No military option against the Iranian nuclear program

[Gokul43201]

(And even with your interpretation, it was in 2005, and has never been repeated

This assertion requires you to know every single sentence uttered by Ahmadinejad in public.

Moreover, your own source states pretty clearly that Ahmadinejad sees Israel as nothing more than a "front" put up by the West against the Islamic world, and that the battle against Israel is merely a part of the broader battle against the West. QED.

so hardly qualifies as "repeatedly")

I'll take back the repeatedly (it doesn't take a dozen couterexamples to disprove an assertion), as I have no desire to go about wasting my time digging up instances when Ahmadinejad has spoken of the destruction of America in the same vein as a destruction of Israel. What's more, this thread is veering away from the OP, and I have no desire to take it any farther away.

If you wish to continue arguing this point, do so, but I shall not be responding.

 

[tiny-tim]

This assertion requires you to know every single sentence uttered by Ahmadinejad in public.

No, it only requires me to be confident that any call by Ahmadinejad for America to cease to exist would be found on a google search, together with Americans complaining about it.

QED

QED of what?

This all started when I said …

And their belief that the modern state of Israel, unlike any other modern state, should cease to exist is simply racist.

… and you started talking about America.

I don't recall you subsequently putting forward any proposition for there to be a QED of.

It was not very moral for hundreds of thousands of Jews to illegally emmigrate to Palestine, even if they were WW2 refugees.

It only became illegal because the British had to impose quotas in order to try to keep the peace, because the Palestinian Arabs, instead of welcoming their new legal Jewish neighbours, were increasingly trying to kill them.

Killing your neighbours is immoral (and killing immigrants is both immoral and racist), even if it does persuade the government to halt immigration.

 

[AhmedEzz]

It only became illegal because the British had to impose quotas in order to try to keep the peace, because the Palestinian Arabs, instead of welcoming their new legal Jewish neighbours, were increasingly trying to kill them.

Killing your neighbours is immoral (and killing immigrants is both immoral and racist), even if it does persuade the government to halt immigration.

It is like saying that the native Americans didn't welcome their newly "rightful" neighbors to establish a colony on their territory, instead, they tried to kill them (bad Americans!). This act was considered immoral and therefore, they had to be exterminated.

I didn't want to get involved in this discussion. However, I had to say this.

 

[tiny-tim]

It is like saying that the native Americans didn't welcome their newly "rightful" neighbors to establish a colony on their territory, instead, they tried to kill them (bad Americans!). This act was considered immoral and therefore, they had to be exterminated.

The Palestinian Jews, and later the Israelis, have never tried to exterminate the Palestinian Arabs.

The Palestinian Arabs (well, some of them) did try to drive out the Jews.

(and I was under the impression that the Native Americans did welcome the Europeans, and traded with them, and even sold them Manhattan)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It was not very moral for hundreds of thousands of Jews to illegally emmigrate to Palestine, even if they were WW2 refugees.

This seems to be the major point for your argument regarding your original statement so I will focus on it. If we digress onto this topic (in general) too much the thread will probably be locked.

Personally I do not see illegal immigration as immoral. Perhaps we will simply agree to disagree on that, but if one were to see it as morally correct at any point I would imagine it would be when the immigrants are the target of a genocidal pogram. Of course Iran apparently does not recognize the holocaust as historical fact.

The actions of the Palestinian jews in support of the immigrants could potentially be considered immoral but I am not sure what all they did. I am also not certain that I would personally find the assistence of persons fleeing genocidal persecution, even by violent means, to be morally unjust. I don't know that anyone has ever considered the underground railroad of the civil war to be immoral but I suppose that the north did not impose quotas on the number of slaves allowed to "immigrate" from the south. If they had would the immigration have been immoral though? or the quotas?

At any rate I do not see any reason for Iran to consider it to have been immoral or to interfere even if they have. The only reason I can see for denouncing the existence of Israel is to promote instability for political ends. Perhaps this would be immoral if it is the case?

