious principles should be prevented at any cost to have any large scale weapons. I wouldn't even care if it were the Vatican, they shouldn't have it. If the world let's the right wingers of Iran have what they want, you know they will only parade it around as a victory inciting more and more support for themselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Those who write history decide who is evil or not. Sadly this black and white perspective does not get at the truth of most conflicts. We as humans reduce our world to good and evil to make it easier to manage.

I do belive that Bush and his crowd are wrong about a lot. And I can card stack until the end of time evidence to back up this assertion. Is he evil? Well.. history will decide. But I expect it will not look kindly upon him. Especially if he invades Iran.

I will ask you this. Is it justifiable to kill over 130,000 people who had nothing to do with attacks on the US in response to our losing 3000 on 911? Is it justifiable to blow up a dozen weddings and all the people at them over the last several years because someone blew up our work places?

We need a little moral balance here. Are lives in Iraq any less valuable than in NYC? Are Afghanis any less loved by their families and friends that their deaths are not felt? Why do we think we can solve our problems with war when it clearly creates more for us? When 911 was a product of our own long standing poor policies in the MidEast combined with the narrow thinking of people just as blind to the moral good as we have been.

Bush and Rise are simply representative of a wave that swept our nation post 911. And yes I will call it an evil wave because it blinded us to what had happened and why. It made us become reactive and afraid. It encouraged us to give up our privacy, our civil liberties and rights. And it rationalized torture, murder and suffering for so many people.

And what did we accomplish with all this? Are we safe? Has terror been defeated and the perpatrators brought to justice? No. But it has killed a lot of innocent people who may now become the next generation of enemies willing to fly planes or carry bombs to our cities to destroy and kill us. And it has closed so many doors to peace that 911 flung open.

History will remember this time as the great lost American opporunity to become the leader nation it should have been. A champion of freedom and a creator of peace. What a lost opportunity. Let us just hope that history records it in a way that helps future generations avoid our mistakes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2, thanks for your comments. One thing I question was this:

There are also strong political motivations for the domestic front to maintain an enemy to be in conflict with.

Iran's dug it own hole in terms of making itself an enemy. Their support of Hezbollah has lead directly to the death of US troops in Lebanon and they've been assisting the insurgency in Iraq which has again killed US troops. Things like that make a strong case for Iran being an enemy rather than a some simple desire for the US government to invent threats to make policy more convenient. That's the stuff movies are made of. I'm sure others will chime in and tell me about things the US has done to Iran but I'm guessing they won't be saying that the US is an enemy invented by Iran just because they need an enemy. That's the point I'm speaking to.

And again, Europe and just about every other US ally are presenting a united front against Iran, but I've never heard of any similar justifications used to describe their motives. Given their opposition to the war in Iraq and their ability to go against US policy as a way to please their people that should tell you that aligning themselves with the US must be because they have similar thoughts about the situation. That's a point that I've never seen countered by those who tell me that the US is going all cowboy on Iran right now. Even other governments in the Middle East are showing Iran little to no support right now.

The issue is presented exclusively as the US vs. Iran and I think that lends itself to thinking the US is doing something different than everyone else and make it easier to single us out for criticism. People talk about how similar this is to the invasion of Iraq and leave gaping holes of information such as the European partnership off the table. Every country condemned Iran's missile firing but the only article speaking about condemnation on this site and others was about the US. Why is that? Because that way people can believe it's Bush vs. Iran.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

any country that leads/runs itself on religious principles should be prevented at any cost to have any large scale weapons

Thats USA and Israel.

The reason why US supports Israel is because USA is a Christian Fundamentalist country. PLain and simple. It is in the religion of the Christian Fundamentalists to give income to religious causes. American fundamentalists follow this, since they believe that they will burn in Hell if they do not give money.

Christians fundamentalists is the biggest voting block in the USA. Fundamentalists are those who believe in the exact words of the Bible. THe majority of Americans believe in the rapture. In order for the Second Coming of Christ to occur, several things must happen. First, the Jews must return to Jerusalem. That has already happened. The moon will turn to blood. Next, there will be a major battle known as the Battle of Armageddon. Satan will declare war on Jerusalem. Jerusalem will be destroyed and pillaged. It also states that when all appears hopeless for the Jews, the Second Coming of Christ will occur. From the ruins a new Jerusalem will arise and all the remaining Jews who were not killed in the Battle of Armageddon will convert to Christianity.

