Iran warns Israel not to attack Syria (Reuters)

[allemand]

TEHRAN, July 13 (Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday an Israeli strike on Syria would be considered an attack on the whole Islamic world that would bring a "fierce response", state television reported.

"If the Zionist regime commits another stupid move and attacks Syria, this will be considered like attacking the whole Islamic world and this regime will receive a very fierce response," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying in a telephone conversation with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The president made the comments after Israel struck Beirut airport and military airbases and blockaded Lebanese ports in reprisals that have killed 55 civilians in Lebanon since Hizbollah guerrillas captured two Israeli soldiers a day earlier.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L13460060.htm

[Pavulon]

1. Or what?

Iran has what to back that up with. Lots of jihad, no navy, air, nukes..

[Terran1212]

3. Do we really want to know the "or what"?

I think it would be ugly, evil.

[MGD]

25. yes actually n/t

[saigon68]

85. BEGINNING TO SOUND LIKE AUGUST 1914

[katty]

154. it sure is!!

[DavidMS]

175. I thought the same thing earler today...

We are seeing the possibility of somthing realy bad (this conflict growing substantialy larger). My bigest concern is poor policy planning cuasing the war to become a regional conflict (and then drawing in the various great powers).

[Carla in Ca]

188. The domino affect, I fear

because there are really no more adults, great leaders, to monitor the children in the sandbox. That is why we are witnessing the unraveling of reason and sanity. Who is left to stop it?

[Voltaire99]

191. "All nations striving strong to make / Red war yet redder."

Speaking of WWI...I'm reminded of Thomas Hardy's great (and maybe prophetic) poem Channel Firing, where a bunch of stiffs wake up in the ground thinking mistakenly it's Judgment Day--nope, it's just another war. Note the date.



Channel Firing


That night your great guns, unawares,
Shook all our coffins as we lay,
And broke the chancel window-squares,
We thought it was the Judgment-day

And sat upright. While drearisome
Arose the howl of wakened hounds:
The mouse let fall the altar-crumb,
The worms drew back into the mounds,

The glebe cow drooled. Till God called, "No;
It's gunnery practice out at sea
Just as before you went below;
The world is as it used to be:

"All nations striving strong to make
Red war yet redder. Mad as hatters
They do no more for Christés sake
Than you who are helpless in such matters.

"That this is not the judgment-hour
For some of them's a blessed thing,
For if it were they'd have to scour
Hell's floor for so much threatening ....

"Ha, ha. It will be warmer when
I blow the trumpet (if indeed
I ever do; for you are men,
And rest eternal sorely need)."

So down we lay again. "I wonder,
Will the world ever saner be,"
Said one, "than when He sent us under
In our indifferent century!"

And many a skeleton shook his head.
"Instead of preaching forty year,"
My neighbour Parson Thirdly said,
"I wish I had stuck to pipes and beer."

Again the guns disturbed the hour,
Roaring their readiness to avenge,
As far inland as Stourton Tower,
And Camelot, and starlit Stonehenge.

April 1914

[jayfish]

6. They Have Everything On Your List But Nukes.

They also have lots of conventional ballistic missiles. I'd really rather not find out what would happen.


Jay

[Marie26]

7. Especially since US troops

are only a few miles away from Iran.

[Pavulon]

11. Iran

Has no speakable navy, no air force pilots who are on par with IAF, or the guys who fly CAP on the weekends, no ability to sustain a war.

Israel is 3 and 0. Iran should take heed..

[IA_Seth]

125. this thread is making me sick

some people seem eager for war..eager to see Israel destroy it's neighbors.

How progressive

[greccogirl]

159. Indeed.

They are asking for something they won't be able to handle.

[Nevernose]

178. Isreal doesn't have much of a navy, either

They're good, I'll give 'em that. Well trained and well equippped.

But geared towards intercepting smuggling boats and defending the Israeli coast. They could kick the shit out of anything in Cyprus, Egypt, or Turkey, but how ther hell are they going to get to Iran? It would be like a naval battle between Cuba and California. It may happen, but it would take a while. ANd by the time the Israelis got close to Iran, or vice versa, not only would the war probably be over, but ground defenses would become available.

I wonder, though, if Iran isn't on the winning end of a protracted conventional war, one in which Israel is not suportted directly by the US. Iran is a much bigger nation, with a larger population, harder-to-hit targets, and presumably a larger population (I'll look it up later). If it were any other nation besides Israel, I'd put my money on Iran funding/fueling an all-out, impossible-to-win guerilla war; the Israelis, however, are tenacious to say the least, and have overcome much worse odds.

Israel won't use the bomb, however, unless someone uses the bomb against them first. If Iran gets it first, I'll be praying for a sensible government to take control of Persia. After that, I'll be going to the library and check out a copy of "Left Behind," because WWIII will have started.

[leftchick]

10. are you fucking kidding me?

Iran has a very impressive "war department" except for nukes. They do indeed have everything on your list save nukes. How about trying to talk with each other rather than kill each other? I know that is a novel idea for Israel. :(

[Pavulon]

12. No they

have no naval capability that can not be destroyed from air. None of it is blue water. No Air force that could stand up. Israel is 3 and 0.

Egypt did pretty poorly with state of the art equipment last war.

[Marie26]

13. Pretty substantial army, though, no? nt

[Pavulon]

14. What are they going to do with it?

Invade afganistan, Turkey. Let it get reduced from the air..

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://www.alternative-learning.org/international/middleast.html&h=650&w=650&sz=29&hl=en&sig2=wg9sOEJnYNluH1UPCq_gCA&start=1&tbnid=6guq2KLNyaootM:&tbnh=137&tbnw=137&ei=b9a2ROrwHKL8aMLixfUF&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmiddle%2Beast%2Bmap%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26rls%3DGGLG,GGLG:2005-20,GGLG:en%26sa%3DN

[Marie26]

16. Make life miserable for US troops in Iraq.

Yes, I'm aware of where Iran is on a map, thanks. We've got 200,000+ troops in Iraq that are vulnerable to anti-ballistic missiles & attack by Iranian troops. And it's not so easy to attack Iranian soldiers because so much of the country is mountains & harsh terrain. Besides which, Iran doesn't even need to attack directly. Many Iraqi Shia militias have alliances w/Iran, not to mention the Hizbollah & Hamas terrorists that are also now floating around Iraq. Iran could use militias, guerrillas, or missiles to attack Iraq as retaliation. And I'm not sure Israel is really interested in the repurcussions in that country.

[Pavulon]

17. That would be an open war..

not an occupation. That would be what the military is trained to do. Not paint schools, win hearts and minds. Breaking toys blowing up bridges, dams, power plants, and troops. GW1 scenario. Everything at diego garcia and the carriers running at 5% goes to 200%.

Water, food, power gone in a week.

Any iranian move would be met with open war, european intervention, and a 4 and 0 record for arab wars in the middle east.

[Marie26]

18. Right

And that's exactly what I'm worried about. European intervention in Iran? I don't see that. It'll spark the open war between Iran and the US that both sides seem to want so badly. Iran's army might not be the most sophisticated, but they do know how to win a war of attrition. The US doesn't have the ability to fight another war right now. We'd need a draft, and a long, bloody war to beat Iran. And how is that not an occupation? Assuming we win, we'd have to occupy the country for a long period of time. And given the terrain, that's almost freaking impossible to do successfully. You're a little deluded IMO if you think an Iranian war would be a breeze for the US. Anyway, that's a nightmare scenario, but the scary thing is that it is actually possible thanks to the latest military attacks.

[Pavulon]

19. France

Threatened nuclear war. Europe is at tires of the nuclear shell game.

I said nothing about occupation. I spoke of killing troops and vehicles. If they massed anything and attempted an invasion they would die, they have no air cover, NONE.

We would need 3 carrier groups and heavy bombers, no air cover, no power , food, or water. Any gathering of 10 or more bombed.

No need to occupy, just inflict damage.