The British wanted to help the Jews live in Palestine peacefully, coexisting with the established Arab state, but the Jews eventually revolted against the British in Palestine because they wanted their own state. They exploited the British generosity for 25 years and then dumped them when they became strong enough to fight the Arabs.

I believe that the jews had wanted a "piece of the pie" for centuries and when the brits gave it to them they finally had something to fight for so they defended it tooth and nail. The Palestinian jews revolted against the British when the British instituted quotas to reduce the number of refugees able to immigrate from Europe. This is the only major issue I am aware of that the jews fought the brits on. As discussed above, perhaps this was justified and perhaps not but either way it does not appear to have simply been a matter of using them and then tossing them aside when they no longer needed them.

A long mess about enemies killing enemies is not immoral, but right now Israel receives more support from the USA than does nay other country. Israel is a state that would never have been created without western intervention, and now it is being sustained (to a larger degree than any other state) by western intervention. In the abscence of further evidence I am forced to conclude that the western intervention arises from anti-arab religious and racial prejudice in the west. I implore someone else to give me a more benign explanation for why the US supports Israel.

This goes to the current point. I can see Iran taking issue with the interference of the US in regional matters. That makes sense. It seems though that they focus on Israel because they are just down the street while the US is across town. Where this tactic may earn them points in the region with their allies I believe that it only hinders them on the world stage. It would seem to be a poor long term strategy unless they can provoke attack from Israel.

 

[turbo]

We have wandered very far from the OP. To reiterate, any Israeli attack on Iran on whatever pretense will not only strengthen Muslim fundamentalist groups (including the most radical ones) and harden the region's resistance to Zionism and scuttle any hopes for peace. There were Christians and Jews living all over the middle east in harmony with Muslims not so long ago. Military adventurism and ethnic cleansing born of opportunism have changed that, and such harmony may never be recaptured. Americans in the south still manage to be enraged by actions taken in the US Civil War, over 100 years before they were born. Don't expect countries in the ME (with MUCH longer histories and traditions) to turn on a dime. Ain't going to happen!

 

[jreelawg]

I don't think the support for Israel is perpetuated by Anti-Arab religious and racial prejudice at it's core. My personal belief is that at the core, the struggle is one of power and control. This struggle never began as a difference in belief or skin color, the struggle was one to expand an empire, to control trade, and a quest for world dominance. Religious and racial prejudice have only played a background role as a natural consequence of the clashing of cultures, and this is fostered and used as fuel to keep the war machines driving for both sides. At it's core, I think it is about the expansion of an empire, and in this case, Israel represents this in a fundamental way. This is why the west is so supportive of Israel in my opinion, because they share a common ancient enemy.

 

[turbo]

I don't think the support for Israel is perpetuated by Anti-Arab religious and racial prejudice at it's core. My personal belief is that at the core, the struggle is one of power and control. This struggle never began as a difference in belief or skin color, the struggle was one to expand an empire, to control trade, and a quest for world dominance. Religious and racial prejudice have only played a background role as a natural consequence of the clashing of cultures, and this is fostered and used as fuel to keep the war machines driving for both sides. At it's core, I think it is about the expansion of an empire, and in this case, Israel represents this in a fundamental way. This is why the west is so supportive of Israel in my opinion, because they share a common ancient enemy.

Are you aware that the "ancient enemy" was defined by the Zionists less than a century ago? Have you any support for your claim that the Arab states intend to control world trade and establish world dominance? Please post reasonable references if you can.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

We have wandered very far from the OP.

Oops. I was trying to tie back here..
When I should have been tying it back here..
Sorry about that.

 

[ExactlySolved]

I think its funny that arguing for the position that the US should not be supporting Israel at all, and much less so by going to war with Iran, is somehow off-topic in a thread about whether the US can/will/should go to war with Iran.

StatutoryApe, thanks for responding to my argument and I agree with most of what you said. Suppose I am willing to concede that the existence of Israel is not immoral. Then is its existence so super-moral that the US should be supporting it at the expense of pissing off radical terrorists?

