News Is the US Prepared to Militarily Engage Iran?

[ThomasT]

International relations being a matter of power doesn't exclude fairness.

If it's a matter of power, then that necessarily obviates considerations of fairness. Which is not to say that the more powerful party might not try to appear to be acting out of fairness (it might even want to be fair in some sort of best case scenario, and hold the ideals of fairness and justice in high esteem). Just that, if push comes to shove, then all the fairness and justice considerations are secondary to the fact that one party is more powerful than the other, and the more powerful party can, and often does, impose its will on the less powerful party. If it's a matter of power, that is ... and I think it mostly is.

Even if a country is powerful, it can still choose to be fair in international relations.

It could. But, imho, fairness and justice are secondary to maintaining a dominant position. The international stage isn't the nice middle class American situation that many of us grew up in and still enjoy. There's no doubt in my mind that if Iran or any other Islamic Middle East country could destroy Israel and get away with it, then it would. The US has a vested interest in Middle East affairs, mostly because of the vast oil reserves there. Israel is an integral part of that. Just my current opinion.

 

[Andre]

..., but the situation in Iran is WAY complicated.

Absolutely, and that's not my point, the point is to break through the mutual enemy creation process. Talking about attacking is only going to confirm their enemy image to the population. "The west is indeed that bad". And you may win the battle like in Irak and Afghanistan but not the war, since the population regards you as confirmed enemy.

Moreover, how firm is the support of the citizens, after the many casualties in the name of non existing weapons of mass destruction as Turbo pointed out earlier in this thread.

So if the problem is Iran's successful terror merchants and moral entrepeneurs, stopping them should be the aim and that's a matter of the Iranian population, who can use our support. The last they need is an enemy from the west.

more people should read this.

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

 

[Astronuc]

For consideration: Iran navy saves US freighter from pirates: report
http://news.yahoo.com/iran-navy-saves-us-freighter-pirates-report-110142224.html

Iran's navy said Thursday it saved an American-flagged cargo ship that was being attacked by pirates in the Gulf of Oman.

Of course, this needs verification.


Regarding enriched UO₂. The smaller the reactor the higher the enrichment requirement for a given power density/flux and burnup capability.

There are special high-flux reactors, one of which I have seen in person, which have cores about the size of a typical household washing machine, and which use 93%-enriched UO₂. That is a legitimate research tool. On the other hand, that raises the issue of nuclear weapons capability. There are alternatives so such types of reactors. Since the 1980s, fuel for TRIGA reactors (pool type systems used at universities) has been replaced with fuel of much lower (~20%) enrichments.

 

[Tosh5457]

If it's a matter of power, then that necessarily obviates considerations of fairness. Which is not to say that the more powerful party might not try to appear to be acting out of fairness (it might even want to be fair in some sort of best case scenario, and hold the ideals of fairness and justice in high esteem). Just that, if push comes to shove, then all the fairness and justice considerations are secondary to the fact that one party is more powerful than the other, and the more powerful party can, and often does, impose its will on the less powerful party. If it's a matter of power, that is ... and I think it mostly is.

It could. But, imho, fairness and justice are secondary to maintaining a dominant position. The international stage isn't the nice middle class American situation that many of us grew up in and still enjoy. There's no doubt in my mind that if Iran or any other Islamic Middle East country could destroy Israel and get away with it, then it would. The US has a vested interest in Middle East affairs, mostly because of the vast oil reserves there. Israel is an integral part of that. Just my current opinion.

The main point is why should US use its power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon? It's not a threat to USA, it's only a threat to Israel's power in the region. So the question is whether it's worth defending Israel's interests or not:
You argue that US has a vested interest in Middle East affairs, mostly because of the vast oil reserves there, and that Israel is an integral part of that. I'd like to understand this, so could you be more specific? What exactly does US want from there? They never took oil from the Middle East, and they never will, unless they destroy a country or 2 there.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

Iran is not a friend to the USA. It is a friend to some terrorist groups. If Iran has nuclear weapons, then it could possibly give those weapons to terrorists. Right?

