Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditYesterday evening, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spent a couple of hours taking questions from representatives of the American peace movement. He appeared in a ballroom at New York's Grand Hyatt hotel, at an event facilitated by the Fellowship of Reconciliation.
The questions to Ahmadinjead weren't softballs: What about Iran's crackdown on human rights and dissidents? Iranian policy toward Israel? Treatment of women? Iran's foot-dragging on issuing visas even to peace movement representatives? And, of course, the big issues: What about a Grand Bargain with the United States? And will Iran accept a compromise on its nuclear fuel enrichment program?
The answers were, well, less illuminating than the questions.
In his preliminary speech, Ahmadinejad adopted the role of gentle, lecturing professor. Dressed in a gray jacket and off-white shirt with an open collar, wearing glasses and sporting his trademark, unshaven look, the Iranian president also drifted from professor-like to cleric-like.
The solution to the world's problems, including war, is religion, he said. Sounding not unlike Rev. Pat Robertson, Ahmadinejad said: "When religious values are removed from society, there is no hindrance for war. We must promote morality, ethics, and religious values." In case anyone was wondering what he meant by "religious values," the fundamentalist Shia politician said explicitly that he is talking about a return to the prophets. "We have to go back to the methods of the divine prophets," he declared, who were "sent by God to guide people." He expressed regret that for the past several decades many people have implied that adherence to fundamentalist religious beliefs is "equivalent to backwardness."
In response to the questions, Ahmadinejad happily endorsed America's invasion of Iraq. "Finally, [US leaders] were able to make a good decision for once," he said, referring to the 2003 war. But now, he said, America has overstayed its welcome, in an effort to dominate the Persian Gulf and secure access to oil. Having eliminated Iran's enemy, Saddam Hussein, it's time for the United States to get out. "We have friendly ties with both the government and the people of Iraq," he declared. "The best help the United States can provide to people in the region is to withdraw troops from the region. Leave the region alone!"
Joe Volk of Friends Committee on National Legislation asked Ahmadinejad about the 2003 back-channel offer from then-President Khatami's government to the United States to settle all outstanding issues in US-Iran relations in a Grand Bargain that would cover nukes, Israel, Iraq, terrorism, etc. In response, Ahmadinejad said that the main problem was that there was no response from the United States. "When the back channel became front channel, everything went awry," he said. Rather than comment further on Khatami's offer, he talked about his letter to George W. Bush, a rambling, religion-infused epistle that he called "an historical opportunity." It wasn't -- but Khatami's was. "There's no need to go back channel," said Ahmadinejad yesterday.
"We're ready to have positive dialogue" with the United States, he said, suggesting indirectly that he'd be receptive to Barack Obama's offer of diplomacy. But he seemed overconfident in regard to America's military threat to Iran: "The American government is no longer able to start another war for decades to come. This is good news for the rest of the world, believe me!" True enough, America is overstretched in its two ongoing wars, but his belief that Iran is therefore safe from a US attack seemed dangerously misguided to me. During my visit to Iran in March, many Iranian officials seemed to underestimate the potential for the United States, with its $600 billion Pentagon budget and vast Persian Gulf firepower, to strike Iran's nuclear facilities.
Perhaps Ahmadinejad's worst moments came in relation to human and women's rights. Everything is fine, he said. Repression of dissidents and youth. "It is not the case in Iran," he lied. "Young people are very active politically." (Astonishingly, as evidence of young people's involvement in politics, he cited the recruitment of Iranian young people to the paramilitary Basij militia. In 60,000 mosques acorss the country, he said, young men are attaching themselves to the Basij, which is an adjunct force to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. In all, ten million have signed up, he said, though most estimates say that the Basij is about one million strong.)
On women, the Iranian president waxed poetic about the precious beauty of women, in a rambling, stream-of-consciousness description of what he said is the growing role of women in society. It's gone so far, he said, "To tell you the truth, women are about to replace myself." (As unlikely as it is for a woman to become president of Iran, real power rests with the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and a woman cannot become an ayatollah or, therefore, the Supreme Leader.) "In Iran, the way women are looked at is different than here. They enjoy more respect at all levels, and they work less .. A lot of times, we don't want women to do hard work. Cab drivers! I don't really like it for women. It's a tough job, really. ... Women are the reflection of sublime beauty. Women are the reflection of all that is beautiful in society."
He didn't give any hint of a diplomatic opening on the nuclear issue. He ridiculed the United States, the UK, France and Canada for cooperating with the pre-1979 regime of the Shah on nuclear technology, and he got off a zinger: "When there were no elections in Iran, they wanted us to be a nuclear power. As soon as there were elections, they didn't want us to be a nuclear power." He specifically said that Iran is opposed to nuclear weapons, adding: "The time for nuclear weapons has come to an end. Those who want to build a new generation of nuclear bombs are politically backward, period!" Of course, the idea that Iran would risk world isolation, sanctions, UN Security Council actions, and the threat of war in order to have a peaceful nuclear energy program seems quite ludicrous to me. Clearly, Ahmadinejad is one of those "politically backward" ones. He refused to say that Iran would welcome a deal of the sort proposed by Thomas Pickering, for international guarantees for a nuclear enrichment program for Iran. Overall, no daylight there.
RSS
The man isn't "Hitler just moments away from unleashing nuclear devastation upon Israel" as our "Bomb da bastards" Right says....
but he IS merely the Iranian version of "Dubya". (Maybe SLIGHTLY more popular, but not much, in Iran)
Smarter foreign policy would isolate him from his own people....not make him a HERO or atleast helped to prop him up and give him a boogeyman to rail against, as the last 7 years have done.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/25/2008 @ 10:27am
Oh, Good, now we got 'em all in the same room. Where's a Predator when ya need one?