Now, intrestingly Israel has not only ruined its Muslim communities in Palestine but also the Christian communities in Palestine too. The Christian leaders in Palestine oppose the ZIonist entitiy just as much as any Muslim leader Hamas or Secular leader.PLO. Where as CHristians in US support Israel because that is what they are taught in their mutated form of Christianity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Their support of Hezbollah has lead directly to the death of US troops in Lebanon and they've been assisting the insurgency in Iraq which has again killed US troops. Things like that make a strong case for Iran being an enemy rather than a some simple desire for the US government to invent threats to make policy more convenient.

Is there any evidence that any of that is true? I mean real evidence, not the kind that got the US in this Iraq mess in the first place.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib

I agree with your post. I believe most nations, including the EU and OPEC nations, are against Iran's nuclear program and their potential to acquire nuclear weapons. The reason the US and Israel are singled out is because they're the only countries that will actually do something about it. No one else is going to do the dirty work.

It reminds me of when Israel took out Iraq's nuclear facility in 1981. The entire world condemned Israel, even the US. Years later, Israel was praised for the attack. If Israel or the US does a similar strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, I think the reaction will be similar.

It should be noted that the circumstances with Iran and Iraq (which I oppose by the way) are completely different. It's a shame people insist on comparing the two.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Israel or the US does a similar strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, I think the reaction will be similar.

I wonder what the world's reaction would be if Israel's nuclear facilities are attacked.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Working for the government she does, and saying the things she's said in the past, rice (she doesn't deserve the title of Dr., skip, she deserves a slap in the face by every person on the planet) has zero credibility left.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib,

I don't believe that I insisted upon either one. It's very kind of you, though, to include me in your comments. I think you must have Sez derangement syndrome.

My only point here was that it would be a bad bet to put up the farm against the impossibility of an attack on Iran. If you have a farm and want to make a bet either way, though, that would be a big improvement on your complaints about either the bets that others are making or the probabilistic analysis of those bets.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you, guys, want the whole middle east behind Iran and against the US, then yes, the thing to do is to attack Iran.

Personally, I am for the modernization of all muslim countries. It's the lack of modernization in those countries that provokes a backward mentality witnessed in most of them.

And how do you think it would be interpreted if western countries did everything to prevent muslim countries from producing electricity by nuclear means? That would be discriminating the whole muslim world. And that would be a very bad thing to do.

And think about it : do you trust your own country's politicians enough to believe that there is 0% chance they missuse the nuclear weapon?

To me, Hillary's "obliterate" word isn't less threatening that anything the Iranian president has said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I read top to bottom. Some really good posts in there too. But please tell me why NK deserves diplomacy to dismantle their nuclear toys, as well as their long range missile tests yet Iran gets kicked in the ass.

Some of you have broken this down to biblical predictions, others have showed divisions between the religions, yet when Kim pointed his long dong at the states and fired where was the same reaction were seeing here today.

If you compare the road to nuclear power between Nk and Iran as well as the reactions around the world they just don't add up.

Im not picking a side but I am pointing out how there seems to be a double standard between the two. What makes Israel any more important than say japan. I dont think it takes a rocket scientist to figure this out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Maybe the thing with North Korea was just to get the Japanese people scared enough to accept paying for the American missile shield. While with Iran, they want to destroy that country and control even more of the world's oil. They are desperate for an excuse to attack Iran.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Honestly, Iran doesn't want a piece of Israel. The Israelis will kick their bazookas and send them back to Teheran in humiliation and shame.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Honestly, Iran doesn't want a piece of Israel. The Israelis will kick their bazookas and send them back to Teheran in humiliation and shame."

A sure sign of fear, and as it should be, since the poster in question knows nothing about what she is saying, and pretends in every media hype against Iran. Sad, but then, most of the few that actually still support the US presidency are..... it's no surprise.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan - What is Israel's record in wars against her Arab neighbors? A tiny, teency country like Israel, outnumbered 200:1, has lost how many times to her Arab neighbors in the last 60+ years? That's not fear, my friend: that is confidence. Iran does nto want to tangle with Israel. She already has, in fact, a few times, and Israel sent her warrirors back to Tereran in shame. That isn't fear, that is FACT......

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Israel lost agaisnt Hezbollah both in 2000 and 2007. Thats two times just from one small political party.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I'm sure others will chime in and tell me about things the US has done to Iran"

Uhm, yep. Heh, I suppose all that is absolved because it was simply a while ago in the minds of people that think complex age-old problems can be sorted by the barrel of a bigger American gun?

