News Iran & US Friendship

  • Thread starter Perham
  • Start date

EnumaElish

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,285
123
I think he's crazy or just drunk! he is just humiliating everyone! he doesn't even answer one question reasonably.
That's a comical spoof, not an actual interview.
If it's going to be a war, surely it's gonna be a hard long bloody hell.
You mean, Muslims blowing up each other?
 

EnumaElish

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,285
123
if US gonna attack Iran, Russia gonna defense Iran
You wish. Russia has signaled the extent it is willing to put out for Iran in the recent Caspian nations conference. They signed an agreement stipulating that no Caspian country will allow third-party powers to stage an attack on any other Caspian nation from within its borders. That's the farthest Russia will be willing to go.

I think Russia is all too happy that "freedom fighters" are tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq against the Western forces and they don't have the capability to fight Russians in Chechnya.
 
Last edited:

Art

He was appointed chancellor based on political pressure and by his party and SA murdering political opponents, at which point he began subversively consolidating powers into his cabinet, dissolving parliament etc. For example Hitler's government seized legislative powers via the enabling act. Then when president Hindenberg died, Hitler's cabinet legislatively supressed new presidential elections and proclaimed Hitler to be the new Fuhrer of Germany. Hitler wasn't ever actually voted in, that's the thing. As is his personal philosophy, his entire rise to supreme power was dictatorially seized.
The Enabling Act, from which Hitler derived his power, was voted on by the Reichstag and passed by a large majority after which it was signed into law by President Paul von Hindenburg all quite legally.

Saying Hitler seized power is not just wrong but it also misses the crucial point. He created a climate of fear and used this fear to take power legally to further his own agenda on the basis of providing security.

This serves as a stark warning of what happens when people trade freedom for security.
 

mjsd

Homework Helper
725
3
This serves as a stark warning of what happens when people trade freedom for security.
very true.... and before one knows it, suddenly one has effective become a police state just like those as seen in a dictatorship.
 
48
0
very true.... and before one knows it, suddenly one has effective become a police state just like those as seen in a dictatorship.
Has anyone read some of the executive orders Bush has signed?

Scary stuff............almost as scary to think of Hillary with these same powers.
 
4
0
nd since Zionism is basically a rascist ideology, i think that he is entitled to not like Israels Zionist regime.
Zionism is not a racist ideology.
 
4
0
as a statement of fact this is true but it doesn't tell the real story.
Forgive me, I forgot you don't let facts get in the way of your reality.

btw do you not find it slightly duplicitous that Iran should be threatened with destruction on the basis of it's nuclear program and it's suspected non-compliance with the IAEA with Israel leading the call to arms whilst Israel has always point blank refused to let the IAEA have so much as a sniff of it's own nuclear program.
Who's threatening Iran with destruction?
 

Art

Forgive me, I forgot you don't let facts get in the way of your reality.
No answers so you resort to an ad-hominem attack instead :rolleyes:

Who's threatening Iran with destruction?
The US and Israel - example

Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi, New York and Sarah Baxter, Washington

ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.

“As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources.

The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad’s assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years.

Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1290331.ece

And
Israel will eventually 'have to attack Iran'

Israeli lawmaker Effi Eitam last week said it has become clear in light of the failure of international diplomatic efforts that Israeli will eventually have no choice but to launch a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Israel National News quoted Eitam as stating during a gathering in the Samarian town of Beit El that "Israel has the right and the ability to defend itself and that day is around the corner."

Eitam went on to say he is confident the United States will support Israel in any military action it deems necessary for the survival of the Jewish state and the Zionist dream.
Use google and you will find 1000's of other references to Israeli and US threats to attack Iran. None of which require a deliberate mis-translation to make their message clear as was done with the comments by Ahmadinejad.:rolleyes:

Btw Still waiting to hear your justification for the dual standards re nuclear inspections.
 

Art

4
0
According to UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 it is.
You mean the resolution that was passed on the anniversary of Kristallnacht, and was revoked by resolution 4686?
 
Last edited:
4
0
And Use google and you will find 1000's of other references to Israeli and US threats to attack Iran. None of which require a deliberate mis-translation to make their message clear as was done with the comments by Ahmadinejad.:rolleyes:
Wow, 1000's of references to a google search on such rarely used keywords as "Israel", "Iran", "attack" and "nuclear"...
So a single attack with tactical nuclear weapons means the destruction of Iran? Please explain.

Btw Still waiting to hear your justification for the dual standards re nuclear inspections.
I believe the best justification was given by yourself in that previous post - you demonstrated very well how the UN and its agencies are dominated by the circa-50-strong Muslim body in the GA.
 
Last edited:

Art

Are you seriously claiming Israel does not operate an apartheid regime? Would you like me to provide examples?
 