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/25/2008 @ 10:30am
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/25/2008 @ 10:30am
I believe if you remember your "Predator" series, they only attack those who were armed.
'member? Arnie tells the Latina woman to not pick up the gun!
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/25/2008 @ 10:38am
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/25/2008
afraid to kill them with your bare hands, tough guy?
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2008 @ 10:39am
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/25/2008 @ 10:30am
As long as cretins like yourself form a high profile sector of the voting public, diplomacy is doomed from the start.
Posted by Sorelish at 09/25/2008 @ 10:59am
Just you wait 'til Obama gives him a good talkin' to!
He'll show Ahmadinejad who's boss.
Posted by bleedingheart at 09/25/2008 @ 11:00am
He'll show Ahmadinejad who's boss.
Posted by bleedingheart at 09/25/2008
oh, ahmadinejad knows who's boss but you don't.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2008 @ 11:12am
No Frost, I'm not, but missles are so much more...thorough
Don't you think ;)
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/25/2008 @ 11:14am
no chip,
thou shalt not kill and all that stuff.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2008 @ 11:26am
Neither the Americans nor the Israelis are going to make any overt military attack on Iran, at least through the end of W. Bush's term.
The U.S. is wrestling with enormous domestic economic problems now along with low-level wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Americans are not going to provoke hostilities with a well fed, well rested and well armed Iran and its 70 million people in addition to all that.
The Americans are not going to permit Israel to launch a strike either. The Americans know they'd have to finish the job. The Israelis have the capability to start a fight with Iran but not the capability to finish it.
Hypothetically, just how would Israeli aircraft arrive over Iran anyway?
1.) Iran via Jordan and Iraq?
Nope.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari has already stated to the Americans that Iraqi airspace is off limits to Israeli aircraft. Ref:
Iraqi airspace 'must not be used in strike'
http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10228683.html
2.) Iran via Syria and or Turkey?
Highly doubtful. Neither country would give permission and both countries have air defense capabilities. The distance from Israeli airbases to Isfahan is well over 1500 kilometres each way if flying that route and that is the maximum combat radius for the Israeli F-15I. A capability for aerial refueling would be required and the Israelis are weak in that area, especially for a mission involving large numbers of aircraft.
3.) Iran via Jordan and Saudi Arabia?
Highly doubtful again. It's extremely unlikely Saudi Arabia would give permission for the israelis to fly over their country.
4.) Iran via the Red Sea and around the Arabian Peninsula?
Out of the question. Too long a flight and overly complex. Multiple refuelings would be required.
Posted by Dragutin_Dimitrijevic at 09/25/2008 @ 11:41am
Posted by Dragutin_Dimitrijevic at 09/25/2008 @ 11:41am
Exactly!
Israel is hamstrung by airspace restrictions and poses no real threat to Iran conventionally.
No, hostilities would be by us, launched from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and naval groups.
Posted by Benchrest at 09/25/2008 @ 11:55am
My bad frosty...
Obama will show Ahmadinejad who's that mack daddy.
Posted by bleedingheart at 09/25/2008 @ 12:07pm
that = the
Posted by bleedingheart at 09/25/2008 @ 12:08pm
bonk!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2008 @ 12:19pm
What the heck is "off-shite"? I couldn't find out by Googling.
Posted by Bill Samuel at 09/25/2008 @ 12:59pm
Posted by Benchrest at 09/25/2008 @ 11:55am
But it allows neo-cons to SOUND tough to "hint" at it, doesn't it?
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/25/2008 @ 1:10pm
Chicago Tribune 24 September, 2004 -- David Mendell, Tribune staff reporter
'U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.
Obama, a Democratic state senator from the Hyde Park neighborhood, made the remarks during a meeting Friday with the Tribune editorial board. ...
Iran announced on Tuesday that it has begun converting tons of uranium into gas, a crucial step in making fuel for a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency has called for Iran to suspend all such activities. ...
"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. … And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point."
As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses. ...'
Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/25/2008 @ 1:49pm
Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/25/2008 @ 1:49pm
Well, it's a good thing that Iran has NO nukes (OUR NIE said that, by the way) and Musharraf WASN'T replaced by a coup.
So Obama was right. BTW, happy to hear you quote all the Pentagon chiefs who support us attacking Iran right now....and I'll quote all the neo-cons who love to HINT that we should.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/25/2008 @ 2:33pm
Well, it's a good thing that Iran has NO nukes (OUR NIE said that, by the way) and Musharraf WASN'T replaced by a coup.
So Obama was right. BTW, happy to hear you quote all the Pentagon chiefs who support us attacking Iran right now....and I'll quote all the neo-cons who love to HINT that we should.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/25/2008 @ 2:33pm
Once again our NIE was incorrect as new information shows.
Europe says Iran close to nuclear arms capacity
Updated Wed. Sep. 24 2008 1:14 PM ET The Associated Press
VIENNA, Austria -- Iran is nearing the ability to arm a nuclear warhead even if it insists its atomic activities are peaceful, the European Union warned Wednesday.
In comments prepared for delivery to the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35 board members, the EU also asserted that Iran appeared to have had a past nuclear arms program despite its denials.
http://tinyurl.com/4szswr
IAEA info suggests Iran worked on nuclear missile
Updated Tue. Sep. 16 2008 12:31 PM ET The Associated Press
VIENNA, Austria -- The U.N. nuclear agency has presented intelligence allegedly showing plans to redesign an Iranian missile to accommodate a nuclear payload.