I don't think the support for Israel is perpetuated by Anti-Arab religious and racial prejudice at it's core. My personal belief is that at the core, the struggle is one of power and control. This struggle never began as a difference in belief or skin color, the struggle was one to expand an empire, to control trade, and a quest for world dominance. Religious and racial prejudice have only played a background role as a natural consequence of the clashing of cultures, and this is fostered and used as fuel to keep the war machines driving for both sides. At it's core, I think it is about the expansion of an empire, and in this case, Israel represents this in a fundamental way. This is why the west is so supportive of Israel in my opinion, because they share a common ancient enemy.

Thanks for your analysis, although I find it unfortunate that the US would participate in such an illogical quest.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think its funny that arguing for the position that the US should not be supporting Israel at all, and much less so by going to war with Iran, is somehow off-topic in a thread about whether the US can/will/should go to war with Iran.

Threads regarding the middle east often wind up on the topic os the Israel / Palestine conflict. We have at least a few members such as Ahmed who live in the region and have justifiably strong feelings and opinions on the issue. Obviously the discussion gets heated and after several such threads its a near sure fire lockdown. To keep a thread active its best to only brush on the topic and try to keep to the OP as much as possible.

StatutoryApe, thanks for responding to my argument and I agree with most of what you said. Suppose I am willing to concede that the existence of Israel is not immoral. Then is its existence so super-moral that the US should be supporting it at the expense of pissing off radical terrorists?

Thanks for your analysis, although I find it unfortunate that the US would participate in such an illogical quest.

Working toward world cohesion its important to ally with and support countries all over the world. In the long run such support is mutually benefitial and you will generally expect that countries best able to benefit one another will ally more closely. This is an ideal though. In reality there are far stronger under currents of self interest than for the general world interest or, in some cases, even the interest of the supposed ally.
The US seems to use Israel as a sort of political and military wedge. This could theoretically be done in a manner beneficial to the region, especially if the US is willing to put pressure on Israel to reconcile and make peace, but more often Israel seems to be used to protect US interests in the middle east than middle eastern interests in general.
The US threatens and puts pressure on Iran to keep Israel happy and elicit concessions from them to keep them from doing things that may threaten US interests. I see no benefit to any actual military intervention in Iran though. Iran is no where near nuclear capability, as far as I know, and continued frustration of Iran will only serve to insure the danger of Iran possessing nuclear weopons when that day comes. I think that Obama's desire to open a dialog with Iran is good and refusal of a policy to threaten and consider military force against Iran without clear and present danger a good first step.

 

[jreelawg]

Are you aware that the "ancient enemy" was defined by the Zionists less than a century ago? Have you any support for your claim that the Arab states intend to control world trade and establish world dominance? Please post reasonable references if you can.

I guess my point is that wars in general have and are traditional fought over tangible things. I don't buy the idea that man goes and spends billions and costs millions of lives because of racist or religious motives. Not that it doesn't often appear to look like a religious war from the outside, and each side like to tell their people that god is on their side.

I never meant to imply that Arab states are struggling to expand their empires, they are more or less struggling to maintain their empires. Most of them are in no position to dominate world trade. I think it is obvious from historical fact why we have an interest in the middle east. History has shown that the U.S. supported S.H. while he was committing genocide, but when the oil supply was threatened, only then was he demonized, and only then did the religious and racist pandering come into play.

 

[Phrak]

The correct strategy for the US is to stop pushing on Iran through the use of aggressive rhetoric. This self defeating process only served to strengthen the popular support of the Abedinejad coalition. It doesn't play well in the Iranian press. Duh.

Obama would do well, if he has our interests in mind, to listen to the spooks at the CIA. Apparently, he has. At least he's making the right noises.

The upshot is that the more aggressively the US responds, the more likely Iran is to develop nuclear weapons. The more aggressively the US responds, the more likely the Abedinejad coalition will maintain power.

Rather, the US should urgently pursue a strategy encouraging the international community to press for monitoring nuclear energy development in Iran to ensure that Iran is not tempted to develop nuclear weapons.