Let's face it - the credible threat of force against the Iranian regime was effectively removed from the table by the absolute bungle the republicans shrieked to make in Iraq. And this is what pisses me off the most on the issue, and what the war hawks wish to shut out like daylight to a vampire; Iraq was supposed to be a threat. Superlib and others were duct taping their windows and panic-buying chemical attack suits under the paranoid persuasion of a government that lied to them as it was bent on invading Iraq at all the juicy, corporate odds.

Now we have Iran, who really are a threat with their nuclear ambitions, absolutely bad laughing at the US floundering in it's homemade sand-pit next door, and knowing that Israel won't dare attempt a surgical attack on it's nuclear facilities because that would ensue in all out war in the region.

In fact it's perfectly understandable why Iran is flexing its' missile muscles. It's a cornered but dangerous rat exposing it's fangs.

Mission Accompished folks. Geroge Dubya wins again. It's time to pee on the fire and wait for Iran to get the bomb, and then hope they don't bloody well use it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

djkljkj - Really? Israel lost to Hizbollah??? Amazing that Israel lost 0 terriitory, Hizbollah gained 0 territory, and Israel is still called....."Israel", and not "The Nation of Hizbollah." Further, Israel's invasion of Hizbollah's territory both times effectively ended hostilities, as Hizbollah and her leadership didn't have the guts to face the might of Israel's Ground Forces in an open fight....

Hardly a victory for Hizbollah, no matter what liberal media has to say....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Actually, Iran answered with missiles that were photoshopped.

NY Times has a "blog" (thought those were only for right wing cranks...) with pics and explanations.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/in-an-iranian-image-a-missile-too-many/index.html?hp

0 ( +0 / -0 )

These were friends and allies that we betrayed by giving over their land to better armed immigrants claiming it as Zion....I support a shared state of Israel and Palestine that would empower both communities

What you're arguing doesn't make sense. The UN gave the Palestinians a chance for a dual state, but they teamed up with the surrounding Arab countries and attacked Israel. It wasn't until after Israel won that they began to argue for dual nations.

My concern is only with Muslim countries having nuclear facilities

While I believe no country should have nuclear weapons, barring a country from possessing nuclear weapons based on their religion is bigotry of the worst kind. There is a difference between Islamic fundamentalists and ordinary Muslims.

Christians fundamentalists is the biggest voting block in the USA.

Not by a long shot; Christians maybe, but not fundamentalists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Blue_Tiger: " What is Israel's record in wars against her Arab neighbors? A tiny, teency country like Israel, outnumbered 200:1, has lost how many times to her Arab neighbors in the last 60+ years? That's not fear, my friend: that is confidence. Iran does nto want to tangle with Israel. She already has, in fact, a few times, and Israel sent her warrirors back to Tereran in shame. That isn't fear, that is FACT......"

Loosen your tights, my friend. If the US didn't support Israel with billions a year and the state of the are weapons and tech, Israel would not exist. I'm not saying that's right, I'm saying that they have every right to be there. But for them to then turn around and say, "We lost everything (and didn't you just say they won every war? Shame on you for forgetting!), and we can therefore nuke whomever we want, whenever we want, for whatever we want" is not a very politically advantageous answer. And yet, you have Bush, who knows nothing about international affairs (and never set foot overseas before his presidency, including dodging Vietnam), standing up for Israel regardless of the fact that Israel has stated it would gladly nuke anyone if it deems necessary. It's utterly laughable... in a very sad and pathetic way.

How about this, Blue Tiger... what WILL Israel's record be when it ceases to exist based on the arrogance of a few countries, one of which in particular is so far removed from the country it has no place there? Answer: Nothing... it will cease to exist... and all your whining about the rights of those there will be obliterated in guffaws and chortles.

Wasn't Iraq also a threat? We saw what happened there. In short, all your bombast is the problem, not the country you're so scared of.

Before Iraq, Iran, and NK were labelled the 'Axis of Evil' by your supposed leader, things were so much better in the world. Relations between Japan and NK were finally thawing; and then Bush went on his bombastic tour without knowing a thing about a foreign country and NK pulled out of talks, Iran became defensive, and we all know what happened in Iraq.

Anyway, bud... to make what's already become a long story short, keep telling yourself that the US and Israel are right, and I'm sure the world will be a better place.... in your dreams, anyway.