The International Atomic Energy Agency shared the intelligence with 35 nations on Tuesday...
The two spoke separately to reporters after the presentation by the IAEA, one day after the U.N. nuclear watchdog issued a report saying that Iran has stonewalled its attempts to probe allegations that it drew up plans and conducted experiments for a nuclear arms program.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/25/2008 @ 3:03pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/25/2008 @ 3:03pm
THE U.S. HAS 17,67554,543,6546,45453,535 NUCLEAR WEAPONS!
THE U.S. HAS 34,5,666,7,87,8,8,999,45 TONS OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS!
THE U.S. HAS 45,3,4,4,5656656,466 DIFFERENT TYPES OF SPORES AND VIRUSES AT THE READY!
por favor.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2008 @ 3:27pm
por favor.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2008 @ 3:27pm |
Tim Robbins(POTUS): "I've got nukes out the ying yang! Lemme launch just one!"
Chief of Staff: "Sir!!! Are you suggesting we blow up the moon?!"
Tim Robbins: "Would ya miss it?! I mean, really, would you?"
Posted by Benchrest at 09/25/2008 @ 3:44pm
the moon?!"
Posted by Benchrest at 09/25/2008 @ 3:44pm
hopefully the tides of stupidity are turning.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2008 @ 3:53pm
Ahmadinejad
iran's answer to sarah palin.
hey, let's see those two debate....
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2008 @ 3:56pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/25/2008 @ 3:03pm
Yes, LL, we all know that on SOME things you trust America...on others you trust Israeli Intell.....depending on which props up your world view.
BTW, I notice you didn't cite all those Pentagon chiefs who think attacking Iran is a good idea????
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/25/2008 @ 4:51pm
Yes, LL, we all know that on SOME things you trust America...on others you trust Israeli Intell.....depending on which props up your world view.
BTW, I notice you didn't cite all those Pentagon chiefs who think attacking Iran is a good idea????
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/25/2008 @ 4:51pm
In this case you have the EU, the IAEA in agreement with Israeli intelligence.
And nowhere in my post did I say that meant attacking Iran.
I am pointing out that Iran and N Korea have both been active again in pushing forward their nuclear weapons programs.
That should be a concern to any thinking person. But evidently it doesn't bother you that even ElBaradei is concerned.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/25/2008 @ 7:20pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/25/2008 @ 7:20pm
LL, it's talking about their MISSILE capacity....not their nuclear weapons capacity.
As an old bomb maker, surely you know the difference between "the plane" and "the bomb", yes???
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/25/2008 @ 8:22pm
I found it interesting - the commentary about Israeli capability to strike at Iran. (with regard to stopping Iran's ability to make a nuclear weapon)
The thing is, Israel is NOT going to allow Iran to produce even one nuclear weapon. The survival of Israel is at stake and Israel is NOT going to allow Iran to produce a nuclear weapon.
Theories in the blogs above say it would be difficult for Israel to launch a strike.
The Israelis will find a way. Remember Entebbe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Operation_Entebbe
Operation Entebbe, also known as the Entebbe Raid or Operation Thunderbolt, was a counter-terrorism hostage-rescue mission carried out by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) at Entebbe Airport in Uganda on the night of July 3 and early morning of July 4, 1976. In the wake of the hijacking of Air France Flight 139 and the hijackers' threats to kill the hostages if their prisoner release demands were not met, a plan was drawn up to airlift the hostages to safety. These plans took into account the likelihood of armed resistance from Ugandan military troops.
Originally codenamed Operation Thunderbolt (or Operation Thunderball) by the IDF, the operation was retroactively renamed Operation Yonatan in memory of the Sayeret Matkal commander Lieutenant Colonel Yonatan "Yoni" Netanyahu who was killed in action. Three hostages were killed and five Israeli commandos were wounded. A fourth hostage was killed by Ugandan army officers at a nearby hospital.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/25/2008 @ 8:37pm
Posted by sjchermak at 09/25/2008 @ 8:37pm
A Special Forces Operation is a limited, covert, quick strike engagement.
While your example is true, it is not even in the same universe as what would be required for Israel to stop Iran's uranium refinement.
Israel cannot. It is not logistically possible, conventionally.
Period.
It would have to be us, hopefully with a multinational force.
In any case, Israel would have to sit it out, or we would be hamstrung by airspace restrictions.
Posted by Benchrest at 09/25/2008 @ 9:00pm
Bench, duh...again, don't confuse SJCHER with facts, not even ones of military logistics....
he "feels it in his gut" that Israel can do it anyway!
IDF ruled by "truthiness"!
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/25/2008 @ 10:43pm
Bench, duh...
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/25/2008 @ 10:43pm
I'm starting to get the picture.
Either that, or he does not consider me relevant.
All that stuff I learned from reading comic books, wasted. Oh well.
Posted by Benchrest at 09/25/2008 @ 11:46pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/25/2008 @ 10:38am
Chip was speaking of the drone, not the movie. I wonder if he understands that this joke is that basis for 9/11 - and about as funny.
Posted by Dragutin_Dimitrijevic at 09/25/2008 @ 11:41am
As much as I'm sympathetic to your perspective, Israel could very well go through Jordan and Iraq. Iraqis can say whatever they want, but Americans run the show there.
