Israeli President says attack on Iran "more and more likely"

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Meh, I should have said the Iranian leaders.

[archibaldcrane]

Meh, I should have said the Iranian leaders.

Is this where you say it's ok that the US has nukes because you don't believe Obama is a Christian, and that religious people, given their belief in a glorious afterlife, have less at stake when it comes to nuclear war?

Because I hear you talking, but all I'm getting out of it is that only atheists can make rational decisions.

Welcome to our side, Swampy.

[Correction]

Cmon man...just...cmon don't be one of those people that thinks the majority of muslims are the same as the extremists we see on tv all the time...

It's okay man, he has a muslim friend so he's not being prejudiced or anything.

[archibaldcrane]

to be fair that muslim friend is always trying to kill him, spy vs. spy style

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Is this where you say it's ok that the US has nukes because you don't believe Obama is a Christian, and that religious people, given their belief in a glorious afterlife, have less at stake when it comes to nuclear war?

Because I hear you talking, but all I'm getting out of it is that only atheists can make rational decisions.

Welcome to our side, Swampy.

I just felt like their had been statements over the years saying they don't care about MAD based on their religious beliefs. That's all.

So Because Iran is only partly trying to get nukes though, that's not a danger?

[ronin sparthos]

Iran with nukes would be as frightening as the current Pakistan/India scenario.

Jihadist sympathizers everywhere.

[Kuya]

All this talk over the use of nukes, yet only one country has ever actually used nukes on anybody.

[Correction]

Iran with nukes would be as frightening as the current Pakistan/India scenario.

No, not even close. Pakistan is the major worry over their nuclear arsenal. This hasn't stopped billions in aid flowing their way from Washington. We are told to fear and hate Iran because Israel doesn't like them.

[Plow]

All this talk over the use of nukes, yet only one country has ever actually used nukes on anybody.

well dammit if people would just get it through their heads that we won

[Elvis]

What is the name of the country that has at least 150 nuclear warheads, but refuses inspections by the UN?
Disregards every UN resolution over the past 60 years, constantly attacks its neighbors, occupies and populates stolen lands?
Disregards international laws, bombs scientific sites of other nations?
Commits piracy on the high seas?
Sends its agents out to foreign countries using stolen passports from British citizens to assassinate political opponents?
Uses rockets to kill leaders of the occupied land?
Uses white phosphorous and flechette and other forbidden weapons in highly populated areas?

Before we bomb Iran we must take care of this land.

Oh wait we have:

Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing the amounts provided to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct U.S. economic and military assistance since 1976 and the largest total recipient since World War ll. Total direct U.S. aid to Israel amounts to well over $140 billion in 2003 dollars. Israel receives about $3 billion in direct foreign assistance each year, which is roughly one-fifth of America’s entire foreign aid budget. In per capita terms, the United States gives each Israeli a direct subsidy worth about $500 per year. This largesse is especially striking when one realizes that Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to South Korea or Spain.

John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

[archibaldcrane]

I just felt like their had been statements over the years saying they don't care about MAD based on their religious beliefs. That's all.

shootin' from the gut

you make George W. proud swampy, real proud

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

shootin' from the gut

you make George W. proud swampy, real proud

I'll rephrase for you. I recall reading statements made by Iranian leaders over the years that they didn't care about MAD due to their religious beliefs.

[archibaldcrane]

I'll rephrase for you. I recall reading statements made by Iranian leaders over the years that they didn't care about MAD due to their religious beliefs.

this delicious train is heading directly to saucetown

[Andalusian girls]

Iran's leadership aside, and I don't believe they are as nihilistic as a few soundbites suggest and would not use nuclear weapons offensively, any rational human being should want nations to actively leave the nuclear club, as South Africa and the Soviet successor states did, not more to join.

4 post into godwin, wonderful

also, isn't the Ayatollah and his Jedi Counsel the one with power in Iran anyway? Who really cares about what Ahmadinejah think?

aye, the Clerical establishment controls nearly everything, including the armed forces and the revolutionary guard and the nuclear program. Ahmadinejad can act like a circus clown and say Israel should be wiped off the map to score rhetorical points but he's powerless to do it even if he actually wanted to.

[Elvis]

He said he wanted the regime in Jerusalem (or something) to vanish from the pages of time. If he wants Israel to vanish, then so does the 20% of Israel's population that is Palestinian. The Palestinians who weren't driven out during the 48' War and who lived under martial law until 1966.

It's like what we did to the Iranians in the 1953 coup (and what we did all throughout the 50s and 60s in South America). Except we actually did it, and he's just ranting about it. And it blew up in his face because our political culture will take that quote and make him out to be Hitler.

[Andalusian girls]

i don't speak Farsi so i can't fully comment on the "wipe off" / "erase from history" debate but the semantics of Ahmadinejad's anti-Zionism was not the point. his irrelevance and the rationality of the clerical establishment was.

[Andalusian girls]

oh lord a double

[Elvis]

It's relevant because that quote has been perceived (whether unjustly or justly) as a threat on an entire group of people. It's a ridiculous idea if you consider the logistics and consequences. We're talking about this because of that 'threat' (as well as Iranian support for Islamists). Clearly, no one in the administration is concerned with Israel's nukes (or it's on-going colonization of Palestinian land). We withdraw from UNESCO and withhold our funding after the Palestinians join a culture club (Boy George not involved). But if Israel expands settlements, which have a very real physical effect on torpedoing the peace process - we do absolutely nothing.

So I think it's important to add some context to all this noise. I actually think what I said earlier was irresponsible. I agree that we should not want people to become nuclear-armed. However, at the same time I can't help but see all of this as just more of the same realpolitik. We're concerned with our hegemony in the region which is expressed by Israel's military superiority.

So on the one hand, I think more nukes anywhere is a bad idea. On the other hand, our concerns aren't really about whether the current Iranian regime is going to blow up Israel. It's not going to happen.

[Mazmaz]

Ask a persian guy not living in Iran anything.

[Correction]

What you doing this Eid?

haha I kid

Still got relatives over there?