Art

Wow, 1000's of references to a google search on such rarely used keywords as "Israel", "Iran", "attack" and "nuclear"...
So a single attack with tactical nuclear weapons means the destruction of Iran? Please explain.
lol so Iran is to be attacked because it 'might' develop nuclear weapons and aren't to be trusted not to use them whilst Israel who supposedly is to be trusted plans to use nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear country. Yes this certainly sounds like the usual twisted logic employed by the current despotic leaders of Israel and the US.

Other attack plans threatened include a massive bombing campaign of all Iran's military and infrastructure leading to the same level of destruction as seen in Iraq which I think most people would agree equalled pretty much total destruction.


I believe the best justification was given by yourself in that previous post - you demonstrated very well how the UN and its agencies are dominated by the circa-50-strong Muslim body in the GA.
More twisted logic. Why insist Iran comply with the IAEA if you don't trust them yourselves??
 

EnumaElish

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,285
123
So a single attack with tactical nuclear weapons means the destruction of Iran? Please explain.
Yonoz -- I am not saying that Israel has planned or is planning this; but you seem to own up to it.

Even a limited tactical nuclear first strike will take the world to a whole new level of "acceptable and fair"; and I suspect "deep down" the mainstream Israeli public would understand this sentiment -- and logic.
 
4
0
Yonoz -- I am not saying that Israel has planned or is planning this; but you seem to own up to it.

Even a limited tactical nuclear first strike will take the world to a whole new level of "acceptable and fair"; and I suspect "deep down" the mainstream Israeli public would understand this sentiment -- and logic.
When this report came out there was a brief public discussion about it but that died down fairly quickly. We have a lot on our minds these days.
 
4
0
Are you seriously claiming Israel does not operate an apartheid regime? Would you like me to provide examples?
You'd better open up a different thread, as that would be taking us completely off-topic.
 
4
0
lol so Iran is to be attacked because it 'might' develop nuclear weapons and aren't to be trusted not to use them whilst Israel who supposedly is to be trusted plans to use nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear country. Yes this certainly sounds like the usual twisted logic employed by the current despotic leaders of Israel and the US.
No, Iran is to be attacked because it is developing nuclear weapons that would destabilize the already shaken up balance of powers in the Middle East, and Israel has so far never used a nuclear weapon, even when it was seen as on the brink of extinction.

Other attack plans threatened include a massive bombing campaign of all Iran's military and infrastructure leading to the same level of destruction as seen in Iraq which I think most people would agree equalled pretty much total destruction.
The destruction of the Iraqi and Syrian nuclear programmes did nothing to their stability, let alone destroy them. Hopefully Iran will do no more than have Hizballah and Hamas attempt to start another proxy war for them, perhaps attack an Israeli target oversees a la the Buenos Aires bombings, and increase the flames in Iraq and Afghanistan. If they do anything silly such as attacking allied targets directly, I would expect the current US administration to reciprocate with a powerful fire effort but little or no maneuver effort, mainly aimed at eroding the Iranian administration's power base. But again, that would be in reaction to an Iranian counterattack, not because of the Iranian nuclear programme.

More twisted logic. Why insist Iran comply with the IAEA if you don't trust them yourselves??
The IAEA is simply the easiest way out of this mess, for everyone.
 

mjsd

Homework Helper
725
3
No, Iran is to be attacked because it is developing nuclear weapons that would destabilize the already shaken up balance of powers in the Middle East, and
what balance of powers in the Middle East are you talking about? Isn't Irsarel (with US backing) by far the "strongest" at the moment?

Israel has so far never used a nuclear weapon, even when it was seen as on the brink of extinction.
seriously, at which point after WW2 do u think that Israel was on the brink of extinction?
 
4
0
what balance of powers in the Middle East are you talking about? Isn't Irsarel (with US backing) by far the "strongest" at the moment?
Careful, that sort of thinking that led to the occupation of Iraq.
Israel is very small both geographically and demographically, with a population of 7 million. Its military is ranked 33rd in size, while those of Egypt (population 88 million) and Syria (population 20 million) are ranked 11th and 16th. Egypt is also backed by the US and Europe and has extensive manufacturing abilities, including an Abrams tank production facility. Egypt also has chemical weapons ability and experience. Syria is heavily armed by Russia with state of the art anti-tank and surface to air missiles, and has an advanced surface to surface missile program, on top of its existing arsenal which is one of the largest in the Middle East, and is tightly coupled with its chemical weapons programme. The Golan Heights are the most densely fortified region in the world, and any conflict there would be too costly for either side to initiate.
... And these are just two of israel's closest neighbours. Saudi Arabia has a large and well-supplied military (25th). Iran has the largest military in the ME (8th), an extensive domestic military industry, very advanced surface to surface missile programmes and manufacturing, and is supplied by Russia with some the latest AA and anti-tank systems. Turkey is a full NATO member, and its military is 9th in size.
There's much more to the Middle East than Israel. I won't go detail all the ethnic disputes - there's too many, and the west is getting a crash course on the balance of powers in the Middle East (and what happens when it is disturbed), complete with live demonstrations and pyrotechnics.

seriously, at which point after WW2 do u think that Israel was on the brink of extinction?
During the Yom-Kippur war.
 