[Marie26]

27. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Oh, OK. When you said European intervention, you didn't mean diplomacy, you meant nuclear war intervention. I'm sure once France drops a nuclear bomb, that will clear things up. IMO, your posts are very simplistic & ignoring the consequences of these various actions. So Iran lobs a few missiles at US troops in Baghdad. And the US just decides to "inflict damage" on Iran? This Administration? They've been chomping at the bit to attack Iran. And this is just the excuse they need to begin full-scale war w/ground forces. And if that happens, Iran's allies, China & Russia, could also be drawn into any war against us. Even if the US does just inflict limited air attacks, Iran can just come back w/more skirmishes & missiles, and the whole thing escalates into total war. This is not a easy win, & it isn't a football game. These attacks have created massive instability in an already unstable region of the world & all bets are off as to what the result will be.

[Pavulon]

33. Conventional only

Iran Attacks us (first strike)

us invokes nato treaty

Open war ensues. Us destroys all targets of opportunity in iran. Water, civil works, tens of millions wandering around trying to find food and water.

us and allies smash iranian infrastructure, troops and equipment.

Oil goes up.

Iran says taliban like things.

Iran's missiles are met with massive us european counter strikes.

Iran should sit this out.


Pan arab wars are 0 and 3 so far.

[Marie26]

36. Is there a playoff game?

Would you stop with the stupid scores? Here's how it really works: Iran attacks US through 3rd party militia w/dubious connections. US attacks Iran directly - first strike. Iran launches missiles at targets in Iraq & Israel in retaliation. US invokes NATO; and Iran invokes alliances w/China & Russia. Open war ensues. US destroys Iran - millions die. Iran, w/Russian & Chinese assistance, attacks US forces in Iraq - millions die. NATO alliances require attacks against Russia & China as well; Russia & China retaliate against US allies. World war ensues. Hey, maybe France or Pakistan will use nuclear weapons. Oil goes through the roof w/disruption of oil lines in Iran & Iraq, creating a massive energy crisis. World peace is 0 for 0. An Iran war is madness.

[Pavulon]

42. You thing china or russia

is going to the mat for iran. After Chechnya and chinas radicals who have been neatly cleaned up?

No chance, they care about oil, no more, no less.

[Marie26]

46. You thing nato

is going to the mat for a country that embraced preemptive war against NATO policy? That's exactly right - China & Russia care about oil, no more, no less. And Iran is their primary supplier of oil. China needs Iran to fuel their booming economy. You better bet if someone tries to mess w/Iran's oil supplies, China & Russia will mess with them.

[Pavulon]

48. If iran STARTS a war

nuclear of other wise they are lost.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. Iran's not going to start a war.

Israel would be starting the war by invading Syria.

Hence the warning.

[Pavulon]

53. Syria and Iran

are sovereign. If they have an alliance that is their business. If syria provokes a war with their terrorist hamas wing that is their doing. If iran wants to be loss 4 in pan arab wars so be it.

Statistics and common sense backs Israel and the massive superpower.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. Given the preponderance of evidence in this thread...

You haven't got much of a grasp on statistics or common sense.

[Pavulon]

56. sure

check janes defense for common sense. that is where I look.

[Violet_Crumble]

84. I agree with the other poster about lack of common-sense...

For two reasons:

1. Israel is highly unlikely to get involved in a war with Syria. But instead of pointing out a common-sense idea, you opt to go for the 'yeah, well!! Israel will kick their butt!!!!' nonsense...

2. When it comes to Iran and the damage their military can inflict, anyone who points to a more advanced military as an advantage is as lacking in common sense as Saddam Hussein was. He thought the Iran/Iraq war would be a walk-over, but he didn't take into account that a massive army of fanatical soldiers who place no value on their own lives can more than give a more advanced military that was assisted by the US more than a run for their money...

[Tempest]

107. You're right, what good is an advanced military?

A vastly superior military hasn't been much good in Iraq, has it?

[Tight_rope]

120. Tell me about it!

The bigger the might the strong the fight!

[theHandpuppet]

88. I bet you looked there before we invaded Iraq, too

And look how swimmingly well that has gone.

'Nuff said.

[ClydeW]

170. Majestic military success

You may not like the cost of the post-war occupation, but the actual war in Iraq was a majestic success. A country of 20+ million people was conquered and occupied within a few weeks with mininmal coalition casualties. Actually, Iran would be much more difficult. But I don't understand the point about Iraq at all; as far as military conquest goes, it doesn't get much more one-sided than the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

[IndianaGreen]

173. You call Iraq a "majestic military success"?

I'll bet that's the same way Hitler's Generals referred to Operation Barbarossa when the German army reached the outskirts of Moscow. We know what happened shortly after that "majestic military success!"

[ClydeW]

176. Terrible comparison

You can't really be serious with that analogy (the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union to the invasion of Iraq). It's so far-fetched and inapplicable to the current situation that I don't even know where to start.

While I don't like the comparison for (what should be) obvious reasons, from the viewpoint of military success alone, I guess the German invasion of Poland would be more appropriate, though not particularly so...

[IndianaGreen]

179. The German invasion of Poland was also done under false pretenses

Germany claimed that Polish forces had crossed the border and attacked a German radio station. A lie concocted by the SS in order to justify the criminal invasion of Poland. A perfect analogy to what the US did in Iraq!

[ClydeW]

180. Exactly why I was reluctant to use the analogy...

I don't even know how to argue with someone who can compare Hitler's genocidal war for land with the removal by America of one of the most brutal and dangerous dictators in the world, in a country we will vacate at the earliest opportunity. There are all kinds of credible arguments that can be made about the rightness or wrongness of the war, but comparing it to Hitler's war in the east is just crazy...

[Name removed]

182. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClydeW]

184. Some claims are so absurd that they need no refutation...

You either have an abyssmal lack of knowledge regarding the Nazi war of aggression and the holocaust, or else you subscribe to a very odd system of moral equivalences...

[saigon68]

215. 500 BILLION $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

To do What ?? Blow up some camels?

[LivingInTheBubble]

217. Lets discuss how successful the war was when its actually OVER. nt

[The Stranger]

94. That explains everything.

Jane's defense isn't where one finds common sense.

[The Stranger]

92. You seem to have who is doing the provocation exactly wrong.

Syria is occupied by Israel and has been for 40 years.

(And every time you post the number of wars Israel has won seems to increase. So the "statistics" you claim back Israel seem to change by the minute.)

((Common sense is totally lacking as well.))

[SOS]

135. Bob Baer

recently reported that Iran has wired it's oil fields with explosives.
Baer reports that Iran will blow their own oil infrastructure if invaded by US/Israel.
At a minimum they will take their oil off the world market, as in 1979, if attacked by air.
Yes, the US and Israel would eventually "win" militarily. Then the endless insurgency, as in Iraq, would begin.
And how will Americans respond to $8 a gallon for gas?

Imagine an SUV with a 30 gallon tank.
"Fill 'er up!"
"That'll be $240 please".

[rayofreason]

61. Iran has already started a war...

Hezbollah launched an Iranian-made ballistic missle at Haifa. Actually, it probably was operated by Iranian Revolutionary Gaurds. The war is on.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2269750,00.html

[wabeewoman]

77. With that logic

the US has bombed Lebanon with its fighter jets. Its amazing to me how many posters here are getting a hard-on about war. This is Not a good thing, guys.

[The Stranger]

93. You also have the provocateur exactly wrong. Israel invaded Lebanon,

and had occupied Lebanon for 19 years previously.

[greccogirl]

161. Yes. I can't believe

they would be stupid enough to do so but I've been wrong before.

[nguoihue]

166. If Iran starts a war

nuclear ???? .... laughing my ass off

[Tempest]

127. Especially after what happened in Iraq

"You better bet if someone tries to mess w/Iran's oil supplies, China & Russia will mess with them."

After the Iraq war the U.S. broke every contract Iraq had to supply oil to other countries. Countries like France, Germany and Russia were left to scramble for other suppliers.

There's no way China and Russia, with the new multi-billion gas and oil contracts they signed with Iran, will allow their supplies to be jeapordized.