Talking about Israel is silly though, if an attack is considered, we'll do it. Israel is the attack dog for the Med. only.
Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/25/2008 @ 1:49pm
You have a point, but I can't fathom what it is.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/25/2008 @ 3:03pm
Perhaps you should read the document. A key comment:
"As indicated in the Director General's previous report, the Agency currently has no information -- apart from the uranium metal document -- on the actual design or manufacture by Iran of nuclear material components of a nuclear weapon or of certain other key components, such as initiators, or on related nuclear physics studies (GOV/2008/15, para. 24). Nor has the Agency detected the actual use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies."
As I am sure you are aware, putting the key components together to make a nuclear weapon isn't a trivial task, and having enough material to make a weapon is different than having the ability to make one.
Analogy: I might be able to go down to my local Ace Hardware and buy all the material to put together a house. It doesn't mean I'm capable of doing it.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/ Documents/Board/2008/gov2008-38.pdf
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2008 @ 11:57pm
"Iraqis can say whatever they want, but Americans run the show there."
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2008 @ 11:57pm
Which is PRECISELY why Israel cannot violate Iraqi air space.
Friend or foe, good intentions or bad, in a theater of war, US air space cannot be violated.
If permission for flight plans has been denied by theater commanders, our AWACS would pick up their planes leaving their bases, and as hard as it likely is for you to believe, that would be that.
Israel knows this hard reality and would never attempt it anyway, for mainly political reasons, rather than military ones.
Posted by Benchrest at 09/26/2008 @ 12:20am
this is all illogical.
if the evil islamofarsis were to nuke israel,
they'd kill thousands or millions of muslims, too.
what, they're gonna bomb the masjid qubbat as-sakhrah?
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/torgugick/DomeOftheRock/dome10.jpg
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/26/2008 @ 02:24am
Benchrest,
You put down what are your opinions about military logistics, but as is always the case on this website, they morph into irrefutable fact that no one should or can question, nor should any one offer a different opinion.
I see. I know that is how it works on this website.
However, you said you learned things reading comic books. I know this is not true, because if you and others such as Maskdelta read comic books you would have different opinions about things.
This is because what is in comic books makes more sense than a lot of the leftist B.S. on this website.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/26/2008 @ 06:53am
Posted by Benchrest at 09/26/2008 @ 12:20am
Nonsense. In this hypothetical scenario, the Israelis would be making this move with the U.S.'s blessing, just as with Lebanon and elsewhere.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/26/2008 @ 07:12am
"...nor should any one offer a different opinion."
Posted by sjchermak at 09/26/2008 @ 06:53am
On the contrary. I would more than welcome your opinion on just how Israel could pull off such a miracle.
Conventional though, not nuclear.
Posted by Benchrest at 09/26/2008 @ 08:00am
If only The Nation could put in the functionality where I could not only ignore sjchermak - put ignore any comment in response to his "opinions".
Posted by srjenkins at 09/26/2008 @ 08:12am
Nonsense. In this hypothetical scenario, the Israelis would be making this move with the U.S.'s blessing, just as with Lebanon and elsewhere.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/26/2008 @ 07:12am
Nonsense?
In the Lebanon engagement, the Israelis were mainly using rocket assisted artillery to achieve adequate range to keep their sorties to an absolute minimum.
When Iraq was dropping Scud missles on them with regularity, how many strikes did Israel carry out? And why none?
Israel would never be allowed to fly through Iraq's airspace for direct combat missions by the US. It would be political suicide in that region.
Posted by Benchrest at 09/26/2008 @ 08:19am
Posted by sjchermak at 09/26/2008 @ 06:53am
bonk!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/26/2008 @ 08:27am
sorry, srj.
i experienced the same thing when i "just couldn't take it anymore!!!!" and put frankgrits on ignore.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/26/2008 @ 08:29am
Posted by sjchermak at 09/26/2008 @ 06:53am
Okay, SJ, instead of saying "Nuh-huh" to BENCH (or myself)...simply lay out how the logistics of an Israeli strike on Iran would work...IN DETAIL!
(Psssst...here's where you say "I don't know exactly" and prove that it is just "truthiness" and "vibes")
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/26/2008 @ 09:14am
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/26/2008 @ 08:29am
GRITS has disappeared, FZ. Not seen him for weeks now. (Or he got a new nick out of embarassment)
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/26/2008 @ 10:17am
i think sarah palin would be the perfect wife for someone with such profound rhetorical appreciation of the feminine! they can talk prophet to prophet. sarah brings a moose, a. brings a camel, everyone would get along famously,http://palin-presidency-comedy.blogspot.com/
Posted by mikerol at 09/26/2008 @ 10:23am
I asked you before and I will make the request again.......
KNOCK IT OFF, MASKDELTA!!!
I am not an expert on all types of military strategy or logistics... either the US Military or the Israeli military.... .... You would welcome thoughts that I have... If I am not an expert how can I lay out thoughts .......
Here is Benchrest posting about military strategy... I have no clue who Benchrest is or whether Benchest has the slightest idea what he/she is talking about.... it may well be so that I am talking to the utmost expert in military strategy there is on the entire planet earth.
I was simply expressing the sentiment that Israel can not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. For the sake of their survival they can not do that. It would appear that at some point they will have to stop Iran.. even if it does not completely wipe out the ability of Iran without further action later on or actual cooperation from Iran later on, they will have to strike to at least punt the ball down the road a little bit, in case something can be worked out or to buy time to more forcefully stop Iran later on.