It's just sad that you defend such an idiotic stance, which has prove so utterly self-destructive in the past with Iraq, etc. Yeah... the US will do 'what's necessary' of course, included dragging it's name even further in the mud, and making itself even more of a target towards terrorism. When you cry why, just remember that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Muslim nations must never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.

It's a little late for that. Pakistan, a country which borders Iran, already has them.

Europe and just about every other US ally are presenting a united front against Iran, but I've never heard of any similar justifications used to describe their motives.

True, but the Europeans have made an effort to resolve the issue diplomatically. The US is also going to be held to a different standard given the rationale for launching a "preemptive strike" against Iraq turned out to be baseless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"True, but the Europeans have made an effort to resolve the issue diplomatically. The US is also going to be held to a different standard given the rationale for launching a "preemptive strike" against Iraq turned out to be baseless."

And Europe's confidence that its 'soft power' could actually be a deciding force also turned out to be baseless.

So we are back at square one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USAs stupidity turned out also to be baseless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In September 2006, a year after the Iranian presidency had been transferred from Mohammad Khatami to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, former President Khatami visited New York. At a private dinner for about 30 people then, I heard Khatami suggest to several influential American policy thinkers that while Iran would not suspend enrichment activities, it might be willing to settle for a "research" uranium enrichment project with perhaps 164 centrifuges. (That number was approximately the number of centrifuges Iran possessed at the time.) I've always known Khatami to be a cautious politician, and his statement was undoubtedly cleared by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (the true center of Iranian power). Given the audience, which included former high-level U.S. officials, Khatami's statements undoubtedly were communicated back to the Bush administration.

Needless to say, the U.S. did not pursue diplomatic negotiations on the matter, following that apparent opportunity or other ones. Today, Iran is known to have at least 3,000 centrifuges running, and is expected to have as many as 50,000 within a year or so.

The Bush administration's refusal to engage Iran without the pre-condition that Iran first suspend all uranium enrichment -- a policy supported by McCain -- demonstrably does nothing to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear knowledge and capability. Meanwhile, U.S.-led sanctions at the U.N. Security Council have had no discernible effect on the Iranian government's perseverance with its nuclear program. Without either real negotiations or war against Iran, the nuclear issue will not be solved satisfactorily, and Iran could be fully capable of building a nuclear weapon, without outside assistance, in a matter of a few years.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/06/19/mccain_iran/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

interesting post Betzee, but there is still one question that nobody seems to ask, let alone answer. Even if Iran had nukes, what good would it do them? They know (as well as the dear little leader in NK knows) that using a nuke, even covertly shipping a nuke and detonating it, would result in massive retaliation that would leave Iran (except for the oil fields, I suppose) a radioactive heap of rubble.

Nukes loose their effectiveness as offensive weapons in the face of retaliation. Their only "use" is as an effective defensive deterrent against conventional attack as well as nuclear attack.

So yeah, Iran with nukes would make a lot of decent people very uncomfortable. But is all this angst really worth it? The Iranian government may be willing to equip suicide bombers with semtex but I don't expect they are going to volunteer the nation for suicide by launching a nuclear strike.

I think everybody should calm down a bit and think about it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I just finished reading this thread. The strange and unbelievable conspiracy silliness aside, there are some great discussions going on here. It seems we are all, or at least most of us are, in agreement about one thing: The US should not and will not invade Iran. I found the links to the photoshopped missiles fascinating. I wonder if Iran realizes the potential for a mess they are creating. Don't they remember Iraq doing the same thing years ago? Saddam Hussein even threaten to burn half of Israel in a chemical fire. Shortly after, the US was fighting the first Gulf War in Iraq.

Invading Iran would be a horrible mistake because, as others have correctly mentioned, Iranians generally have a pretty favorable view of the US and I would even guess that many of them just wish their president and the whole mess would go away and that they could finally get on with building their country into the prosperous place it could be.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Even if Iran had nukes, what good would it do them? They know (as well as the dear little leader in NK knows) that using a nuke, even covertly shipping a nuke and detonating it, would result in massive retaliation that would leave Iran (except for the oil fields, I suppose) a radioactive heap of rubble.

One reason they might want them is for defensive purposes since Pakistan, a border country, has them and they fear being a target should a Sunni fundamentalist regime come to power there.

But I think it's largely the prestige associated with nuclear weapons they are seeking. It would not be a welcome development in the region, however. While Israelis were understandably threatened by Ahmadinejad's bellicose rhetoric so were other governments in the neighborhood, particularly Egypt, since it signaled a possible return to Iran's thumbing its nose at the rules of diplomatic engagement (dating back to the days of the hostage crisis).