[LivingInTheBubble]

216. Going to the mat, 3 for 0?

I think you should stick to sitting on your couch watching sports rather than trying to offer analysis on international conflicts.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

37. Yeah, I'm sure Iran's going to sit there and take it.

And they're not going to take out U.S. Naval targets in the Gulf, and major U.S. refineries in Saudia Arabia. And they're not, along with Syria, going to launch massive attacks against Israeli civilian populations, likely including WMDs. And they're not going to commit a land invasion against Iraq. And the insurgents in Iraq aren't going to sit back and wait. And Egypt and Jordan and Saudi Arabia aren't going to get involved.

:eyes:

Admit it, you are one of the people who thought Iraq would be a cake walk?

[Pavulon]

41. I am a backer

of nothing at all or the zinni plan. If iran launched any nbc attack they would be fired on with ohio class and b2 dropped b61 nuclear weapons. They would be reduced. This is policy.

God help them if they get involved, and the nuclear scenario is a tragedy.

They will sit back and stroke it, just like they are now.

Big mouth, no action. 0 and 3 on pan arab wars.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. Yeah, and if we did that...

every major U.S. city would be vaporized by Russian and Chinese missles, including Raleigh, North Carolina.

Which strikes me as a particularly good reason for Iran to warn Israel not to attack Syria.

[Pavulon]

45. Yeah

China and russia are willing to take a full nuclear response from the US for a us SECOND strike on a nuclear aggressor. Every man woman and child in russia and china dead for iran.

No chance.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. Going to be hard for Russia and China not too...

because as soon as the U.S. hits Iran, North Korea is going to invade South Korea.

[Pavulon]

51. And they will

be hit by japan, the us, and depending on the situation tactical nukes.

Again the whole MIC is designed for this, not to paint schools and make friends in foreign lands.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. Yeah, the U.S. would hit North Korea with tactical nukes.

Which is why China would respond with their nukes. Which is why nuke would respond against China with nukes. Which is why Russia would respond against the U.S. with nukes.

[Pavulon]

55. Sure

who ever pops it first dies. Russia is not willing to evaporate for n korea. china has no second strike or MAD capability. China has admonished n korea for firing a few shit rockets. You think they will back a korean war?

No nation state is backing n korea and the insane lil kim. Iran is a russian client, not a ally.

[The Stranger]

95. Is it 0 for 3 or 0 for 4. Your scoreboard of wars seems to change.

[termo]

144. EU won't follow US in another stupid war

EU populations are strongly against it, why should we help US in this situation.

and... don't forget natural resources location, who will survive a boycot ?

[bry2k]

83. Nonsense

Iraq fought Iran to a bloody stalemate for what...8? 10 years? And the USA took down the Iraqi military in a few weeks. Iran is a menacing little pissant with a bunch of theocratic fascist leaders trying to retain a grip on their oil money. All this whining and moaning about the dangers of Iran is ridiculous.

[Marie26]

97. Thanks for the insight

Into how people like Bush think.

[Maggie_May]

165. And Iraq was such a slam dunk

[aquart]

190. I'm sorry, how are we doing in Iraq again?

And what is the population of pissed off young men in Iran again?

Haven't we learned yet that a native population doesn't need the most modern equipment to fight an invader to a standstill?

Not that we have the most modern equipment. Or the ability to replace parts without placing orders with foreign powers which may or may not choose to honor their agreements. We do, however, have the fattest, most well-paid military-industrial complex on the planet.

NONE of this would be happening if the world were not completely aware of our utter military incompetence and helplessness in Iraq AND Afghanistan. This is the golden moment to seize power and did you really think other nations wouldn't go for it?

[readmoreoften]

22. Did you say the same thing about Iraq? This is the same kind of

optimism I heard in 2003. Even if Iran only fights us in Iraq, it will be madness. Not to mention Pakistan. Which way will they go? They do have nuclear weapons. Attacking Iran is madness.

[Pavulon]

34. No attack

I am speaking of second strike scenarios.

[ClydeW]

171. Iran much different than Iraq

The pre-war optimism in 2003 over the military conquest of Iraq was completely justified by the actual event. I don't at all understand invoking the invasion of Iraq as some kind of military disaster. By every objective analysis, historical or otherwise, it was a fantastic military success.

Not that the idea of an invasion of Iran doesn't make me a little queasy, but certainly not because of the experience in Iraq.

[Zynx]

101. If Iran fought our troops in open combat, we would whomp their ass.

There is no military in the world that can compete with our firepower outside Europe, China, and North Korea. Fighting them in the cities is a different matter altogether.

[dionysus]

106. 4 and 0! 4 and 0!

this isn't a footbal game tool, and israel isn't invincible, neither are we. keep cheerleading

[keta11]

15. There is a tendency to overstate the capability of

the Iranian Army. They can do zilch. Look how they struggled against Saddam's rickety army. They are only good for fighting Iraq Republican guards.

[everythingsxen]

21. Saddam's "rickety army"?

He had like the best military for a long time, mostly because it was supplied to him by the US and USSR as each tried to buy him off.

As far as Iran's military capability.. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html#Military

That's what the CIA says they have. That is of course what they actually report as military, not counting militias and/or terrorist organizations that might be on friendly terms.

[Tempest]

108. Saddam HAD the best military. Long past tense

The U.S. and Russia stopped supplying Saddam after the first Gulf war. Iraq couldn't even get parts for their jets.

By the time 2003 rolled around, Iraq had the weakest military in the Middle East. Iraq was no threat to its neighbors.

[Tight_rope]

118. Who fucking cares what they have!

Why not discuss how the fighting in the ME can be stabilized, instead of talking about my gun is bigger than yours or my gun holds my bullets than yours. Fucking ridiculous!:spank: :argh:

[aquart]

23. What is there to say?

Love how you see Israel as the big bad villain.

How big is Syria? Population? How many in uniform? Oil reserves? Armaments?

How big is Iran? Population? How many in uniform? Oil reserves? Armaments?

How big is Israel? Population? How many in uniform? Oil reserves? Armaments?

Please remember, thanks to Bush, Israel now stands naked with no protection or defense but what she can provide herself. Our military superiority is exposed as a sham. The attacks on Israel are occurring because George has created a power vacuum and powers are rushing to fill it.

If Israel cannot strongly defend herself now........they will kill her. And we, and the world, will do nothing but watch.

But that seems to be okay with you. Why?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. Um, what?

Israel's got the strongest forces in the region.

[Tempest]

109. The U.S. has the strongest forces in the world

But we just can't seem to control a country that couldn't defend itself.

What chance does Israel have of coming out of this unscathed if the entire Middle East aligns against her?

[aquart]

157. HAD the strongest. HAD.

Wake up, ducks. George has left us naked to our enemies. And he's made us a bunch.

[ClydeW]

187. Military hegemony

We still have the most dominant military the world has ever known. Our hitting power is not compromised by the commitment in Iraq. (Now, another large scale occupation would be a different story.) To say that we are naked to our enemies is nonsense with no basis in fact.

[aquart]

189. Really?

We are recruiting 42 year olds. Our experienced officers are leaving in droves.

We've had Rumsfeld and his cronies in charge for over five years.

Maybe you want to stop living in the past.

[aquart]

160. Yeah? So Israel can invade, say, Iran tomorrow?

With a reasonable chance of success? Well, give me the odds, you seem so sure.

Israel is armed because she has to defend every inch of her borders every single day without blinking or taking a breath. Every single minute.

And within her borders, no mother is sure her child will return from taking the schoolbus, or buying a litre of milk in the market.

Israel is armed to DEFEND herself. She is NOT strong enough to take on the large powers that surround her. She never was. She never will be. She did have the protection of America but that is now useless because there is no longer a perception of America as a strong nation.

Wake. Up.

[IndianaGreen]

29. Syria does have WMD and the means to deliver them

and Syria will be legally in the clear were she to retaliate against an Israeli attack.

If Israel were to nuke Syria in retaliation for Syrian's retaliation, our troops in Iraq will be exposed to the radiation and die a very unkosher death.