How this will happen, I don't know. IF I KNEW I WOULD PROBABLY BE ABLE TO GO WORK FOR THE IDF BECAUSE I WOULD HAVE ABILITY THEY COULD PUT TO USE.
My posting also discussed Benchrests seeming irritation at being questioned
..............I'm starting to get the picture. Either that, or he does not consider me relevant. All that stuff I learned from reading comic books, wasted. Oh well.................
as though you are not supposed to question Benchrest. Benchrest has declared what is so, and so that is so.
Arrogant, but since Benchrest seems to lean lib, you think that is great and OK. If he/she were conservative, you would proclaim him/her wrong.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/26/2008 @ 10:50am
Posted by Benchrest at 09/26/2008 @ 08:19am
The nonsense was this part: "Friend or foe, good intentions or bad, in a theater of war, US air space cannot be violated."
My point is that - if we are going to talk about hypotheticals - it is technically possible for Israel to carry out such an attack, because it wouldn't be a surprise to the U.S. military and they would let them through. I agree that it is politically unwise, but it is possible.
As for your other questions, I think anyone would answer that it is because Israel doesn't do things that U.S. is against - which supports my point.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/26/2008 @ 08:29am
Well, I'm trying to look at the bright side of it. It least I know reading one half of the dialogue with srchermak is as much of a waste of time as reading the whole thing, and the absolute worst is participating.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/26/2008 @ 10:17am
His writing style and mentality is pretty distinctive. It wouldn't be hard to figure out a change in name.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/26/2008 @ 11:21am
Analogy: I might be able to go down to my local Ace Hardware and buy all the material to put together a house. It doesn't mean I'm capable of doing it.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/25/2008 @ 11:57pm
That's probably the best analogy I have heard for it. Even if you have the materials the bomb isn't going to build itself. Having Plutonium or Uranium does not mean you have weapons grade or weaponized Plutonium or Uranium.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/26/2008 @ 11:44am
I would bet everyone has enough materials in their house right now to make an explosive device.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/26/2008 @ 11:45am
(Psssst...here's where you say "I don't know exactly" and prove that it is just "truthiness" and "vibes")-----Posted by Maskdelta at 09/26/2008 @ 09:14am
Ask and ye shall receive....
"How this will happen, I don't know. IF I KNEW I WOULD PROBABLY BE ABLE TO GO WORK FOR THE IDF BECAUSE I WOULD HAVE ABILITY THEY COULD PUT TO USE."----Posted by sjchermak at 09/26/2008 @ 10:50am
And he sounded so SURE before, didn't he?
"Theories in the blogs above say it would be difficult for Israel to launch a strike.
The Israelis will find a way. Remember Entebbe?"----Posted by sjchermak at 09/25/2008 @ 8:37pm
Now how is it he KNOWS that "The Israelis will find a way", while BENCH laying the logistical problems quite accurately does not?
Simple...."truthiness"
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/26/2008 @ 11:50am
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/26/2008 @ 10:17am
His writing style and mentality is pretty distinctive. It wouldn't be hard to figure out a change in name.--------Posted by srjenkins at 09/26/2008 @ 11:21am
That's true. Plus FGRITS just isn't as smart as he thinks he is and would slip up and say something distinctively "FRANK" and we'd spot it...and then he'd REALLY be screwed because we'd all know that he changed his nick to avoid his former posts being thrown back at him (as they have).
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/26/2008 @ 11:52am
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/26/2008 @ 11:44am
Well, I think the argument of the report is that Iran COULD have weapons grade nuclear material because there is unaccounted for nuclear development activity in Iran's history. So, I don't think that is as effective of an argument against LVL's claims.
But even if we suppose for a moment that it is true that Iran has weapons grade nuclear material, it still doesn't change the fact that having enough weapons grade nuclear material is different from having all the components for a nuclear weapon and the know-how to put it together. That's where LVL has no leg to stand on.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/26/2008 @ 11:52am
True. I don't think it would be his style. He'll come back as himself, and hopefully, saner.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/26/2008 @ 12:15pm
Perhaps the leftist doubters watched the interview by Amy Goodman with Ahmanutjob this morning on Democracy Now.
He made it clear that his resolution of the situation for the Arabs in Israel is to "remove the foreign invader just as you must remove a piece of metal that invades your body".
Iran is closing in on their target of taking out Israel. I don't believe G-d is going to allow it, but they are certainly determined.
As to Frosty and those who say they won't because of the Arabs there; where have you been for the past 30 years? Islamic radicals don't hesitate to kill the innocent among their own for the greater "good" of honoring the commandment in the Qu'ran to "kill the Jews wherever they hide"
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/26/2008 @ 5:43pm
Posted by RedRiver_. at 09/26/2008 @ 4:13pm
Your example of an Israeli strike, like sjchermak's, is also true.
However, you seem to have left out a few details, relative to a comparison for action by Israel against Iran.
This was a single, cross border strike with a neighbouring country.
The target was a single site complex within range of the F-16s with external fuel tanks. There was no in air refueling during the mission. The planes were critically low on fuel when they returned, and they met NO resistance of any kind during the mission.
Not a single SAM to evade or enemy aircraft to engage and burn up precious fuel. Had they encountered resistance, it would have been a one way trip.
They went straight in, dropped their munitions, and came straight out.
Do you honestly believe that to be a comparison to Iran?
Posted by Benchrest at 09/26/2008 @ 6:05pm
Simple...."truthiness"
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/26/2008 @ 11:50am
Do you ever get the feeling that this is pissing in the wind?