Last edited:

Art

During the Yom-Kippur war.
Can you show anything to justify your claim that the destruction of Israel was a goal of the Yom-Kippur war? Or that it was in anyway possible? All the literature related to this war shows the Arab goals were limited to regaining territories seized by Israel in 1967 following Israel's rejection of peace talks offered by Sadat through UN intermediary Gunnar Jarring. Israel responded that it would not withdraw to the pre-June 5, 1967 lines as required by UN Security Council Resolution 242 and so Sadat publicly warned Israel it would go to war if necessary to regain it's lands.

The Syrians and Egyptians could only operate under the umbrella cover of the fixed SAM positions provided by the Russians and so territorial gains of Israeli land was an impossibility as if the Arab forces advanced beyond their air protection zone they were open to annihilation from the Israeli air-force.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
4
0
Can you show anything to justify your claim that the destruction of Israel was a goal of the Yom-Kippur war?
When did I claim that?

Or that it was in anyway possible?
Syrian tanks stopped on the fence of the Regimental HQ in Nafah, and on the El-Al ridge, the southern tip of the Golan Heights. There was nothing between them and Tel-Aviv.
Between the 15,000-strong Egyptian armies and Tel-Aviv stood two divisions.
 

Art

When did I claim that?
When you claimed Israel was on the brink of extinction. Seeing as how this wasn't a goal of the Arab armies and since they were incapable of pursuing such a goal even if they wished how do you translate this into being on the brink of destruction?


Syrian tanks stopped on the fence of the Regimental HQ in Nafah, and on the El-Al ridge, the southern tip of the Golan Heights. There was nothing between them and Tel-Aviv.
Between the 15,000-strong Egyptian armies and Tel-Aviv stood two divisions.
As already pointed out the Arabs couldn't advance past the cover of their SAM sites. In fact when Egypt tried to advance to relieve pressure on the Syrians they were flattened.
 
4
0
When you claimed Israel was on the brink of extinction. Seeing as how this wasn't a goal of the Arab armies and since they were incapable of pursuing such a goal even if they wished how do you translate this into being on the brink of destruction?
Goal does not necessarily equal outcome, especially when wars are concerned.

As already pointed out the Arabs couldn't advance past the cover of their SAM sites. In fact when Egypt tried to advance to relieve pressure on the Syrians they were flattened.
If you're referring to the attack of October 14 - that attack was too late (or too early) and terribly planned.
The reasons for the Egyptian and Syrian militaries' halt is the subject of many theories. The Soviets had armed them with the highly mobile SA-6 platform, and there are ways of advancing an AA umbrella safely - the systems are designed for it. One can go on for hours about such things. One thing is for certain - even the IAF could not have stopped both armies. Without the US airlift operation Israel would have quite simply run out of ammunition.
 

mjsd

Homework Helper
725
3
Goal does not necessarily equal outcome, especially when wars are concerned.
NOW, perhaps that's one of the major sticking point! I glad that you seem to have realised it. not so long ago the claim was that
No, Iran is to be attacked because it is developing nuclear weapons that would destabilize the already shaken up balance of powers in the Middle East, and Israel has so far never used a nuclear weapon, even when it was seen as on the brink of extinction.
so the impression one gets from this is that Israel is seen as "responisble" (whereas Iran is not for whatever reasons) with its WMDs because Israel had been pushed to the limit and still refused to use their WMDs.

however, the idea that goals do not equate to outcomes in wars, implies that the above claim does not have much substance. This is because, from the complexity of wars, one cannot say whether it was rationality, hypocrisy, morality or .... etc. that triggered the actions/inactions we see during the Yom-Kippur war. As a result, it didn't really demonstrate whether Israel can be trusted not to use its WMDs in the future at all. All those events were telling us was that on that occasion for whatever reasons (that we probably shall never really know the truth of), Israel did not use WMDs (thank god!). But it did not add to/substract from the argument whether Israel can be or cannot be trusted.

I believe the "twisted logic" Art was referring to previously simply means that one cannot make a convincing arguement and call oneself "correct" when one gloss over the details when it suits one, while only go into the essentials when it enhances one's point of view.

Iran may have a bad image but that doesn't automatically means Israel has a good image either. It is inconclusive.
 

Related Threads for: Iran & US Friendship

  • Posted
2
Replies
26
Views
6K
Replies
177
Views
16K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Posted
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
126
Views
9K
  • Posted
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
5
Views
2K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top