You do know why Iran is backing Syria, don't you? Or has Faux News discussed that yet?

Iran is backing Syria because Iran would like to see the Shias in Syria rise and topple the Baathist Party from power. Iran will become the most powerful nation in the region!

The only winner here: Osama bin Laden. OBL sees the Shia as heretics, and he probably is having a wonderful time watching the Israelis and the Shia slaughter one another, while the Great Satan Bush becomes more irrelevant each day the war rages.

Al-Qaeda 1
Israel 0
Lebanon 0
Syria 0

[Pavulon]

38. They have a wee tiny

stock, we have 3000 megatons spinning online. If Syria or Iran goes nuclear first it would be wing plan r.

Dead link...edit

Iran would be a wasteland.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. Sure.

And Syria has thousands of tons of nerve gas pointed at Israel and if they strike first Israel would be a wasteland.

[The Stranger]

44. Fucking brilliant. Everywhere a wasteland.

Can we stop this fucking ride? I'm ready to get off.

[IndianaGreen]

50. Rightwingers think they can solve everything with guns and bombs

and not a care about the consequences! If I were on active duty in Iraq, I would certainly be concerned about any nukes detonating anywhere in the region.

[Tempest]

111. That's not the only concern

An all out war in the Middle East would cause oil production to come to a standstill and the great war machine would grind to a halt in a matter of days.

[Tempest]

110. This is exactly what the neo-cons and religious nutcases want

They want a major war in the Middle East. They think it will hasten Armegeddon.

[nguoihue]

167. the neocons want a major war in the ME

yeah, a lot of them think it will hasten the US take over of all the oil supplies in the region

[Zynx]

102. Israel's only recourse is to nuke Syria so that's what they would do.

Assad will not take the risk that Israel doesn't given a damn about irradiating Iraq.

[Massacure]

62. Oil?

[SensibleAmerican]

177. The or what is that Bush gets his war in Iran and Syria

If Iran or Syria attacks Israel, we go to war and the Democrats support it.

[cliss]

2. Wow....with our current 'leadership' in Washington,

the world is on its own. I really mean that. There is no leadership....there is only destruction by the name of Bush & Cheney.

Here's a photo from Expressen, Swedish online newspaper. (Israel attacks lebanon airport)

[medeak]

4. did DU not predict this?

HELLOOO? Israel bombing Iran? It's a comin...

[DELUSIONAL]

20. yes -- a lecture by Prof. Francis Boyle of U. of Chicago was posted

on DU with a prediction of just what is happening right now.

Others have predicted that bush would use Israel to get Iran to do something so that bush could bomb or nuke Iran.

Can the bat-shi* crazy leader of Iran stay out of bushie's macho war.

Also -- I'd bet that this war is being waged with an eye on America's midterm elections. I don't buy for a minute that the real reason for Israel's actions is the kidnapping of ONE Israeli private. Consider the fact that Israel has several thousand Palestinian prisoners.

Meanwhile more children will be injured -- both physically and psychologically -- but hey -- what really counts -- bushie needs to remain absolute dictator.

One good thing about DU -- is that eventually all sides of the conflict will be discussed.

[aquart]

24. You are making the biased error of believing Israel a strong nation.

You might want to examine that.

Israel is being attacked because America cannot protect her. Because the perception of America as a strong nation has been destroyed by George's weak nation responses. Bush has had America reacting in every instance as if WE were Israel. This has destroyed the perception of America as a superpower.

Exactly HOW do you imagine George will be able to attack Iran? With toy soldiers? Do you imagine Israel has population enough to defend itself and act as attack bitch for George? Obviously, you do. You might want to examine that.

WE HAVEN'T GOT THE MILITARY TO PROTECT ISRAEL OR BAGHDAD. We are a WEAK nation now.

George doesn't, of course, seem to know this. Neither, I fear, do you.

[megatherium]

26. I remember years ago the cold war era arguments for the need for a strong

multi-layered defense, so that we would not have the terrible choice of losing Europe or going thermonuclear, in case the Soviets attacked Europe. If Israel is in the position of no longer being able to be defended conventionally (by themselves or the US), could we now be danger of a nuclear war in the Middle East?

As far as attacking Iran, that would be with a heavy air campaign--no toy soldiers, no attempt to invade or occupy. A very high-risk proposition. But our inventory of things that go boom (cruise missiles etc) is said to be well-stocked. I'm getting worried now.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. Which is weaker...

Israel or Lebanon?

[Tempest]

112. Define weaker

If you mean militarily, Israel.

If you mean resolve, Lebanon.


Now look at Iraq and tell us which is more important in a war of attrition.

[Star]

35. Maybe I'm wrong

I could have heard this wrong, and I'm not sure exactly where I heard it, but I believe Israel is the 4th largest military power in the world, thanks to US aid and the fact that every Israeli citizen is required to serve in the military.

Sounds like a pretty strong nation to me.

[medeak]

65. pray tell how much $$$ are we giving Israel?

America can't protect her my ass....

[medeak]

67. ISRAEL HAS OVERWHELMING MILITARY SUPERIORITY

George Mitchell just said on CNN...WTF are you talking about?

[Tempest]

113. So did the U.S. against Iraq

That turned out swimmingly, didn't it?

[rman]

123. Iraq was unable to defend itself, and is in ruins

Besides, it was the plan from the beginning for US military to establish permanent presence in Iraq (see the military bases), and it is not realistic to expect Iraqis to just accept occupation - even if they can't drive it out militarily.
So, it not having turned out swimmingly is in the ongoing guerrilla war (which was to be expected) -and- a civil war (which goes some way toward hampering guerrilla war).

[Tempest]

126. Which is my point

Israel may win the battle, but they will lose the war.

Like the U.S. is finding out in Iraq, Israel doesn't have the resources to keep Lebanon, Syria or Iran from falling into complete anarchy. And anarchy would be the worst case scenerio for Israel.

As history of the Middle East has proven, whenever there's a vaccum religious extremists take power. The last example was the Taliban in Afghanistan.

[rman]

130. Doesn't mean Israel is weak, much as the situation in Iraq doesn't mean

the US is weak.

[Tempest]

132. Strawman

I never claimed Israel was weak, only that it was opening a Pandora's box it may not be able to close.

[rman]

133. The OP of this sub-thread made the point that it's mistake to think Israel

is strong.
I thought you were supporting that point.

On edit: i don't recall you saying anything about pandora's box until your last reply.

[Tempest]

139. Which sub-thread?

There's actually two sub-threads going on.

The first sub-thread was about Israel not being strong.

The second sub-thread, and the one that we are currently on, takes just the opposite view.


It's easy to get confused if you're not paying close attention to the various sub-threads.


My view is that Israel is strong, but strength is only one variable in a much larger formula.

As far as my pandora's box comment, I've said it throughout this board. I just didn't use the exact phrase "pandora's box" to describe it.

[aquart]

156. Uh, yeah. It does.

Embrace the new reality.

We have nukes and debt. And if you think we still have an army, oh, honey...

Israel is armed to defend itself. It cannot invade and hold Iran or Syria or any of the Arab countries. With every citizen in uniform, it still doesn't have enough troops to do that.

Neither do we.

[rman]

163. Israel is not weaker than any of the countries you mention

It's just not strong enough to occupy all those countries - but how does that equate to weakness?

[FormerDem06]

105. I think turning this into a political thing is almost too easy....

Israel is being attacked because America cannot protect her. Because the perception of America as a strong nation has been destroyed by George's weak nation responses. Bush has had America reacting in every instance as if WE were Israel. This has destroyed the perception of America as a superpower.

==========================================================================================

I have to agree with you on this except Bush doesn't deserve ALL of the blame. The destruction of our military capacity during the Clinton years (we had twice the number of active troops when we went into Iraq the first time) and the ensuing "redeployment" by Rumsfeld has made us impotent.

WE cannot fight a war on two fronts now without a draft whereas we could have in 1992, and I have a theory, that our government is allowing all of this illegal immigration and "path to citizenship" stuff to increase the number of people living in this country capable of fighting when the time does come for the US to face off against China and Russia.