Posted by Benchrest at 09/26/2008 @ 8:50pm
Iran is closing in on their target of taking out Israel. I don't believe G-d is going to allow it, but they are certainly determined.----Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/26/2008 @ 5:43pm
WHICH is stronger, LL?
Your faith in the neo-con/Israeli Intell idea that Iran WILL get a nuke and WILL use it against Israel?
or your faith that "G-d won't allow it"?
If the latter, then why do you fight so hard against something God will stop?
If the former, I've got some parishoners in southern California to write to!
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/26/2008 @ 9:56pm
Posted by RedRiver_. at 09/26/2008 @ 11:28pm
Yes Rio, those specs are true, and to your advantage, the actual classified performance capabilities exceed those that you mentioned significantly.
However, current air defense capabilities have also improved exponentially.
There are currently three attack aircraft in existence that can operate and succeed in this hypothetical engagement between Israel and Iran.
The F-22, the F-117, and the B-2, with me assuming you are aware there will be no prestrikes to cripple their air defense by Israel as suprise attacks are their only option.
The problem is that Israel posesses none of these aircraft in their arsenal, the US controls the airspace in Iraq which absolutely prohibits it as a flightpath to their targets, and again, Israel is sidelined.
A conventional Israeli attack is off the table.
However, Iran makes a serious miscalculation in dismissing, or underestimating the very real possibility that the USA will attack.
The frightening thing about just what a superpower the US is, is that we will telegraph our intentions, methodically build up forces, ruthlessly anihalate their air defenses, establish air superiority, decimate their armor, their air force, their infrastructure, their troops, drive our tank columns into their capital, capture their leadership, and then empty our treasury trying to repair everything we destroyed. Oh, and by the way, lots of people die during this process.
It would be better, in my opinion, to negotiate with them until they are just sick of it, and go with the light water reactors.
Forgive me if I missed several things, it's late and i'm going to bed.
Posted by Benchrest at 09/27/2008 @ 01:43am
I found an interesting article on a subject that has been hashed and re-hashed on this site over and over again: Radical Islam.
I know that you libs have provided "education" that you can not react to Radical Islam, or I guess there is no such thing as Radical Islam to begin with, or if there is it is our fault, etc. - but this article paints a different picture of the subject than what you libs believe:
What Is An "Islamophobe?" By Brigitte Gabriel FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, September 26, 2008
http://www.frontpagemag.com /Articles/Read.aspx?GUID =63E81FA2-BB8A-466C -9BC4-7CF20C272431
Posted by sjchermak at 09/27/2008 @ 04:57am
Benchrest says negotiate with the Iranians until they are "sick of it"
I don't think they would get sick of negotiating - I don't think they mind one bit because it gives them time to develop their nuclear weapons.
Benchrest says an Israeli attack on Iran is not possible. I know you are not supposed to question what Benchrest says, but here are three articles that say it is possible. I know that the authors of these articles are wrong for promoting thought Benchrest has disproven, so Benchrest needs to contact these people and tell them they are in violation.
Bolton: Israel to strike Iran after US elections Jun 24, 2008 5:40 | Updated Jun 24, 2008 16:43 http://www.jpost.com/ servlet/Satellite?cid= 1214132667211&pagename =JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
Israel Bolsters Its Ability To Strike Iran As Tehran Flouts International Demands, Israel Buys More Jet Fighters, Nuke-Capable Subs http://www.cbsnews.com/stories /2008/08/07/ world/main4326740.shtml ?source=RSSattr= World_4326740
Israel vs. Iran: 1st strike strategies BY PETER BROOKES http://www.armedforcesjournal.com /2008/02/3290825
Posted by sjchermak at 09/27/2008 @ 05:16am
Posted by Benchrest at 09/27/2008 @ 01:43am
BENCH, again, you're using FACTS and military specification DATA...
against men who "feel" that Israel could bomb the Moon if they wanted to!
LOL
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 07:58am
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 07:58am
There is no way I'm gonna get this simple point across, is there?
"All I asked is for sharks with frickin laser beams attatched to their heads!"
Posted by Benchrest at 09/27/2008 @ 09:11am
"Benchrest says an Israeli attack on Iran is not possible."
Posted by sjchermak at 09/27/2008 @ 05:16am
I said no such thing! There is lots of sand in Iran, and Israel can turn it into a green glass parking lot if they so choose. Problem solved. Would that be to your satisfaction?
The point I have been trying to make, initially from another response to one of your posts on a previous thread, which I am going to repost below, is that Israel cannot stop Iran in their uranium refinement.
Oh, they can blow up a building or ten, but the majority of these facilities (plural meaning multiple sites), are below ground.
5000 pound ground penetrating bombs must be carried by aircraft and require lots of fuel. How do you propose they get them there?
And next are the posts that started this whole back and forth.
Posted by Benchrest at 09/27/2008 @ 09:26am
"It keeps coming and coming, you libs promoting your agenda. You will not give up, promoting pacifism and capitualtion."
Posted by sjchermak at 09/23/2008 @ 1:07pm
How about a different angle?
If Benjamin Netanyahu becomes P.M. of Israel, and it is highly probable he will, there will be no possibility of Palestinian statehood.
Iran will not look favorably upon this developement, Netanyahu won't care because he hates their guts, and vice versa, and tensions between them will escalate.
However, Israel is hamstrung by airspace restrictions, and cannot engage Iran in a manner necessary to win in a conventional war. Iran knows this, and will likely intensify their centrifuge refinement in order to at least get any amount of weapons grade fissile material as a deterrent to Israel's most likely strike capability.