The USA is a global power, and the entire world affects it and vice versa. Oil is a big part of the world economy, and a lot of oil comes from the Middle East. Therefore, anyone who has influence in that area, has influence in the rest of the world. Nothing big and grandiose, just influence.

 

[Tosh5457]

Iran is not a friend to the USA. It is a friend to some terrorist groups. If Iran has nuclear weapons, then it could possibly give those weapons to terrorists. Right?

How is Iran friend to terrorists? I know that's a daily discourse in US media, but that doesn't make it true. I've seen a lot of accusations that Iran is associated with terrorists made by USA and Israel (only accusations, and they should be taken with a grain of salt for obvious reasons) but I've never seen anything concrete.
The truth is that US actions on the Middle East and its aid to Israel built the hatred against US, and that should be taken into account when thinking of continuing the same policies of the past in regards to the Middle East.

The USA is a global power, and the entire world affects it and vice versa. Oil is a big part of the world economy, and a lot of oil comes from the Middle East. Therefore, anyone who has influence in that area, has influence in the rest of the world. Nothing big and grandiose, just influence.

That's a very vague argument. I don't know what influence US has in the Middle East right now, if you could be more specific... And what is that influence you speak about supposed to do? Control oil prices? And if that influence you speak about is so important, then why aren't other countries doing the same?

 

[ThomasT]

The main point is why should US use its power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon?

I don't know, or have any solid opinion on it. I was just presenting some possible ways of approaching the question in the form of opinions.

It's not a threat to USA, it's only a threat to Israel's power in the region.

It's not a threat to the US in terms of physical violence. But maybe to certain US interests.

So the question is whether it's worth defending Israel's interests or not:

Maybe the US defending Israel isn't so much a matter of defending Israel's interests as defending US interests.

You argue that US has a vested interest in Middle East affairs, mostly because of the vast oil reserves there, and that Israel is an integral part of that. I'd like to understand this, so could you be more specific? What exactly does US want from there? They never took oil from the Middle East, and they never will, unless they destroy a country or 2 there.

I'm just speculating. I'm wondering, with others, why Iran having nuclear weapons is so important to the US. Exactly what sort of threat does it pose? How might a nuclear-armed Iran change the game (for that matter, what is the game)? Why is the security of Israel so important to the US (not that Iran would actually attack Israel with nuclear weapons, which seems quite unlikely, even ridiculous)? Why is the US in effect drawing a line in the sand and trumpeting that it is ready and willing to back an Israeli air strike on Iranian nuclear-related targets? Why did the US invade Iraq?

The continuation of US dominance (not just the US government, but US corporate and financial interests)? What does the oil trade have to do with US dominance? If it has nothing to do with oil, then why is the US bothering with the Middle East?

Any discussion of these and associated questions is beyond the scope of this thread, and, I think, beyond the allowable scope of discussions at PF.

I assume that the truth, or at least certain evidence of it, is out there on the internet, but I can't say that I think I've found it yet.

Wrt the OP, I think the consensus opinion is that the US is prepared to attack Iran in a combined effort with Israel to prevent Iran from developing any sort of substantial nuclear weapons capability, but would prefer not to do that. That is, striking Iranian targets isn't inevitable. Exactly why the US wants to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons remains an open question, for me.

 

[Curious3141]

How is Iran friend to terrorists?

Iran supports Hezbollah. This is unarguable. Hezbollah is a terrorist group. It's not simply a matter of political affiliation to consider Hezbollah terrorists - members of this group have even hijacked a civilian airliner (TWA 847) and tortured/killed one of the passengers onboard.