Believe me it's coming. N. Korea didn't fire those rockets for their own benefit, they did it so that China could find out just how much the US and Japan would respond. They were gathering intelligence on our movements in the Pacific, plain and simple. China is buying up our debt left and right for a reason as well. The Chinese see themselves as the great dynasty, the center of the Universe if you will. We are but a blip on the radar screen and they will quietly destroy us; financially, and then militarily.

I hate war, but I see three immovable forces in this world. The US and it's free-market economy, the China and Russia bloq and Fundamentalist Islam. The first two could possibly co-exist in a perfect world, but when you throw in the third, it's a powder keg.

War makes me sick, but I think it's coming quicker than any of us want to imagine.

[Tempest]

128. You are wrongly blaming Clinton

The military draw down was started by Defense Secretary Cheney during Bush Sr.'s administration.

During Bush Sr.'s administration fourteen battalions were cut. Another eight were cut in the first year of Clinton's administration from plans ALREADY PUT INTO ACTION from Bush's administration.


Military spending, and recruitment, under Clinton increased after the Bush Sr.'s administration cuts were stopped.

[Deja Q]

148. And why not? That dipshit running Iran made some boisterious comments!

I don't see how "...blow Israel off the face of the map..." is anything less than, uh, obvious? If someone told me they were going to kill me, well - I'd stay away from them. I'm a coward. And someone did give me a death threat once. It's not nice to know. And the guy is big on his religion... I won't say which one, but it's not Christianity. But I can say I've stayed away. He's a psycho in his own way, but in others he's still very civil - as he hasn't tried to stalk me or anything. Pity the leader of Iran isn't the same way and minds his own friggin' beeswax...

But I digress. Our side doesn't have a monopoly on making dumb comments. And Iran's was far, far worse than dumb. They were asking for it and, sadly, Israel complied. I cannot shed a tear for Iran.

It's all sad. But that's what they want.

And "overzealous" in their response or not, Israel has been threatened. It's not our fault their ruler is uber-paranoid either.

How did all this start again, so many centuries ago?

[madeline_con]

5. But...

pounding Lebanon's o.k? Aren't they part of the "whole Islamic world"? Is he being paid by the DUH-bya crew?

:wtf:

[cali]

8. I'm just curious

Do you really believe it's that simple?

[cali]

9. self-delete

[VegasWolf]

28. So this is what Bush has been hearing in his head. He is to lead the

world into nuclear anniliation in the name of god.

:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:

[joe_shmoe]

32. **PETITION AGAINST MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAN**

Attack on Iran = WWIII and the collapse of the US. This madness must stop.

It is with grave concern that I observe the growing threat of a new U.S. war--this time against the people of Iran.

For a collection of articles and resources on this subject you can visit this link: http://reseaudesign.com/research/iran/iran_summery.html

I'm starting up a petition which I will be sending out to as many members of Congress as possible. I'm asking for help to get this signed by as many people, possible in the next month. Send it to as many people you can.

http://www.petitiononline.com/n0war1rn /


thanks,
J-shmoe

[Posteritatis]

40. Online petitions are invariably worthless

If you want to get your point across, stain some wood pulp.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[omenapoint]

66. Are you serious?

Israel is right! Syria=terrorist. Iran=terrorist. Hezbollah=terrorists. They all want to see Israel burned in the same way that Hitler did. They want to finish Hitler's work. Israel is the best hope for the middle east. Unfortunately, many people, including many Americans would rather see Israel capitulate to evil than to defend herself.

[IndianaGreen]

68. Spare us the rightwing melodrama!

This is a tragedy in which a lot of innocent civilians are going to die before the dust settles a few weeks from now, if at all.

[omenapoint]

69. RW Melodrama?

Get real. It is reality. All I identified are terrorists. There is evil in the world. Syria, Iran and Hezbollah are part of it.

[IndianaGreen]

70. You have been watching too much Fox News

change the channel to the Discovery Channel.

The greatest evil in the world is the terrorist and war criminal George W. Bush, and he should be tried for his crimes by a Nuremberg-style tribunal.

[omenapoint]

71. Don't let your hatred for GWBush let you fail to see reality.

Bush is a fuck-up. Evil? No way. He does not wish to destroy anybody. He just doesn't know how to plan for shit.

Anyway, thanks for the red-herring. The real discussion here is about Israel and how they are being targeted.

So, what do you think Israel should do? Should they sit back and wait for the invasion? Should they allow themselves to be victims of modern day Hitlers?

[IndianaGreen]

74. Israel should have gone for the prisoner swap

by emptying all the jails of Islamic radicals and trading them for the IDF guys on Lebanon's side of the border, and not letting them return to Israel.

Military might makes things worse and won't solve a damned thing.

[omenapoint]

91. I disagree wholly.

Why would they release scores of terrorists reactionary/radicals. The way you prevent these reactioary/radicals from bombing your ass is to put them in jail. Israel would have been capitulating to terrorists, which is one hell of a way to insure future attacks.

[The Stranger]

96. Indiana is exactly right, but they needed a pretense to invade Lebanon.

So they passed on the deal they should have taken.

And the "terrorist" rhetoric and Israel-as-a-victim propaganda aren't going to work here. "

Terrorists" once blew up the King David Hotel on their way to establishing a state, just ask Ehud Barak.

[omenapoint]

104. Was that a joke?

You really think that one should just let terrorists waltz free? I don't believe that anybody could actually think that.

[Tempest]

114. That's exactly what you're advocating

"You really think that one should just let terrorists waltz free?"

Apparently you're not informed on the creation of Israel.

Do yourself a favor and read up on the King David Hotel bombing by a future Israeli prime minister.

[omenapoint]

155. Have you not figured out that we are discussing the present?

[Nevernose]

181. So should we trade out all the WTC bombers in prison?

Not the 9/11 guys, but the ones who were caught in the 90s for the 93 attack, given a fair trial (a real one, not a Gitmo one), and convicted of blowing up or conspiring to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993 for one kidnapped American soldier?

Of course not. If traded out, who's to say they won't try again? And since when has negotiating with terrorists ever gotten anybody anything but dealing with more terrorists? And remember that we're not discussing POWs here, but men and women committing crimes and being convicted of them, in a fair trial. Most people won't argue the fact that Israeli courts go out of their way to be fair, and when they're not the Israeli SC usually steps in. Does it make a difference if the countries are adjoining?

I'm reminded of the show "The West Wing," the 9/11 episode. They point out that terrorism has a 100% failure rate. Those Red groups in Europe? Last I checked, Slovakia was using capitlism. ETA? THey may be spekaing Eskavadi, but they're still in Spain. Ireland? England's still there. A gang of terrorists is never going to beat a well-organized, well-managed nation.

Israel's been to the bargaining table more than once. Jordan, Egypt, Arabia: enemies no longer.

Hezbollah? The folks in Gaza? Got exactly what they wanted: Israel out. And what does Israel get in return? Rockets across the border.

Israel's certainly not innocent, as I have posted countless times before, but it takes two to tango, as they say in that place where the all Nazi war criminals are hiding in...

[grayokc]

219. Tell that to the good people of Carthage, circa 146 BCE. n/t

Tell that to the good people of Carthage, circa 146 BCE

[readmoreoften]

86. Sorry "all of Iran and Syria" are not evil.

Certainly the fundamentalist lunatics may be, but not the good people who get up and put food on their kids' table. I also don't think that Israel is "evil". Israel is clearly just trying to survive. And, given the world's attitude towards Jews, I understand the paranoia and overreaction. That being said, Israel doesn't some messed up crap that exacerbated these hatreds. It's a harsh situation.

But how the hell do you know what George Bush wishes to do? Do you know him personally? How do you know that he isn't "evil"?

[omenapoint]

90. good point,

i was speaking of the .govs

I appreciate your thoughtful post.

I don't think Bush is evil at all. Just stupid and a poor planner. Proof? Show me some that he is evil.