Both presidential nominees have said this is unacceptable, and will result in "consequences".
Since we, the U.S, cannot halt said refinement by airstrikes alone, that leaves boots on the ground, their ground, to halt further misbehavior.
While we would win the battle, our KIA and wounded would be quite high, Russia would likely play an indirect part in our little forray, and our treasury would sound of crickets.
Would it not be prudent to exhaust all possible options, including kissing their ass if need be, to prevent this possible scenario, if the outcome remains the same?
And yes, I know this is an insignificant blog, and very intelligent people with access to real intel will make these decisions.
I'm just curious as to your opinion on the matter, relative to the above rambling scenario.
Posted by Benchrest at 09/23/2008 @ 3:23pm
Posted by Benchrest at 09/27/2008 @ 09:28am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/26/2008 @ 5:43pm
As usual, you don't try to give a charitable rendering of the mains position. I'm going to assume the quote is accurate.
First, if we are going to use the piece of metal analogy, the generally accepted technique is to move it - not vaporize it in the body. So, the analogy doesn't quite match up with your nuclear suspicions.
Second, we have the question of agency. Perhaps he believes, converse to your beliefs, that God won't allow Israel to stay. And he believes that Jews will be moved in some way God has ordained that doesn't involve Iran. In any case, the Supreme Leader there has explicitly said, "the Islamic Republic has never threatened and will never threaten any country."
Third, I might ask where have you been? Radical Islam, particularly the kind that targets other Muslims and calls them takfir (the appropriate term since we are talking primarily about Iran and Shia), is decidely unpopular among Muslims. It certainly can't be called a major strain in Iran.
Fourth, the opposition of people in Iran to the United States and Israel comes from the belief that the United States is trying to establish a global dictatorship - strangely, the same argument you use about Islam. The Supreme Leader seems to view the state of Israel as a component of that dictatorship designed to extend it into the Middle East. This view is understandable.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2008 @ 11:22am
WHICH is stronger, LL?
Your faith in the neo-con/Israeli Intell idea that Iran WILL get a nuke and WILL use it against Israel?
or your faith that "G-d won't allow it"?
If the latter, then why do you fight so hard against something God will stop?
If the former, I've got some parishoners in southern California to write to!
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/26/2008 @ 9:56pm
It is the latter. However, that doesn't mean that G-d asks us to do nothing in the interim.
In Ephesians chapter 6, Paul writes that we put on all of that which G-d equips us with in the fight against the spiritual forces which seek to destroy us. But having done all we can do, we then stand by faith to see His actions for us.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/27/2008 @ 11:55am
As usual, you don't try to give a charitable rendering of the mains position. I'm going to assume the quote is accurate.
First, if we are going to use the piece of metal analogy, the generally accepted technique is to move it - not vaporize it in the body. So, the analogy doesn't quite match up with your nuclear suspicions.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2008 @ 11:22am
I gave it the rendering that was accurate based upon 1) watching the program and hearing it for myself, and 2) the statments in the past week by both Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah Khamenei. I have posted some of that, especially the words of Khamenei.
Both made it clear that Israel cannot be allowed to exist in the land that Muslims claim can only be held under Islamic rule.
http://www.krsi.net/news/detail.asp?NewsID=4232
Your continued defense of the leaders of Iran who continuously make it clear that they wish to destroy Israel is inconsistent with your own stated beliefs.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/27/2008 @ 12:21pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/27/2008 @ 12:21pm
"Your continued defense of the leaders of Iran who continuously make it clear that they wish to destroy Israel is inconsistent with your own stated beliefs."
Actually, you are assuming the question. The question, since you seem to have a hard time understanding it, is Iran actually saying that "they wish to destroy Israel"? A related question is whether or not they have the capability to do so?
Since the answer to the first part, to me, is that it is not clear. It is clear that they would rather Israel would just go away. I would rather the Bush administration and the ideology behind it would just go away, doesn't mean I'm interested in dropping a bomb on Crawford.
The other part of your argument rests on asserting that they have, desire, or what have you to get nuclear weapons with the purpose of using them on Israel - which frankly requires leaps of logic like saying that they have the capability to create them, that they would be willing to use them on fellow Muslims, and they don't care about what the consequences would be. I think these propositions strain any sense of credability in your argument - and you want to pretend that they aren't problems.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2008 @ 1:48pm
Actually, you are assuming the question. The question, since you seem to have a hard time understanding it, is Iran actually saying that "they wish to destroy Israel"? A related question is whether or not they have the capability to do so?
Since the answer to the first part, to me, is that it is not clear. It is clear that they would rather Israel would just go away. I would rather the Bush administration and the ideology behind it would just go away, doesn't mean I'm interested in dropping a bomb on Crawford.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2008 @ 1:48pm
SRJ,
I can't believe someone as intelligent and informed as you are would even make such statements. There is no ambiguity in Iran or in Islam about the destruction of Israel and the Jews.
I will post a few facts to follow
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/27/2008 @ 2:05pm
SRJ,
The Islamic Republic Newswire, the official Iranian govt controlled paper made it clear that these protests Friday were govt sponsored.
"Iranians chanted "Death to Israel" on Friday as Islamist students unveiled a book mocking the Holocaust in an Al-Quds (Jerusalem) Day annual parade to show solidarity with the Palestinians.
The book "Holocaust," published by members of Iran's Islamist Basij militia, features dozens of cartoons and sarcastic commentary.