 

[mheslep]

You could just as well be describing the Saudi government here.

I am indeed talking about Wahibists there and those that fit my description around the world.

PS: Parade recently released the 2009 version of their Worst Dictators series; Abdullah is right up there again.
http://www.parade.com/dictators/2009/


1. Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe

2. Omar Al-Bashir, Sudan

3. Kim Jong-Il, North Korea

4. Than Shwe, Myanmar

5. King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia

6. Hu Jintao, China

7. Sayyid Ali Khamenei, Iran

8. Isayas Afewerki, Eritrea

9. G. Berdymuhammedov, Turkmenistan

10. Muammar al-Qaddafi, Libya

How is this list of bad guys relevant to the discussion? Last I looked Robert Mugabe wasn't making periodic threats against Israel.

 

[Gokul43201]

How is this list of bad guys relevant to the discussion? Last I looked Robert Mugabe wasn't making periodic threats against Israel.

I took your previous post in isolation, and responded to it in isolation (thus running things a little off the topic). Given that, I should add that the entire list isn't terribly relevant as much as simply pointing out that Abdullah, an ally, is right up there with Khamenei.

 

[signerror]

The first strike would be possible because Iran's nuclear installations are under IAEA inspections, therefore everyone knows the exact locations of these installations.

That's absurd! The IAEA only knows about nuclear installations that are declared to them, or otherwise discovered. If Iran wanted a clandestine nuclear weapons program, by definition they would not be reporting it to weapons inspectors.

Look at the history of Iraqi isotopic enrichment:

The Tarmiya site had no security fence and no visible electrical capacity; only later did inspectors discover that it was powered by a 30-kV underground electrical feed from a 150 MWe substation several kilometers away. Tarmiya was also situated within a large military security zone, thereby needing no additional perimeter security or military defenses at the site. At this same site, the Iraqis built a multimillion-dollar “chemical wash” facility for recovering uranium from refurbished calutron components. This facility was reportedly as sophisticated and clean as any in the West, and triple-filtered so as not to release any trace effluents into the atmosphere that might have led to its detection once it began operation.

Prior to the first IAEA inspection after the Gulf War, the only known nuclear facilities in Iraq were those at the Al Tuwaitha nuclear center, where nuclear material was being safeguarded. No other facilities were declared in the initial Iraqi statements. That the Tarmiya facility housed a substantial piece of the Iraqi nuclear program was only confirmed after the Gulf War in the early summer of 1991, when the movement there of large saucer-like objects (just prior to the first IAEA inspection of the site) led to the positive identification of the Iraqi calutron program. Much of the equipment at this site was disassembled unilaterally by Iraq, and the components hidden from IAEA inspector teams. These pasts were eventually turned over to IAEA personnel and destroyed in place.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/tarmiya.htm

According to Dr. Greenman on this forum, the IAEA knew nothing about this secret enrichment program, and wrongly concluded that Iraq was in full compliance with NPT:

However, under the inspections of the IAEA; the IAEA stated that Iraq was in full compliance with
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Get the History Channel DVD "Saddam's Weapons". They cover this. They state that the IAEA gave
Iraq an "A+" [ that's a quote ] for compliance with the NPT; when all the while they were enriching
uranium in their EMIS "Calutrons".

We nor the IAEA NEVER SAW that because the amount is so SMALL! Just a few football fields.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=121166&p=2099932

 

[Gokul43201]

Related reading, from a recent Newsweek article on Iran, by Zakaria:

Everything you know about Iran is wrong, or at least more complicated than you think. Take the bomb. The regime wants to be a nuclear power but could well be happy with a peaceful civilian program (which could make the challenge it poses more complex). What's the evidence? Well, over the last five years...

More here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/199147

 

[Count Iblis]

That's absurd! The IAEA only knows about nuclear installations that are declared to them, or otherwise discovered. If Iran wanted a clandestine nuclear weapons program, by definition they would not be reporting it to weapons inspectors.