[springhill]

140. Unbelievable!!!!

Bush isn't evil, he just doesn't know what he is doing? Well I guarantee you the evil bastards Cheney and Rumsfeld know exactly what they are doing. Things are ging just swimmingly in their eyes. Occupation was always the goal in Iraq. And they just happen to want to commit the same war crimes (remember Hitler's invasions?) in Syria and Iran. Oh, and just by coincidence (not!) these very countries are at the center of this mess. What in the world makes you think evil cannot exist in the US?

[stepnw1f]

145. "He does not wish to destroy anybody."

That's funny... because he sure acts like he does. How many dead now since Bush has been in office? Waiting.....

[nmliberal]

134. If only it was that simple

But individual people (mothers, fathers, children_ make up ALL of the nations involved and those same people will suffer incredibly.

[greccogirl]

162. Yes - I am in

complete agreement to. To say this is about racism is completely absurd. It is about the domination of Islam.

[JackDragna]

79. Right. That's why Israelis abuse the Palestinians,

..treat them like second-class citizens, wall off their neighborhoods and generally force many of them to work menial jobs. It's because they're so kind-hearted.

[Dark]

80. And that's why Palestinians don't fight back by killing Israeli citizens

including teenagers and innocent civilians.

[Tempest]

115. Israeli extremists do the same thing

Israeli settlers in the West Bank also kill Palestinian teenagers and innocent civilians.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

[Deja Q]

149. They're reacting in paranoia. Don't forget what Iran said some time ago,

about blowing them off the face of the map.

And not in a good way.

Israel feels overly threatened, hence their response.

As with the Pope, I think they have gone too far. But what's done is done. All we can do is hope for the best at this point.

[mshasta]

59. See how the USA is just tempting IRAN looking for an excuse to attack IRAN

[rayofreason]

63. Iran has just started a war with Israel...

...by firing a ballistic missle from Lebanon into Haifa.

[IndianaGreen]

64. Excuse me, but your geography is way off the mark

and your blood lust for expanding this war would be more acceptable were you to enlist in the military and taste for yourself war for what it is.

[rayofreason]

72. Geography and Blood lust

Geography - I don't understand your comment. My geography is fine. Haifa is out of range of a short-range rocket like a Katusha. What hit Haifa was bigger with a longer range - a ballistic missile. Firing a modern V2 rocket into an Israeli population center is a huge escalation and an act of war. Hizbollah does not have such a capability, but the Iranians stationed in Lebanon do have that capability.

Blood lust - Discussing the fact that the Iranians have precipitated a major escalation in this conflict does not seem like blood lust to me. But it might seem that way to someone who does not want to face the unpleasant reality that a major war is about to break out because of the actions of Iran. Such an individual might become angry and lash out with ignorant and asinine remarks rather than address the deplorable fact that an aggressive Iran led by lunatic Mullahs hell bent on building nuclear weapons has commited an act of war against Israel by deliberately targeting civilians without a hint of a military target. The cognitive dissonace must be deafening.

[readmoreoften]

87. According to FOX NEWS! Fox News is a propaganda outlet...

nothing more! It is there to create the spin that the Pentagon wants to put on issues, that's all. Come on, now!

[rayofreason]

98. I don't know about the Fox News report...

...didn't see it.

But I did read the story in the Times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2269750,00.html

And I also read some background on Hizbullah's rocket forces

http://www.meib.org/articles/0211_l2.htm

[IndianaGreen]

150. The Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch who also owns Faux News

so all you are doing is repeating neocon rightwing propaganda.

[rayofreason]

172. Ignore what you like...

...but you cannot ignore geography. Haifa is out of range of katushyas, but it was hit. Wikipedia is already calling it a Fajr-5.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%27s_Missile_Forces

This would represent a huge escalation by Iran via Hizbullah. Stick to shibboleths if you like, but you might first look up the etymology of the word to appreciate the irony.

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rayofreason]

142. Do you mean...

...that I support Israel against the likes of Hamas and Hizbullah? Am I against the wholesale slaughter of the Jews and the destruction of Israel?

Yep.

I always find it amazing that people who claim to be progressive take the side of jew-hating, gay-smashing, women-oppressing Jihadis who view Israelis living in pre-1967 Israel as "the occupation" that they want to end and are wholeheartedly against the most open, democratic society in the region.

[Tarc]

146. "False Analogy"

Look it up, and try again.

[rayofreason]

147. I do not understand your post.

Care to explain?

[hatrack]

73. So, if an Iraqi guerilla shot a US soldier using a Chinese AK-47 . . .

China would have just started a war with the US?

Such compelling logic!

:eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

75. It's Faux News logic!

I'll bet Rush Limbaugh will use the same logic on his radio show tomorrow!

[rayofreason]

76. If China...

...had soldiers/advisors stationed in Iraq, operating in concert with Iraqi guerillas, and the Chinese guy did the shooting - then yes. Iran has precipitated this escalation and it may push even further, hoping for an all-out war.

Here is some background -

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2269750,00.html

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/738318.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/13/AR2006071301743.html?nav=rss_print/asection

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/07/02/INGIJJM87B1.DTL

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/12/news/beirut.php

http://www.israelinsider.com/channels/security/articles/sec_0056.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iran/qods.htm

[Tempest]

121. Why are you so determined to drag Iran into the crisis?

You're making huge leaps of logic that seem to have no reasoning attached to them.

By your logic and reasoning, the U.S. is responsible for Israel's attacks on Lebanon and the West Bank.

You can't have it both ways, despite all your attempts not to.

[rayofreason]

141. I am not dragging Iran into this...

...they are doing it themselves.

You know that for some time now Iran has been blustering about Israel, with Ahmadinejad questioning the reality of the Holocaust, saying that isreal should be wiped out, etc. (He also believes that a miracle happened when he sopke to the UN - that a blue heavenly light filled the room and the people were transfixed). Iran has been supplying Hizbullah with weapons since the beginning, but to give them long-range missiles and let them fire them at Israel (or help out) is a huge escalation. You, I am certain, have seen the reports that a rocket hit central Haifa. The Katushya rockets (that you can buy anywhere) that Hizbullah has been launching at northern Israel only have a range of 20 km - to hit Haifa they would need the bigger, theater-range ballistic missiles. Those could only be supplied by Iran, and might well have been operated by Iranian "advisors".

http://www.meib.org/articles/0211_l2.htm

Fortunately, other governments and parties in the area recognize that nothing is to be gained by an all-out MidEast war. That is why the the Lebanese, and even the Saudis, are blaming Hizbullah for the current crisis.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885990970&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885994626&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

This kind of situation makes it even more imperative that "12th Imam" Ahmadinejad does not get his hands on a nuke.

[Tempest]

116. By your logic, Israel started the war

When they bombed Lebanon with AMERICAN made and supplied jets.

[rayofreason]

143. If Hizbullah had not...

...atacked Israel and kidnapped two soldiers, would Israel have bombed Lebanon this week? It seems that the Lebanese themselves know who is to blame -

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885990970&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Even the Saudis have chimed in -

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885994626&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rayofreason]

169. It seems to me..

...that you think that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians, which is what Al Qaeda does. I disagree. Israel does not specifically target civilians for mass killing, though they are far less squeemish than many of us might like when it comes to hitting an enemy target (such as a Hamas or Hizbullah leader) even if innocents might be killed. You may see no difference, but I do. If either had the perfect weapon, for Al Qaeda it would be one that causes the maximum civilian deaths, but for Israel it would be the one that causes the minimum civilian deaths while achieving the aim of the strike. One can learn a lot from considering the limiting case.

Your comment, in any case, does not address the fact that Lebanese anger seems to be directed at Hizbullah, not Israel, for precipitating this mess. I consider it a hopefull sign that players in the region understand who is behind the desire for violence. Only when you understand the real source of a problem can you develop a strategy for resolving it.

[tedzbear]

78. Iran only has to stop selling its oil and natural gas.

...in the name of national security. That will result in $4.50 gal. gas for us here. If it does get military, it can close down the Persian Gulf to shipping. That means $9.00 a gal gas for us. And Good-by Dubai's economy!