 

[Bobbywhy]

Iran has the right to a peaceful nuclear program as a signatory to the NPT. But Iran has not fulfilled the requirements of the treaty by restricting access and other suspicious activities. The international community has the right to demand transparency from Iran so as to verify their nuclear program is peaceful. This must include total cooperation with inspectors and complete transparency so there can be no doubt that Iran is not building weapons of mass destruction.

The U.S. Congress has attempted to interfere in this process through legislation demanding political and other internal changes before the sanctions can be removed. But U.S. politicians mixing controls on the Iranian nuclear program with demands over human rights issues, for example, guarantee Iran will not accept any deal at all. These issues should be kept separate.

Meanwhile, instead of military attacks on Iranian facilities that some are demanding, the United Nations has approved sanctions in an attempt to change Iranian behavior without resorting to violent military force. Attempting to resolve this conflict based on the strategy of both sides winning is the prudent choice.

 

[Bobbywhy]

Excerpts from the Camp David Declaration, March 18 & 19, 2012

“We call on Iran to comply with all of its obligations under relevant UNSC resolutions.” One of the resolutions referred to is United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929, adopted on 9 June 2010.

“…after recalling resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008) and 1887 (2009) concerning the topics of Iran and non-proliferation, the Council noted that Iran had failed to comply with previous Security Council resolutions concerning its nuclear program and imposed further sanctions on the country.[1]

In the preamble of the resolution, the Council reaffirmed its commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, its provisions therein and obligations on parties to the Treaty. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors had adopted a resolution stating that a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue would contribute to global non-proliferation efforts and the Middle East region free of weapons of mass destruction.”

What causes me to wonder is this last statement… “a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue would contribute to global non-proliferation efforts and the Middle East region free of weapons of mass destruction.”

How is the Middle East region free of WMDs when Israel maintains hundreds of nuclear weapons in its arsenal and has the means to deliver them? And thanks to one of our members who, here in this thread, reminded us that Israel does not need to conform to the NPT because it has not signed it.

 

[Tosh5457]

Maybe the US defending Israel isn't so much a matter of defending Israel's interests as defending US interests.

I agree, but then we're back to: what are the US interests in the Middle East?

I'm just speculating. I'm wondering, with others, why Iran having nuclear weapons is so important to the US. Exactly what sort of threat does it pose? How might a nuclear-armed Iran change the game (for that matter, what is the game)? Why is the security of Israel so important to the US (not that Iran would actually attack Israel with nuclear weapons, which seems quite unlikely, even ridiculous)? Why is the US in effect drawing a line in the sand and trumpeting that it is ready and willing to back an Israeli air strike on Iranian nuclear-related targets? Why did the US invade Iraq?

The continuation of US dominance (not just the US government, but US corporate and financial interests)? What does the oil trade have to do with US dominance? If it has nothing to do with oil, then why is the US bothering with the Middle East?

You asked nice questions there. I think the answer will be a combination of:

- will of continuation of US dominance (mainly by the GOP)
- interest of certain corporations
- interest of the zionists, who have the 2nd richest lobby in US.

Oil? I don't see how it fits in the picture. US does nothing about OPEC controling oil prices and they never took oil from the Middle East, so saying this has to do with oil is ridiculous. And fighting terrorism? US actions over the past decades have caused the terrorism against US (the terrorist groups don't hate US only because it's a "free" country), so US ought to stop this aggression if they want to stop terrorism. And I don't think there is a secret that US government knows and the people don't, that is making US stay involved with Middle East affairs. I guess the 3 reasons I wrote above are pretty reasonable, so IMO it's not in the interest of US continuing to interfere in the Middle East affairs.

Iran supports Hezbollah. This is unarguable. Hezbollah is a terrorist group. It's not simply a matter of political affiliation to consider Hezbollah terrorists - members of this group have even hijacked a civilian airliner (TWA 847) and tortured/killed one of the passengers onboard.