Well, you still know more than in the hypothetical case in which Iran would not be part of the NPT. So, Russ proposal of striking again if Iran rebuilds its nuclear installations will progressively work less and less well, due to lack of intelligence. Indeed, the Iraqi example proves this: Even the IAEA didn't know about the Iraqi clandestine nuclear sites.

 

[Count Iblis]

Related reading, from a recent Newsweek article on Iran, by Zakaria:

More here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/199147

This is one of the few articles that presents the relevant facts in this dispute. The last line of the article says:

Why not try this before launching the next Mideast war?

I think the EU-3 draft proposals did originally leave room for that, but the US would not approve of it, so it was amended. Under US pressure it was decided that Iran cannot have any enrichment capability. This caused some delay in the finalization of the EU-3 proposals. When Iran finally got the proposals, it was unacceptable to Iran. Iran had suspended all their enrichment activities pending the negotiations for two years and that suspension then ended at that point.

The EU-3 and the US condemned Iran for breaking the agreement because of the resumption of their enrichment activities which was, of course, absurd because Iran had never signed on to permanently stop their enrichment activities.

This condemnation would only have made the Iranians more defensive about their rights and be more distrustful toward the West.

All this points to what I wrote in an earlier posting in this thread: The West doesn't take the sovereign rights of countries in the Mid East very serious if Israeli interests are somehow involved.

 

[mjolnir80]

The Iranians have antisemitic media, classic-style antisemitic cartoons, and a government that sponsors holocaust denial.

And their belief that the modern state of Israel, unlike any other modern state, should cease to exist is simply racist.

(Even the Arab League now accept that Israel should exist)

sorry but how do you know they have antisemitic media, classic-style antisemitic cartoons?
and only the ahmadinejad denies it not the government

 

[mheslep]

Related reading, from a recent Newsweek article on Iran, by Zakaria:

More here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/199147

...Iranians aren't suicidal.

Good to know.

"Ruling Iranian cleric Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani declared Friday that the Muslim world could survive a nuclear exchange with Israel - while accomplishing the goal of obliterating the Jewish state.

[The] application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel - but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world," Hashemi-Rafsanjani said, in quotes picked up by the Iran Press Service.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/14/10132.shtml

 

[mheslep]

...I think the EU-3 draft proposals did originally leave room for that, but the US would not approve of it, so it was amended. Under US pressure it was decided that Iran cannot have any enrichment capability. This caused some delay in the finalization of the EU-3 proposals. When Iran finally got the proposals, it was unacceptable to Iran. Iran had suspended all their enrichment activities pending the negotiations for two years and that suspension then ended at that point...

Do you have a source for any of this?

 

[Gokul43201]

Good to know.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/14/10132.shtml

I'm not surprised that Newsmax would chop the quote conveniently, to suit its purposes.

I found the full sentence quoted in this blog:

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world"

Clearly, Rafsanjani is talking about the deterrent value of a nuke, not actually laying out plans for mutual destruction.

 

[Count Iblis]

Do you have a source for any of this?

I read about it some time ago, I'll look it up.

 

[skeptic2]

Venezuela and Bolivia sending uranium to Iran?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gWi9hJXmHRyYjNwd_IH3RL3abpkwD98DEPH80

 

[turbo]

Venezuela and Bolivia sending uranium to Iran?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gWi9hJXmHRyYjNwd_IH3RL3abpkwD98DEPH80

Consider the source, and remember Niger's "sale" of yellow-cake to Iraq. It's pretty easy to leak "secret" intelligence to sway public opinion - I'd like to see some confirmation from another source, especially one that's not always claiming that Iran is building nuclear weapons. The CIA has plenty of information on mining, ore-production and transfer. Will they confirm, deny, or just stay out of it?

Additionally, even if it were true, how is it illegal for Iran to buy uranium ore?

 

[mheslep]

Venezuela and Bolivia sending uranium to Iran?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gWi9hJXmHRyYjNwd_IH3RL3abpkwD98DEPH80

When N. Korea tried a similar materials supply under Bush, the NK ship ended up at the bottom of the Indian ocean. I wonder what this President will do?