Education Minister Alireza Ali-Ahmadi attended the official launch of the book in Tehran's Palestine Square. The cover shows a Jew with a crooked nose and dressed in traditional garb drawing outlines of dead bodies on the ground.
Inside, bearded Jews are shown leaving and re-entering a gas chamber with a counter that reads the number 5,999,999. Another illustration depicts Jewish prisoners entering a furnace in a Nazi extermination camp and leaving from the other side as gun-wielding "terrorists."
Friday's Iran protest follows a fresh verbal attack on Israel by Ahmadinejad. In an address to the UN General Assembly in New York on Tuesday, he said "the Zionist regime is on a definite slope to collapse and there is no way for it to get out of the cesspool created by itself and its supporters."
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/27/2008 @ 2:09pm
Quds Day was started by the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, founder of the Islamic republic, who called on the world's Muslims to show solidarity with Palestinians on the last Friday of the fasting month of Ramadan.
The demonstration was held under an official slogan: "The Islamic world will not recognise the fake Zionist regime under any circumstances and believes that this cancerous tumour will one day be wiped off the face of the earth." tens of thousands of Iranians marched in Tehran, chanting "Death to Israel," declaring solidarity with the Palestinians and calling for Jerusalem and Israel to be handed to the Palestinians.
Demonstrators carried placards bearing slogans including "Israel will be destroyed, Palestine is Victorious" and "Holy war until victory," and they also torched American and Israeli flags.
http://tinyurl.com/49u8wm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/27/2008 @ 2:10pm
Islamic Jihad leader, Ramadan Abdalla Shalah says [Mid-East Mirror, November 10, 1996):
In the end Israel will disappear as the Koran states. From the standpoint of the Koran, there is no place for Israel and its existence is not justifiable.
Hamas leader, Abdel-Aziz Rantisi, said [Jerusalem Post, May 25, 1997]:
Islam does not permit giving up one inch of Palestine and states that Palestine belongs to the Muslims, belongs to the Palestinian people, not to the Jews.
Bartering land is not liberation and is not permissible in Islam.
In Jan. 1995, the mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdel Aziz Bin-Baz, ruled that Islamic law does not rule out peace with Israel - on condition that it is a temporary peace, until the Moslems build up the [military] strength needed to expel the Jews.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/27/2008 @ 2:12pm
Qods is the pivot of Islamic Ummah's identity and beliefs which has brought together all the Muslims worldwide. Expressing this, head of the Islamic Culture and Communications Organization Mehdi Mostafavi Wednesday told IRNA on the threshold of Qods Day (September 26) that unity is the great need of Islam today.
"Based on the teachings of the late Imam Khomeini, we have learnt that Palestine will become victorious in the wake of resistance." Resistance by the Palestinians as well as the resolve of the Muslims can be manifested on Qods Day and make the Zionist regime, which is on the verge of collapse, feel regret about its acts, he said, underlining the significance of the Day.
If the Muslims stand united and set aside trivial disputes and resort to Quran and other commonalities, they can withstand against the Zionists and release the first Kibla of the Muslims (Qods), he contended.
http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-235/0809244961213343.htm
this is a key tenet in Muslim thought and is pushed heavily by Shiite Iran. Once Israel is destroyed and Jerusalem under the control of Islam, they believe that the Qibla, the direction of daily prayers will be shifted back to the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem (Al Quds) and away from Mecca.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/27/2008 @ 2:18pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/27/2008 @ 2:09pm @ 2:10pm @ 2:12pm @ 2:18pm
All of which is congruent with the question I raised, that some people in Iran believe that Allah will eventually get rid of Israel. This is the question of agency. Who is going to resolve the problem - as viewed from those that believe Israel is a "cancer"?
But the last post at 2:18pm is the real interesting one. It reveals the Shia vs Sunni split and how Iran would like the center of the Muslim world to shift out of Saudi Arabia - and Israel needs to change for that to happen.
You can also see this in some of the other quotes from Khamenei where he "offered an alternative solution which he said might be more 'internationally acceptable':
"Palestinian refugees should return and Muslims, Christians and Jews could choose a government for themselves, excluding immigrant Jews."
From the quote, it seems that his concern is more about American and European influence in Israel - in the form of immigrant Jews - than against Judaism is general. See link below.
The problem you are having here is the framing. I understand what you are doing, but the problem is that your frame forces your conclusions. Remove that frame - and it is perfectly legitimate, rational response to do so - and you come to different conclusions where there is a lot more uncertainty about what is going on here and why.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ WORLD/meast/12/15/mideast.iran.reut/
Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2008 @ 2:55pm
Oh, and another question for you: If Khamenei wants the center of the Muslim world to shift out of Saudi Arabia to Jerusalem. How's he do that if it is radioactive?
You see how your interpretation starts sounding very strange when you change the framing and think of Muslims as rational actors looking for power, financial gain, in addition to promoting their ideology. I think it is a lot more complicated than you frame can accomodate.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2008 @ 2:59pm
hey srj,
did you check out the cool lego:
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/torgugick/DomeOftheRock/dome10.jpg
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2008 @ 03:58am
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2008 @ 03:58am
Cool. Ever been to Miniland in Legoland? First thing that came to mind:
http://www.legoland.com/park/ rides/minilandusa.htm?view=ShowAll
Posted by srjenkins at 09/28/2008 @ 11:09am
hey, srj
legoland looks great! careful though. they could be danish trojan horses.
here's the real lego deal:
http://wonkette.com/388185/lego-sarah-palin-named-am
ericas-hottest-lego-governor
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2008 @ 11:40pm