Like I said before, continuining the same policies isn't the answer to fight terrorism. Oh and Israel is a terrorist state in case you don't know: go look it up on what they did in the 50s and 60s against the arabs who lived there, and how they took the british out of there after the foundation of Israel. I watched a documentary about it, I'll post it here when I find it.
So I guess US should force Israel to dismantle their nuclear weapons too?

 

[tiny-tim]

Israel is a terrorist state in case you don't know: go look it up on what they did in the 50s and 60s against the arabs who lived there

no, you look it up, and provide a reference to support your bizarre claim

… and how they took the british out of there after the foundation of Israel.

are you putting words together at random?

israel was not founded until immediately after we (the british) left

 

[SHISHKABOB]

How is Iran friend to terrorists? I know that's a daily discourse in US media, but that doesn't make it true. I've seen a lot of accusations that Iran is associated with terrorists made by USA and Israel (only accusations, and they should be taken with a grain of salt for obvious reasons) but I've never seen anything concrete.
The truth is that US actions on the Middle East and its aid to Israel built the hatred against US, and that should be taken into account when thinking of continuing the same policies of the past in regards to the Middle East.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state_terrorism

I'm not the USA, and I'm not going to argue whether Iran is *actually* a friend to terrorists, but the USA thinks so. I guess I should have qualified that to say that "the USA thinks that Iran is a friend to terrorists". And therefore, that is a reason *for the USA* to not want Iran to have nuclear weapons.

That's a very vague argument. I don't know what influence US has in the Middle East right now, if you could be more specific... And what is that influence you speak about supposed to do? Control oil prices? And if that influence you speak about is so important, then why aren't other countries doing the same?

I'm not sure why that was a vague argument... Are you asking these as sincere questions, or are you being a bit of a jerk?

 

[Tosh5457]

no, you look it up, and provide a reference to support your bizarre claim

There you go, it's a very informative documentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA1lDow-0rk&feature=fvwrel

You can also see the work of academics such as Norman Finkelstein and Ilan Pappé (who appears in that documentary, specifically speaking of the ethnic cleansing of palestinians the Israel government did in 1948).

As for it being a bizarre claim, it depends on the point of view. In the point of view of USA and UK it is bizarre, because Israel is very rarely or never criticized in the media, so it's easy to have an unrealistic idea of Israel.

are you putting words together at random?

israel was not founded until immediately after we (the british) left

My mistake, I meant before. No need for personal attacks...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state_terrorism
I'm not sure why that was a vague argument... Are you asking these as sincere questions, or are you being a bit of a jerk?

Not being a jerk, it was a vague answer. You speak of influence in that part of the world, I only asked what exactly is the influence of US in the Middle East and what that influence is supposed to do, and how is that related to oil. Sorry if I looked aggressive, but you were just repeating what was already said over and over (since 2001 maybe?) without anything to back it up.

 

[tiny-tim]

There you go, it's a very informative documentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA1lDow-0rk&feature=fvwrel

i'm not watching a 74-minute racist propaganda film!

i take it you've found nothing to link to (to support your allegation) that we can read?

Israel is a terrorist state in case you don't know: go look … how they took the british out of there after the foundation of Israel.

My mistake, I meant before. No need for personal attacks...

(it wasn't a personal attack, it was attack on what you wrote … which you now admit was wrong )

so you're trying to prove israel is a terrorist state by relying on something before israel existed?

are you au fait with the meaning of "is"?

 

[Tosh5457]

i'm not watching a 74-minute racist propaganda film!

Sorry, you're going to have to explain what made you think that's a racist propaganda film.

i take it you've found nothing to link to (to support your allegation) that we can read?

It's in the content of that video, Ilan Pappé says clearly the Israeli government did an ethnic cleansing in 1948. Everything ever wrote or said isn't on the internet you know?

so you're trying to prove israel is a terrorist state by relying on something before israel existed?