The Iranians, however, see themselves as utilizing the carrot-and-stick approach which we have used in dealing with them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind,

With nuclear weapons capability is what counts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind,

This is the problem with nukes. Once somebody has them, everybody else wants them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“The nuclearization of the world has become the human condition, and it cannot be changed,” William Langewiesche observes in The Atomic Bazaar: Dispatches from the Underground World of Nuclear Trafficking, and in the post-Cold War era, “large parts of the world are exposed once again to the universal appeal of atomic bombs – the fast-track, nation-equalizing, don’t-tread-on-me, flat-out-awesome destructive power that independent arsenals can provide.”

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sad Post three

Sailwind,

This is the problem with nukes. Once somebody has them, everybody else wants them.

Only countries whose leaders need it to blackmail the rest of the world.

PERIOD.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan, what is amazing is your utter lack of knowledge of history. How many weapons had the United States given to the Israelis in 1948? How much money? Is it not true that Israel had to buy Czech-made German Messerschmitt Fighter planes at the begining of their existence in order to survive the first onslaught from her Arab neighbors? Is it not also true that the Biritish initially supplied weapons not only to the British, but to the Arabs, as well? So then, with such meager beginnings in a war that Israel had no business whatsoever in winning, how much material aid came from the United States? How much money from the United States was Israel given in 1948? You can pony up ludicrous statements,, quote and talk about US aid to Israel, which, yes, the United States has given, but ignoring the blatantly obvious point in the beginnings of Israel's modern existence is terribly ignorant of history, especially seeing how the Israelis had to use GERMAN aircraft to defend themselves in the first years of their war to defend their existence.

Further, who is saying that Israel has lost everything? What kind of twisting and skewering are you doing to what I posted? It is Iran that has debated and called into question the holocaust, Iran that has threatened Israel with nuclear destruction, and Iran that has supported the three failed attempts by Hizbullah to defeat Israel on the ground. Israel has had but one request of her Arab neighbors for the past 60 years: recognition. She has never threatened her neighbors, never warned that she'd off Damascus, Cairo, Teheran, Beirut, et. al., but, instead, has been verbally threatened by all of her neighbors. Despite all of this, Israel has survived. And here's the interestign thing, smithinjapan: the USA has slold weapons to BOTH ARABS AND ISRAELIS. Come off of your high horse and realize that Israel hasn't been saved by these so-called "few and far-away, arrogant nations". The Arabs, especially since the discovery of oil beneath Saudi Arabia, have had access to state-of-the-art weaponry for als long -- if not longer -- than Israel has been around in these modern days.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As long as Isreal or the United States doesn't do something stupid. There will be no war.

But, if Isreal or the United Stated goes and bombs nuclear facilities, then we're all screwed.

Remember the threats and accusations that got us into Iraq. None of them panned out right. US Military Intellgence and CIA intellegence sucks. It works according to the wants of their the Pentagon. Bunch of warmongers and chickenhawks. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Politicians often raise the specter of war to garner domestic support. The Republicans succeeded at this game prior to the 2002 mid-terms where the choice was stark; only GWB could keep you safe in a world where rogue state leaders like Saddam have WMD.

Ahmadinejad, who faces reelection next year, may be doing the same thing. The danger in such posturing is that it raises the risk of igniting such a confrontation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Actually, Iran answered with missiles that were photoshopped.

But RedMeat, the US and Bush forced Iran to present Photoshopped pictures. ;)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee:

True, but the Europeans have made an effort to resolve the issue diplomatically.

They've done such a wonderful job so far. Kudos to them.

The US is also going to be held to a different standard given the rationale for launching a "preemptive strike" against Iraq turned out to be baseless. Defining all US foreign policy through one country (Iraq) is a choice you make. Ignoring Europe's castration in diplomacy with Iran and America's successes in diplomacy with NK is another choice you make. There's a lot of information that should be included in the decision-making process that you simply choose to ignore.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan, what is amazing is your utter lack of knowledge of history. How many weapons had the United States given to the Israelis in 1948? How much money? Is it not true that Israel had to buy Czech-made German Messerschmitt Fighter planes at the begining of their existence in order to survive the first onslaught from her Arab neighbors? Is it not also true that the Biritish initially supplied weapons not only to the British, but to the Arabs, as well? So then, with such meager beginnings in a war that Israel had no business whatsoever in winning, how much material aid came from the United States? How much money from the United States was Israel given in 1948? You can pony up ludicrous statements,, quote and talk about US aid to Israel, which, yes, the United States has given, but ignoring the blatantly obvious point in the beginnings of Israel's modern existence is terribly ignorant of history, especially seeing how the Israelis had to use GERMAN aircraft to defend themselves in the first years of their war to defend their existence.