[Dark]

81. You are right about them shutting down the oil flow, but wrong about the

Persian gulf blocking by Iran.

The U.S.'s navy would have no problem keeping the persian gulf open.

[Tempest]

117. You're wrong

Read up on the Pentagon's scenerio on how easily Iran could close the Straits of Hormuz.

All Iran has to do is send a couple of small suicide boats into oil tankers at the mouth of the straits, crippling them and shutting down the waterway.

According to the Pentagon, the U.S. wouldn't be able to prevent it from happening. The Pentagon also claims Iran has up to 500 advanced speedboats ready for those suicide missions.

[MGD]

82. Iran is pretty dependent on oil revenues

They would be hurt just as much, if not more than US by the loss of that revenue. What's more, they would have no chance of shutting down the Persian Gulf.

[Zynx]

103. Yeah, they would pretty much go bankrupt.

Considering all the other stuff they have to import to stay afloat, the West could put a massive trade embargo on them and make them fall to their knees.

[Tempest]

122. This is of course assuming Russia and China would go along with it

And as we've seen, the chances of that are nil.

[Tempest]

119. Iran is also sitting on hundreds of billions of oil revenues

Iran also has the full support of Russia and China.

Iran would suffer a lot less than most of the rest of the world.

The U.S. would suffer the most.

[hadrons]

100. no, Iran just has to CUT production, not stop it .....

a cut will increase prices at the same time the higher price for oil will off-set Iran's loss of revenue

[allemand]

89. Finland's FM: Syria could get involved in Lebanon

Finland's Foreign Minister expressed concern on Friday that Syria was likely to join the fray between the IDF and Hizbullah forces in Lebanon.

"The situation is extremely bad, and it is likely to get worse," said the Finnish Foreign Minister. "The battle is likely to spread and include Syria. It is advisable to avoid this kind of situation, since the consequences could get out of control."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885997833&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

:(

[allemand]

99. Syrian diplomat: Damascus told Hezbollah to stop firing rockets at Israel

16:49 Syrian diplomat: Damascus told Hezbollah to stop firing rockets at Israel (Reuters)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/ShTickers.html

[Boojatta]

124. "would be considered an attack on the whole Islamic world"

Since when does the government of Iran speak for the whole Islamic world?

[Tempest]

131. You're making an unsupported conclusion

"If the Zionist regime commits another stupid move and attacks Syria, this will be considered like attacking the whole Islamic world and this regime will receive a very fierce response," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying in a telephone conversation with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.


No where does Ahmadinejad claim to be speaking for the all Islamic nations. It appears he is making a personal statement.


On edit:

"considered like" and phrases such as this indicate a personal opinion.

[rman]

136. "...on June 24 Israel abducted two Gaza civilians..."

(just in case there's confusion about who started what)


Noam Chomsky on Democracy Now:

"Gaza, itself, the latest phase, began on June 24. It was when Israel abducted two Gaza civilians, a doctor and his brother. We don't know their names. You don’t know the names of victims. They were taken to Israel, presumably, and nobody knows their fate. The next day, something happened, which we do know about, a lot. Militants in Gaza, probably Islamic Jihad, abducted an Israeli soldier across the border. That’s Corporal Gilad Shalit. And that's well known; first abduction is not. Then followed the escalation of Israeli attacks on Gaza, which I don’t have to repeat. It’s reported on adequately."

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/14/146258

[Tight_rope]

138. Thank you for clearing up the fact that Israel as usual started it!

[MGD]

152. Israel pulled out of Gaza and Hezbullah repaid them with rocket attacks

Israel did not start this; furthermore, there has not been a lasting period of peace between the descendents of Ishmael and the descendents of Issac in the last thousand years. This is nothing new. You might as well be blaming Abraham or Moses.

[rman]

164. so, 1948 has nothing to do with this?

[Nevernose]

183. How do we know that?

When? Where? Who? How? Why?

Nobody knew their names? How do they know it was a doctor, then?

What if they weren't abducted at all, but arrested for crimes against israel? What if they were Hamas members -- not the sort who win elections, but the sort who bomb cafes? What if they were wanted in connection to a crime committed in Israel?

What DU and Noam and so many people here forget: the war didn't start with Israel, or the creation of a state in the post-War years, or the Balfour Doctrine, or anytime ever recorded. It didn't even begin with Isaac and Ishmael.

It began when Cain killed Abel, when Man first discovered how to kill Man. WHen we first learned how to be jealous and afraid.

Lots of blame to go around, and no solutions. Just everybody blaming one side or the other. Some of it has legitimate merit. Most of it doesn't. Mostly just a lot of people who are scared of saying "I was wrong."

A guy on NPR a fwe weeks ago said, "The tragedy lies in the fact that both sides are right, while both sides are wrong. Thet's why it's a tragedy and not just a war."

[rman]

193. The conflict between Russian Jews and Semitic Muslims

in that region started with the creation of Israel.
Isaac, Ishmael, Cain and Abel are the stuff of myth and legend, and certainly have nothing to do with occupation of the region by non-semitic jews.

[Nevernose]

218. The Cain and Abel refrence was metaphorical and allusional

It really all started when one group of neandrathals looked at a second group of neandrathals and said, "our cave paintings are better than your." If you put two different groups of people together, no matter how similar, history shows us that they will fight.

If there is a god and he did create us, I seriously doubt that he want us killing each other over who gets the best piece of crappy swamp land in the middle of an even crappier desert.

It's interesting that you pointed out the difference between Russin and Semitic. The Russian Jews arriving in the 1800's obviously spoke Russian, but it was my understanding that they had moved to using Hebrew as a primary language (I may be totally wrong about this, but that's what I was given to understand). I wonder if the two peoples, both speaking semitic languages, have any inherent cognitive similarities based upon their language?

[killbotfactory]

186. This is a very good interview

NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah. Well, he's correct that hundreds of rockets have been fired, and naturally that has to be stopped. But he didn't mention, or maybe at least in this comment, that the rockets were fired after the heavy Israeli attacks against Lebanon, which killed -- well, latest reports, maybe 60 or so people and destroyed a lot of infrastructure. As always, things have precedence, and you have to decide which was the inciting event. In my view, the inciting event in the present case, events, are those that I mentioned -- the constant intense repression; plenty of abductions; plenty of atrocities in Gaza; the steady takeover of the West Bank, which, in effect, if it continues, is just the murder of a nation, the end of Palestine; the abduction on June 24 of the two Gaza civilians; and then the reaction to the abduction of Corporal Shalit. And there's a difference, incidentally, between abduction of civilians and abduction of soldiers. Even international humanitarian law makes that distinction.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about what that distinction is?

NOAM CHOMSKY: If there's a conflict going on, aside physical war, not in a military conflict going on, abduction -- if soldiers are captured, they are to be treated humanely. But it is not a crime at the level of capture of civilians and bringing them across the border into your own country. That's a serious crime. And that's the one that's not reported. And, in fact, remember that -- I mean, I don’t have to tell you that there are constant attacks going on in Gaza, which is basically a prison, huge prison, under constant attack all the time: economic strangulation, military attack, assassinations, and so on. In comparison with that, abduction of a soldier, whatever one thinks about it, doesn't rank high in the scale of atrocities.

[newspeak]

137. war is not a fekkin football game!!!

It is not to be taken lightly, with a shrug of the shoulders and a statement made "well, that's war" when the innocent are murdered. Such arrogance, to think a certain faction thinks it will initiate an Armageddon scenario--it is man's will, not the creator's. The match has lit the fuse when * publicly announced the axis of evil. Thus, shoving their "reality" down all of our throats. Iran, before that time, was becoming more moderate (most of the younger Iranians embraced Western culture), but he had to state publicly they were enemies; and after Iran saw the aggression, basically against a defenseless country (due to our embargo and the devastation from the first gulf war), they elected a hard core. Any surprises? Some mention these countries as "terrorist" countries, yet do not know of our own government's black ops terror actions. Look at central america? The death squads, how about the La Pinca bombing? Anyone hear about that? The utter arrogance and the lack of empathy for the millions of deaths that would occur if all out war broke out in the middle east, is absolutely appalling. Our government has helped install ruthless dictators and aided them afterwards--Pinochet, Saddam, Noriega--and, after supporting them-if they don't tow the line or the people rise up against them, then they point to said corrupt leader and state that "here's our enemy." "We have always been to war with Eastasia." This administration's foreign policy has ignited the fuse-they know nothing about diplomacy and know less about the horrors of war!!!!! And, maybe some of us should question why Israel deems it necessary to spy on their great ally, the US. For there have been several stories on DU about Israeli spies being caught, especially after 9/11. Some may also want to read about the creation of Israel, the zionists and terrorist activities at that time. Nothing is black and white!!!

[nguoihue]

168. war is not a football game

Thanks for that post newspeak. Good to see a bit of common sense and rationality in this thread.

[killbotfactory]

185. Thank you

I agree completely.

[Renew Deal]

153. I'd prefer if Israel shoved a few missles up his ass.

Than us doing it.

[greccogirl]

158. I believe that Iran

Has finally lost their minds completely. They are making some serious errors here.

[New Government]

192. Russia/China would not get involved - period.

The poster who insists Russia and China would nuke the USA - for Iran or North Korea is not thinking realistically. Russia and China would in NO WAY attack the United States - probably no matter what happens anywhere on the globe - less an invasion of their own sovereign territory. People, remember, horrible Iraq occupation or not, the United States has the ability to completely destroy Russia and China within 30-minutes, and a missile defense system that is far more advanced than anyone thought (capable enough to possibly stop ALL Chinese missiles according to some sources). Any Russian-Chinese response would be diplomatic. They know that any attack on US territory would mean obliteration. As another poster above said - this is stated US policy. There would be no discussion. By the way, this ability has kept the planet safe from a nuclear holocaust for 50 years. MAD has served its purpose. Without the knowledge that any nuclear attack would mean nuclear suicide is a (to put it mildly) highly motivating factor in not playing the nuke card - for all parties. But the poster above who thinks Russia and China would nuke the United States has no grasp of history, MAD and the overwhelming power of the United States on the military stage. The occupation of Iraq is a disaster (we can all see that), but the "war" for Iraq in 2003 WAS a cake-walk --- embarrassingly so. As much as I hate war, and US hegemony around the world, we must not forget that US military might is what keeps the peace from a nuclear holocaust. Without that might - it would have all been over decades ago. Mutual Assured Destruction didn't end with the fall of the Soviet Union. Re-targeting of Russian missiles that were pointed elsewhere during Yeltsin's presidency would take all of five to ten minutes to once again threaten New York, San Francisco, and Washington DC. MAD is alive and well....and, as sad as the consquences would be, I'm rational enough to know it has worked.

[AnOhioan]

213. Are you serious????

The oh-so-accurate missle defense system???? Let me clue you in. It won't work. Plain and simple. It was built to allow for corporate profits. Russia knows that, China knows that, we know that.

Now onto the concept of MAD.

It worked....barely. How many instances of computer and/or human error almost resulted in a full exchange of nuclear warheads? It happened more times than I am comfortable with.

China/Russia would most likely not launch nukes at us first, that much I agree with. But if we were to nuke NK or Iran (somehting the chimp is entirely stupid enough to do), all bets would be off. At that point MAD be damned. And we can kiss our asses goodbye.

[Moderator]

194. kick

[democratic]

195. Iran's Ahmadinejad compares Israel to Hitler

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/OLI567261.htm

TEHRAN, July 15 (Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Saturday compared the behaviour of Israel in launching an offensive against Lebanon to that of Nazi Germany.

Ahmadinejad has already received a stern rebuke from the U.N. Security Council for labelling the Holocaust, in which six million Jews died, a myth.

Iran is a traditional supporter of Hizbollah. An Israeli military source said on Saturday an Iranian-made C802 radar-guided land-to-sea missile with a range of 60 miles (95 km) hit and badly damaged an Israeli ship.

[wordpix2]

196. this guy is a menace to that part of the world

[thinkingwoman]

199. you could have stopped after menace.

This guy is a menace. Yup, that covers it.

[bbinacan]

197. The world is full of

nuts.

[charlie and algernon]

198. With Syria in the war now, how long till Iran enters?

World War fucking III

:cry:

[eablair3]

200. How many people has Israel kidnapped and holding in prison w/o trial?

well, there is a confinement or concetration of thousands in prisons/detention camps in Israel (not to mention the fenced in areas of Gaza and the West Bank).

I can't remember the number of political prisoners Israel is indefinitely detaining for many many yearw now -- 10,000 to 12,000 -- or 43,000? I've heard conflicting numbers. (At least there aren't mass executions that anyone knows of, yet)

Of course, the Israeli incursions into the West Bank have never been referred to as "kidnappings."

And, if everyone is so concerned about the prisoner rights and trials of "detainees" at Guantanamo, what about these thousands of political prisoners that Israel has jailed indefinitely without trial? Apparently, there are very few trials (and likely no fair trials) at all where Israel has to come up with actual substantive evidence to support its assertions of "terrorism."

[bullimiami]

201. is there sane leadership anywhere in the middle east?

these guys are "bush" league.

[Master Mahon]

203. I really don't think that Ahmadinejad

is as bad as the MSM makes him out to be.
They continually take his words out of context to suit their own,
pro-Israel, needs.
He's a Rhodes Scholar compared to the Moron Bush (and family)

[BillZBubb]

202. Keep catapulting that propaganda!

Iran is bad, we'd better attack them now, right?

[MGD]

204. Give me an effin break

Anybody who thinks there's any equivalency between Nazi Germany and modern Israel seriously needs to watch the History channel. Where are the Israeli death camps? Where are the effing incinerators? Where are the Israeli Dr.'s determining who is "fit to live". Where is the medical experimentation on helpless Lebanese? Ahmedinejhad is just a GD a-hole that likes to run his mouth.

[JHH]

206. Where are the Polish ghettos? oh in the Gaza strip.

Where are the prisoner camps oh they are now called refuge camps.....
Never again Never again (unless Israeli's do it to some one else)

[MGD]

207. You need to watch more History channel too I think

There is no comparison. period.

[JHH]

208. I do watch the History Channel and the Movies about the Polish Ghettos

How many homes has Israel destroyed? How many woman and children have died do to bombs and air raids? How much property has Israel stolen?

[MGD]

209. I don't know

you tell me, provide a link or two and we'll make a comparison then. Until then, I think it's nonsense to make the comparison. Nazi Germany killed ~6,000,000 Jews in an organized systematic campaign of bloodthirsty murder. Israel doesn't even come close to matching that evil.

[JHH]

212. Do not forget the 6,000,000 Russians

Before the death camps the Nazi walled in parts of Krakow Poland and made ghettos to hold the Jews and cut them off from their livelihood and supplies. Is there that much difference from how the Palestinians have been treated. When the Jews held a uprising they were resisting an occupier but when the Palestinians respond to an occupation they are called terrorists

[daleo]

205. Well, Hitler did invade a neighboring country after a border incident

In that sense, he has a point.

But he could have chosen some less provocative example from history, as stretching the analogy past that point would be incorrect. In the case of Hitler, that incident was almost certainly a fake, whereas I doubt that is the case now. Hitler used the incident as a pretext for a much wider war. I think what Israel is doing is more along the lines of the "punitive expedition" favored by the British Empire now and again.

The link didn't work for me.

[JHH]

210. I hope you are right & this is not a "pretext for a much wider war"

such as a war on Iran and Syria

[daleo]

211. I hope so too

But the situation could get out of hand easily enough.

I also wonder if there isn't some internal Israeli politics driving this. After all, Olmert is relatively new (Sharon's stroke was only a few months ago). He may be "showing how tough he can be", to establish his warrior cred, so to speak. Once that is done he can fashion a withdrawal, maybe establishing some "peace-maker cred" at the same time. I have read that the military is having an easier time influencing him that they have with past prime ministers.

[Name removed]

214. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.