First, that's not the only argument I presented, so don't pretend it is. Second, the Jewish Resistance Movement (who carried out the terrorist attacks against the British), was established by the Jewish Agency in 1945. The first prime minister of Israel, Ben Gurion, was the president of the Jewish Agency since 1935 to 1948. So there is a direct tie between Ben Gurion and the terrorist organization JRM, and I can only imagine the number of other people from the Jewish Agency who later went to Israel's government. This doesn't imply Israel is a terrorist state (although the ethnic cleansing they did on the palestinians shows that), but you can see that since the beginning, Israel had ties with terrorists.

A quote from wikipedia (about JRM attacks):

Notable among these were the release of 200 members of Aliyah Bet from the detention camp in Atlit, bombing of railroads and train stations on the Night of the Trains, attacks on British police stations, bombing of dozens of bridges around the country in the night of the bridges and the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.

In August 1946, because of Operation Agatha and the King David Hotel bombing (which shocked the public because of the deaths of many innocent civilians), Chaim Weizmann, president of the WZO appealed to the movement to cease all further military activity until a decision would be reached by the Jewish Agency. The Jewish Agency backed Weizmann's recommendation to cease activities

Notice that the Jewish Agency only made JRM cease activities when their attacks shocked the public. The Jewish Agency had power over JRM (after all, they created it), it must have known about its terrorist activities. So, Ben Gurion supported terrorists. Ironic, because that's a common criticism that Israeli's government makes about Iran's president

 

[tiny-tim]

It's in the content of that video, Ilan Pappé says clearly the Israeli government did an ethnic cleansing in 1948. Everything ever wrote or said isn't on the internet you know?

(ah, i see from the edit bar that you added pappe to your last post as i was answering )

pappe is trotted out for propaganda films

no reputable historian agrees with his "conclusions"

… the Jewish Resistance Movement (who carried out the terrorist attacks against the British), was established by the Jewish Agency in 1945.

most people (myself included, up till now) have never heard of this obscure organisation

since you've obviously studied it, you know perfectly well it was disbanded in 1946! …

"In August 1946 … The JRM was dismantled …"

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Resistance_Movement)

… you can see that since the beginning, Israel had ties with terrorists.

no, you can see that before the (1948) beginning, the palestinian jewish leaders broke ties with terrorists.

Oh and Israel is a terrorist state in case you don't know …

This doesn't imply Israel is a terrorist state (although the ethnic cleansing they did on the palestinians shows that)

far from ethnic cleansing, israel has a very high (over 19%) proportion of arabs as full citizens

in any case, you're stlll trying to prove your racist allegation that israel is a terrorist state by relying on matters in or before 1948

i repeat … are you au fait with the meaning of "is"?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

are you au fait with the meaning of "is"?

I'm working on it. But thanks to you I'm now au fait with the meaning of au fait.

 

[ThomasT]

I agree, but then we're back to: what are the US interests in the Middle East?

Yes, but this is a question for another thread.

You asked nice questions there. I think the answer will be a combination of:

- will of continuation of US dominance (mainly by the GOP)
- interest of certain corporations
- interest of the zionists, who have the 2nd richest lobby in US.

Again, questions that can be asked in the OP of another thread, because they're beyond the scope of the OP of this thread. But keep in mind that any discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian situation is off limits at PF. I'll just say at this time that I don't think that the desire to continue US dominance is mainly a GOP consideration. I do think that certain US corporate interests are a factor. I do think that the power of the zionist lobby is a factor insofar as it's in accord with the US corporate/financial interests.

Oil? I don't see how it fits in the picture.

Not the ME oil itself, but how the details of the trading of it fit into the larger global economic picture, possibly affecting US global economic and political domination. Again, considerations for another thread.

US does nothing about OPEC controling oil prices and they never took oil from the Middle East, so saying this has to do with oil is ridiculous.

I'm not so sure. I think it's correct to say that the US doesn't need ME oil. But the way global oil commerce is done might affect US domination, and the ME has vast oil reserves. If US involvement in ME affairs doesn't have anything to do with ME oil, then I have no idea why the US would attack Iraq, establish a presence there, and sign an agreement to remain there for, it seems, the indefinite future -- or why the US would care about Iran having nuclear weapons, because in any scenario that I've considered it would be prima facie idiotic for Iran to attack Israel. So, the nuclear thing, wrt to an Iranian preemptive strike on Israel, is a red herring, imho. But military nuclear capability would give Iran a bargaining chip that it doesn't now have. Like I said, I'm not really sure what the encompassing game is.

And fighting terrorism? US actions over the past decades have caused the terrorism against US (the terrorist groups don't hate US only because it's a "free" country), so US ought to stop this aggression if they want to stop terrorism.

It's not about terrorism, imo. Terrorism in its many forms is just a byproduct of large scale conflict. All countries engage in terrorism insofar as they deem it necessary wrt their best interests.

And I don't think there is a secret that US government knows and the people don't, that is making US stay involved with Middle East affairs.

I think there are lots of things that those running the US know that the mass populace doesn't. But, as I mentioned, I suppose that there's enough info accessible via the internet that the average citizen can piece together a reasonable picture of why the US is so interested in the ME. And I think it has mainly to do with the trading, commerce, economics, distribution, etc., of oil.

I guess the 3 reasons I wrote above are pretty reasonable, so IMO it's not in the interest of US continuing to interfere in the Middle East affairs.

Well, apparently, the people running the US see it differently. Us common folks understanding why they're doing what they're doing will involve a level of research that most people just aren't willing to do, and a level of organization that, I suppose, most people just aren't capable of. Given historical events, it certainly seems that the US is extremely interested in ME affairs. In my view, if it has to do with ME oil, and global oil economics, then US involvement in the ME makes sense -- if not, then ... why.

Note: A friendly caution to you Tosh, and any others. Try to refrain from making negative comments about Israeli policies and actions in PF forums. Especially wrt the Palestinian situation. You might get infractions. The thread might get locked. This is just a suggestion from one who is not necessarily in agreement with some Israeli policies and actions.

 

[Curious3141]

Like I said before, continuining the same policies isn't the answer to fight terrorism. Oh and Israel is a terrorist state in case you don't know: go look it up on what they did in the 50s and 60s against the arabs who lived there, and how they took the british out of there after the foundation of Israel. I watched a documentary about it, I'll post it here when I find it.
So I guess US should force Israel to dismantle their nuclear weapons too?

And how is this a proper reply to my post? You challenged the assertion that Iran was a "friend to terrorists". I've made points that show exactly that. And you've veered off on a tangent.

 

[mheslep]

Just for the record, I agree with chiro and daveb and ...

which is to agree with what? Confusion?

 

[Tosh5457]

tiny-tim, I noticed you didn't answer me why do you think that's a racist documentary. You just made that criticism to see if it sticks, and now moved on?

pappe is trotted out for propaganda films

no reputable historian agrees with his "conclusions"

Let me correct that: no reputable historian agrees with conclusions that are against zionism, because that destroys the reputation.

most people (myself included, up till now) have never heard of this obscure organisation

since you've obviously studied it, you know perfectly well it was disbanded in 1946! …

You aren't reading my posts in entirety. I know fully well JRM was disbanded before Israel's foundation, you wouldn't make that reply if you read my entire post and not just the parts that look appealing to you at a first glance.
I said Israel had ties with terrorists since the beginning because Ben Gurion (who later was appointed Israel's first prime-minister) was associated with these terrorists as the president of the Jewish Agency. The disbandment of JRM (yes, before Israel's foundation) doesn't erase the fact that Ben Gurion associated with terrorists just before Israel's foundation, and I don't think that breaks the ties of Ben Gurion with terrorists. If Osama Bin Laden, when he was alive, left Al-Qaeda, would you say he didn't have ties with terrorists anymore?

far from ethnic cleansing, israel has a very high (over 19%) proportion of arabs as full citizens

in any case, you're stlll trying to prove your racist allegation that israel is a terrorist state by relying on matters in or before 1948

i repeat … are you au fait with the meaning of "is"?

First, you're going to have to tell me what's racist in saying Israel is a terrorist state. Israel's state is a race?

Ethnic cleansing happened in 1948 after Israel's foundation (this is even worse than terrorism), since then they resorted to less violent measures, but still with the intent of getting rid of the arabs from Israel by force. Well, for an area that had almost 100% arab population a few decades ago, 19% doesn't look like a very high number, it looks very small. It happened in the past, but nonetheless Israel was under control of the zionists like it is today, so I consider Israel a terrorist state.

Let me just say this to put things in context - we're speaking about a country that whose first prime-minister associated himself with terrorists, a country that did ethnic cleansing in the past, and a country that forced arabs who lived there out of Palestine. Country which has been under the same political control since its foundation.

And how is this a proper reply to my post? You challenged the assertion that Iran was a "friend to terrorists". I've made points that show exactly that. And you've veered off on a tangent.

I wasn't trying to counter-argument what you said. Because of your reply to that post I made, I assumed (maybe wrongly) you were supporting a certain stance on this issue.

Some new interesting things I've found from my research:

The founder of Likud (the current party in power in Israel) was Menachem Begin, who was also the sixth prime-minister of Israel. He was also one of the commanders of Irgun, a terrorist organization.

 

[ThomasT]

@Tosh5457,
You've communicated your points. Now I suggest you let it go unless you want to get banned from PF. I'll only say that I interpret at least some of the historical events in much the same way that you seem to.

But calling Israel, or any other country, a terrorist state can be misleading. As I mentioned, all countries involved in serious (life or death) conflicts use terrorist tactics when deemed necessary.

 

[tiny-tim]

First, you're going to have to tell me what's racist in saying Israel is a terrorist state. Israel's state is a race?

israelis are a race

you can be an anti-israeli racist in the same way as you can be an anti-paraguayan racist or an anti-american racist

Well, for an area that had almost 100% arab population a few decades ago, 19% doesn't look like a very high number, it looks very small.

(my 19% figure is out-of-date … apparently, it's now 18.5%)

in 1947, it was roughly 45% (and in 1920, 80-90%), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#Proposed_division (and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Palestine#British_control_1918-1948)

1n 1949, it was probably about 33% (i haven't been able to find a correct figure )

the decrease since then, to 18.5%, is largely due to massive jewish immigration

(of all palestinians, the proportion now living in israel with full citizenship is just over 25% …

compare that the proportion of jews in the west bank or gaza, approximately 0%, as in iraq etc )

i repeat … far from ethnic cleansing, israel has a very high (over 18%) proportion of arabs as full citizens …

this is because the jews/israelis did not want to expel the arabs, and tried to persuade most arabs (with some exceptions) to stay in their homes

it is the jews (a roughly equal number) that were deliberately ethnically cleansed, from the west bank and most (not all) arab countries ​

 

[Tosh5457]

israelis are a race

you can be an anti-israeli racist in the same way as you can be an anti-paraguayan racist or an anti-american racist

You're confounding race with nationality. And I'm not criticizing the population of Israel, I'm just criticizing their government actions and political ideology behind it (zionism).

i repeat … far from ethnic cleansing, israel has a very high (over 18%) proportion of arabs as full citizens …

I don't know what that has to do with the fact that an ethnic cleansing policy took place in the past.

this is because the jews/israelis did not want to expel the arabs, and tried to persuade most arabs (with some exceptions) to stay in their homes

Israelis wanted to expel the arabs. Please show evidence that they tried to persuade most arabs to stay in their homes...

it is the jews (a roughly equal number) that were deliberately ethnically cleansed, from the west bank and most (not all) arab countries

What does that have to do with anything? Seems like you're trying to justify Israel's actions by the fact that jews were persecuted in the past by arabs (I don't know much about it, if you could give some links...).

 

[ThomasT]

israelis are a race

That's just silly.

you can be an anti-israeli racist in the same way as you can be an anti-paraguayan racist or an anti-american racist

Again, just silly.

Judaism is a theistic religion. Jewishness is associated with that religion. It isn't a race.

One might disagree with the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel, and disagree with certain policies and practices of the Israeli administration, without being in any way a racist.

It's a fact that a rather large percentage of the Israeli populace disagrees with the policies and practices of their federal administration. Are they racists?

I suggest you and Tosh abandon your current contentious interchange. Afaik, this sort of discussion isn't allowed at PF.

 

[Hurkyl]

Too true:

Due to the emotionally charged issues concerning Israel/Palestine conflicts, discussions on this topic are banned until further notice.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Back on topic, from today's news:

The higher the enrichment, the easier it becomes to re-enrich uranium to the 90 percent needed for weapons grade. As a result, the finding of traces at 27 percent at the Fordo enrichment plant in central Iran sparked international interest.
Iran denies any plans to develop nuclear weapons, but has for years declined offers of reactor fuel from abroad, including more recent inducements of 20-percent material if it stops producing at that level. The Islamic Republic says it wants to continue producing 20 percent uranium to fuel its research reactor and for medical purposes.
But its refusal to accept foreign offers has increased fears Tehran may want to turn its enrichment activities toward producing such arms. The concerns have been fed by IAEA suspicions that Iran has experimented on components of an atomic arms program — suspicions Tehran also denies.
The report cited a May 9 letter from Iranian officials suggesting any enrichment at 27 percent was inadvertent. The letter said the particles were produced "above the target value" and could have been for "technical reasons beyond the operator's control."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jS0mXKpoUQ5sc3bFuQRAQWYvc4Og?docId=0ab606d5dd254e74a3ae79bb07e8e2f6

 

[ThomasT]

Back on topic, from today's news:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jS0mXKpoUQ5sc3bFuQRAQWYvc4Og?docId=0ab606d5dd254e74a3ae79bb07e8e2f6

Thanks for getting back on topic. My current view is that Iran does want to develop nuclear weapons. Why wouldn't it?

But a nuclear armed Iran doesn't necessarily present any more of a threat to Israel than already exists, imo. Iran would be absolutely stupid to do a preemptive nuclear strike on Israel. It would be national suicide. So, I assume, they just won't do that. But the possession of nuclear weapons, and ability to deliver them long range, would give them a bargaining chip that they apparently don't now have. Why this is important, I don't know. How Iran would use it if it had it, I don't know. I don't understand exactly what's at stake, what the game is. If anybody does, then your input would be most appreciated.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Thanks for getting back on topic. My current view is that Iran does want to develop nuclear weapons. Why wouldn't it?

But a nuclear armed Iran doesn't necessarily present any more of a threat to Israel than already exists, imo. Iran would be absolutely stupid to do a preemptive nuclear strike on Israel. It would be national suicide. So, I assume, they just won't do that. But the possession of nuclear weapons, and ability to deliver them long range, would give them a bargaining chip that they apparently don't now have. Why this is important, I don't know. How Iran would use it if it had it, I don't know. I don't understand exactly what's at stake, what the game is. If anybody does, then your input would be most appreciated.

I'm no Middle East expert but what worries me is that once they get them, if ever, there's no going back. If they get them, 20, 30, 40 years down the road some lunatic might get into power there and start launching, just as Saddam would have done had he had them. The internal power struggles in the Mid-East strike me as more extreme and there's much greater potential for an unstable person to take power. Or, suppose Iran had had them during the Iran/Iraq war. Might they have been tempted to take Baghdad out with a nuke at some point during that struggle when they were really hurting? I think there's an excellent chance Saddam would have nuked Teheran if he could have during that war. He was not a very reasonable person.