Blue_Tiger, in European/Canadian eyes, the Israeli situation is, was, and always will be an American issue. Europeans that I've met know nothing about the first 30 years of the conflict where the weapons Israel used were exclusively from Europe. They know nothing about European forces on the ground killing Muslims. They know nothing about Israel's nuclear weapons coming from France in a carefully coordinated secret from the US. They refuse to acknowledge that the entire conflict was created by Europe's creation of Israel in the first place. They refuse to acknowledge that every major peace deal in the US was brokered by the US.

And in the greatest irony of them all, they have no clue that Europe essentially abandoned Israel as a direct result of the oil embargo. Once the Arabs threatened to take their oil away the Europeans left the area.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't believe that Iran shot off these missiles until after Isreal tried to show off their air superority.

All Iran has been trying to produce is nuclear energy, just as the IAEA has stated all along. But just like when the IAEA said Iraq didn't have a nuclear arms program; the United States just racheted up their WMD rheteric.

The republicans, like John McCain say we need 50 nuclear power plants. But then our of the other side of their mouth they say that Iran can't have any. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

With all of the focus being on the United States by the Bush-obsessed, I'm wondering if how things would look if you removed the US from the situation entirely and instead focused just on Europe. Will people go around talking about European hostility towards Iran after reading this? Probably not...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I hope countries and companies treat Isreal with the same disdain that they show Iran.

Iran only showed it's muscle after Isreal showed theirs.

Oh how the US pumped out their chests and declared we'll protect Isreal no matter what.

But when Iran does the very same thing and shows some force, they are vilified. Condi starts preaching how we will protect Isreal no matter what.

WHY? We're giving them over $30Billion for military aid. Isreal wants to show their muscle. Then they are begging for anything they start. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There's all these posting about "We'll protect Isreal no matter what"

Link after link......

But still the IAEA has stated that there is no nuclear weapons program. I do believe that they have been in Iran and don't the snooping and pooping, checking out their programs and their records.

And still.....

More B/S by a bunch of chickenhawks and war mongers.

When did the US go into Iran and check out these nuclear weapons systems they keep screaming about? < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What links? I didn't post a few dozen links showing tough European rhetoric and threats against Iran. I just posted a few sentences with no supporting evidence at all....

(wink)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream,

I don't believe that Iran shot off these missiles until after Isreal tried to show off their air superority.

I believe you are mistaken. Evidently, these Iranian wargames had been planned for quite some time. So, they are not specifically in reaction to anything in particular. Once planned, it would have been seen as a sign of weakness to cancel them under the present international conditions, so they went on with them.

That is one reason that I don't think there is any real reason to start a panic over these missiles or wargames. Everyone really needs to take a step back.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hmm now what was that word that the Bush Administration hates.......One minute.....Hmmmmm OH YES the word is Diplomacy!!! Can you Republicans say the word of the day with me? Come on kids, DIPLOMACY.......Real easy word to use, well real easy unless your a Republican.....

Thank you and good day.................

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Looks like Iraq is bogging the US down.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"We'll protect Isreal no matter what"

Instead of trying to cool things down US is taking side.

And they still call themselves peacemaker. Honestly, its no fair and will only incite anger in Iran and the whole Islamic nations of the world. I for one wouldn't be suprised if Islamic nations aided Iran if US and Israel attacks Iran. They have been bullied by the U.S for a long time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Im glad the USA continues to support Israel against Arab aggression. If Iran dares to attack Israel, it is definately curtains for the Persian empire.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

While Bush meets with his cabinet to decide what to do next. A call goes out to the Israel. " You have reached the Israeli Air Force hotline all staff is out of the office at the moment, please leave your name and number at the beep"......Ref: 1985 Iraqs Nuke reactor goes bye bye after a surprise Israeli attack.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So far, the US made so many things hurting the Middle Eastern people. In particular, given the ambivalent history between the two countries, US and Iran, the US must concede the requests of Iran, or guarantee the securiety of Iran, by deminishing the influence of Israel over the Middle Eastern countries.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What if Isreal rains down missiles onto Iran, will the United States defend Iran? < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites