Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe strategy of the new Israeli government is to avoid making a deal with the Palestinians by changing the subject. Instead of talking about Palestine, Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman want to talk about Iran.
Unfortunately, General Petraeus is helping them change the subject. In remarks yesterday, Petraeus said:
"The Israeli government may ultimately see itself so threatened by the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon that it would take preemptive military action to derail or delay it."
Rather more calmly, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said:
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates estimated in a Financial Times interview that Israel will not attack Iran this year. "I guess I would say I would be surprised…if they did act this year," Gates said.Asked whether Iran would cross a nuclear "red line" this year, Gates said: "I don't know, I would guess probably not. I think we have more time than that. How much more time I don't know. It is a year, two years, three years. It is somewhere in that window."
Actually, there is plenty of time, as Gates suggests. Iran hasn't enriched an ounce of uranium to weapons grade. It doesn't have the means to deliver a weapon, even if could build one. And it's unclear that Iran has the technical knowhow to build a bomb, even if it did manage to enrich the uranium it possesses.
Netanyahu, eager to change the subject from Palestine, is already blustering -- on his first day in office -- that he's contemplating an attack on Iran. He told The Atlantic, which titled its bombastic interview "Netanyahu to Obama: Stop Iran--Or I Will":
"The Obama presidency has two great missions: fixing the economy, and preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. ... You don't want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran."Iran is a composite leadership, but in that composite leadership there are elements of wide-eyed fanaticism that do not exist right now in any other would-be nuclear power in the world. That's what makes them so dangerous.
"Since the dawn of the nuclear age, we have not had a fanatic regime that might put its zealotry above its self-interest. People say that they'll behave like any other nuclear power. Can you take the risk? Can you assume that? You see a country that glorifies blood and death, including its own self-immolation."
Writing in Haaretz, Aluf Benn says:
In political circles the view is that yes, Netanyahu as prime minister brings Israel closer to war with Iran. Politicians in touch with Netanyahu say he has already made up his mind to destroy Iran's nuclear installations.
The fear-mongering about Iran is partly designed to undermine the US-Iran negotiations dance that's underway, and which took concrete form this week at a meeting in the Hague in which US and Iranian officials met for the first time in person. The neoconservatives, and their Netanyahu allies, realize that President Obama is serious about talking to Iran. They also realize that those talks will take a long, long time. For that reason, they've been warning for months that any US-Iran dialogue be placed on a short fuse.
Sadly, a group of top congressional Democrats, including several former campaign advisers to Obama, have signed on to the short-fuse strategy:
The signatories include some hugely important House Dems, including House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer (Md.), House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (Calif.), House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes (Texas), House Armed Service Committee Chairman Rep. Ike Skelton (Mo.), House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman (Calif.), House Foreign Affairs Middle East and South Asia subcommittee Chairman Gary Ackerman (N.Y.) and Rep. Robert Wexler (Fla.), a close Obama ally and chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Europe.
Their letter read:
Engagement must be serious and credible, but it cannot be open-ended. Our goal should be to bring about Iran's near-term suspension of uranium enrichment, and we should offer Iran meaningful incentives in order to achieve this goal. But we cannot allow Iran to use diplomatic discussions as a cover for continuing to work on its nuclear program. Iran must verifiably suspend its uranium enrichment program within at most a few months of the initiation of discussions.We urge that the talks begin as soon as possible, so that we will have the earliest possible indication of whether they will succeed in halting Iran's nuclear program. American action on this matter cannot be deferred. Waiting until after the Iranian presidential elections in June would give Tehran as much as six more months of unhindered enrichment and stockpiling.
Should the process of engagement not yield the desired results, we would urge you to immediately apply the tools at your disposal to increase economic pressure on the Iranians.
Note the use of the phrase "at most a few months." No serious diplomat believes that the US and Iran will work out a deal within months. There's no other way to read the letter from Hoyer, Wexler, et al. as a deliberate effort to sabotage the talks before they begin. The big question is: Did Dennis Ross, the US special adviser for Iran and a hardliner, encourage the members of Congress to send the letter?
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
TOKYO (AP) -- 24 March 2009 -- A 93-year-old Japanese man has become the first person certified as a survivor of both atomic bombings by the United States, officials said Tuesday.
The survivor, Tsutomu Yamaguchi, had already been a certified hibakusha, or radiation survivor, of the bombing on Aug. 9, 1945, in Nagasaki, but he has now been confirmed as surviving the attack on Hiroshima three days earlier, in which he suffered serious burns to his upper body. Certification qualifies survivors for compensation, including monthly allowances, free medical checkups and funeral costs.
Mr. Yamaguchi was in Hiroshima on a business trip on Aug. 6, 1945, when an American B-29 dropped an atomic bomb on the city. He returned to Nagasaki, his hometown, before the second attack, officials said.
"My double radiation exposure is now an official government record," Mr. Yamaguchi said, according to The Mainichi Daily News. "It can tell the younger generation the horrifying history of the atomic bombings even after I die."
Posted by HonestLiberal at 04/02/2009 @ 08:45am
Taliban threaten the US
Israel threatens Iran
Iran threatens Israel
US invades Iraq
Us invades Afghanistan
Such nice Sons of Abraham.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/02/2009 @ 08:57am
Netanyahu is just posing.
He's GOT to "talk tough" on Iran for his base and for his base of support back here in the States (lvlib types).
But he also knows that given that true lack of an Iranian nuclear threat (the several items listed by Mr Dreyfuss) if he "tries anything"...he'll get little support from the Obama Administration and face not only world-wide condemnation, but with little evidence of an full-scale Iranian threat, loss of support AT HOME.
So, like Dubya on Iran, he'll TALK tough...rail against Obama's attempts at negotiations....but secretly hope they succeed (if slightly), so he's not boxed into a corner created by his own big mouth.
Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 09:07am
"Iran is a composite leadership, but in that composite leadership there are elements of wide-eyed fanaticism that do not exist right now in any other would-be nuclear power in the world."
Fanatics exist in Israel..
oops, Israel does not have nukes...right?
Right?
And they abide by international rules,laws and UN resolutions.
Right?
Posted by crabwalk at 04/02/2009 @ 09:07am
"Netanyahu to Obama: Stop Iran--Or I Will":
I would be very interested in just HOW Netanyahu intends to strike Iran, because unless Israel just purchased one of our aircraft carrier groups, I don't see it.
Just a big dog barking through a fence.
Posted by Benchrest at 04/02/2009 @ 09:10am
Posted by Benchrest at 04/02/2009 @ 09:10am | ignore this person | warn this person
One way flight tickets have always existed and are used effectively and consistently historically! Israel recently also claimed to be able to refuel in flight.
Posted by comancheamerican at 04/02/2009 @ 09:22am
"One way flight tickets have always existed and are used effectively and consistently historically!"
Posted by comancheamerican at 04/02/2009 @ 09:22am
Not with 20 million + dollar airplanes. More efficient to use cruise missles, but not as effective.
The fence around Israel is airspace restrictions.
I just don't see it. Too many tactical hurdles.
Posted by Benchrest at 04/02/2009 @ 09:35am
hmmm...
the hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me...
i'm not comfy with an iranian bomb, but where do two nuclear powers, US and israel, get off pontificating to anyone about nukes?
israel walks a treacherous path if they are serious.
eventually anyone will be able to build their own nukes, and you know...seems about the only surefire way to ensure you don't end up getting bombed or "liberated" by someone WITH nukes...
if i were the big hoohah of iran, i'd negotiate with the west, ratchet down the scary rhetoric with israel...
and continue to build the bomb. and when anyone got in my face about it i would point out the fact that those in my face were rank hypocrites who will never get rid of their nukes...with all due respect to the rank hypocrites, of course.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/02/2009 @ 09:39am
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/02/2009 @ 09:39am | ignore this person | warn this person
Trouble is these guys build nuclear with the end result of useage in mind not threats! India and Pakistan were at that point if anyone remembers with fingers on the trigger in final countdown except for last second intervention! That is the real problem that goes ignored!
Posted by comancheamerican at 04/02/2009 @ 09:45am
Posted by comancheamerican at 04/02/2009 @ 09:45am | ignore this person | warn this person
i'm not saying it aint scary...
but its been a scary world for quite some time, at least since 1945...
but i'm still not sure the iranians are not playing ultimately the same game of bluff and vainglorious bluster we and the soviets played with each other for 50 years...
its so hard to swallow, but geopolitically iran and the US are STILL natural allies...
give obama's soft touch of diplomacy half a chance...we could have iranian troops doing our dirty work in afghanistan one day when it reverts to sunni fundamentalist/terrorist harboring hellish playland...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/02/2009 @ 09:58am
To suggest Iran lacks delivery systems is to ignore the facts. From missile Subs to long Range Missiles, Iran has the delivery capability.
Iran Begins Building First Locally-Built Submarine
Tehran (AFP) May 11, 2005
Iran has begun producing its first locally-built submarine, state media reported Wednesday, saying the vessel was designed to remain undetected and fire missiles and torpedoes simultaneously.
The craft will boost Iran's inventory of submarines patrolling Gulf waters that according to foreign military experts includes up to six Russian-built SSK or SSI Kilo class diesel submarines
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/submarine-05f.html
The Type 636 (Kilo) submarine is considered to be to be one of the quietest diesel submarines in the world. It is said to be capable of detecting an enemy submarine at a range three to four times greater than it can be detected itself.
Maximum diving depth is 300m. Speed is 11kt when surfaced and 20kt when submerged. Range is 7,500 miles when snorkelling at 7kt and 400 miles when submerged at 3kt.
The submarine has a launcher for eight Strela-3 or Igla surface-to-air missiles. These missiles are manufactured by the Fakel Design Bureau, Kaliningrad. Strela-3 (NATO Designation SA-N-8 Gremlin) has a cooled infrared seeker and 2kg warhead. Maximum range is 6km.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kilo/
Both the Shahab-5 and the -6 are capable of reaching Israel and the Shahab-6 into Europe.
"Russian news agencies quoted the deputy foreign minister, Aleksandr Losyukov, as saying that Iran's test of a rocket this week had raised "suspicions" about its nuclear program.
http://tinyurl.com/dbjy7e
Iranian News Clip about their Sub production
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxUfQkx-Zrg
Posted by antisocialist at 04/02/2009 @ 10:04am
Hmmmmm, as I said, and now see pretty much proved ... it (Iran's sneaky bomb plot), will be repeated and repeated and repeated until despite no real actionable proof or intelligence, Iran's bomb will be a fate-accompli in the minds of the targets of the psychological operation.
Again despite a lack of proof actionable intel or otherwise, or historical aspirations.
Posted by V at 04/02/2009 @ 10:13am
Very simple solution to this matter.
Tell Israel they are on their own if they attack Iran. No US military or financial help - no guarantee of the use of our oil reserves. Make the statement publicly - to the world, backed up by diplomatic guarantee and right of independent UN verification.
We are allowing Netanyahu and Israel to continue to foment ill will and tension throughout the world. This needs to come to an end - within months!
Posted by OneVote at 04/02/2009 @ 10:15am
Posted by antisocialist at 04/02/2009 @ 10:04am
Maximum range is 6km.
oooohhh, scary...
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, ..." You know Who.
Cry wolf again and again and again.
BOO!
Posted by crabwalk at 04/02/2009 @ 10:49am
More video on Iranian buildup
http://tinyurl.com/dlgnqu
http://tinyurl.com/dmbhzg
http://tinyurl.com/cmu2kb
Posted by antisocialist at 04/02/2009 @ 10:51am
So, we have one country that holds a million people in fenced refugee camps, is a religious based community, has undeclared wmd's and wmd programs, carries out assassinations at will, blows up schools and UN convoys....
We have a second country that has military bases around the world, currently occupies two countries, has nuclear subs wandering about freely loaded with multiple warheads of nookyular material, has propped up many dictators in the last 60 years, supported death squads, assassinated and kidnapped almost at will and was recently run by a group of religious zealots...
complaining about a theocratic democracy gaining nuclear weapons and diesel powered subs while surrounded on 2 sides by the 2nd country and threatened with attack by the first.
Am I the only one that sees rampant hypocrisy and fear ruling the day?
Posted by crabwalk at 04/02/2009 @ 10:56am
China, the worlds largest authoritarian country, is building a WHOLE ISLAND to hide it's fleet...
http://tinyurl.com/5cog3z
any concern about that from the neo-cons?
Almost none. We do not complain about our labor and credit pool.
Like Cuba, if only Iran would allow us to borrow freely and use their kids to build our widgets...we might reduce the rhetoric and sanctions.
Oh, and if China were threatening blessed, helpless l'il Israel, I bet the neo-cons would be going apeshit.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/02/2009 @ 11:03am
Posted by antisocialist at 04/02/2009 @ 10:04am
So not only does Iran have nukes, they have ballistic missile submarines to launch them?
What's next, Larry? Iran has stealth bombers and SDI?
Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 11:07am
Benchrest,
You are plowing ground you plowed long time ago.
Sometime back last year you gave lengthy reasons why Israel would not be able to take out Iranian nuclear facilities. (from a militiary standpoint).
You also did make known, during the ensuing argumentation on the blogs, that you are the expert on the subject and you did not take well to people (me) questioning you on the concept.
I do not remember you expressing any opinion about whether Israel should do this or whether they are right or wrong or anything like that, unlike many other on these blogs.
Just the technical opinion that they are not militarily capable of doing this because of the physical circumstances involve and their access to locations they would need, etc.
Fine...but...
You did pose the question "...I would be very interested in just HOW Netanyahu intends to strike Iran....."
The thing is, no matter how interested you may be, Bibi is not going to fill you in ahead of time, about this.
You will have to wait until afterwards, just like me and everybody else, to find out how it was done.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/02/2009 @ 11:14am
Just a big dog barking through a fence.
Posted by Benchrest at 04/02/2009 @ 09:10am
Even big dogs find a way to come from behind a fence :-)
Posted by ACook at 04/02/2009 @ 11:48am
here is an interesting video taken inside a Ghadir Sub and includes some additional video on the new Iranian miniature 2 man subs.
http://tinyurl.com/d7ee4d
Posted by antisocialist at 04/02/2009 @ 12:02pm
So not only does Iran have nukes, they have ballistic missile submarines to launch them?
What's next, Larry? Iran has stealth bombers and SDI?
Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 11:07am
So, all the rest of the world including Iran itself is wrong and only you are right? Iran has no missile subs? No long range missiles?
They don't use ballistic missiles on their subs, nor do they need to. Torpedo fired missiles like Iran uses only need to be fired from international waters.
That threat extends to Israel just as is the context of this thread.
Those same subs bring the capability of firing upon the continental US.
With their ICBM's they can now reach Europe.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/02/2009 @ 12:08pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/02/2009 @ 12:08pm
Yep....too bad they don't actually HAVE anything to fire, nor are close to having anything to fire.
BTW, if you want to go to "they're only MONTHS away from a nuke"...back to that embarassing question...
then why didn't DUBYA do something about it before leaving office???
Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 12:13pm
Yep....too bad they don't actually HAVE anything to fire, nor are close to having anything to fire.
BTW, if you want to go to "they're only MONTHS away from a nuke"...back to that embarassing question...
then why didn't DUBYA do something about it before leaving office???
Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 12:13pm
Leaving aside the nuke question for a moment; just firing convention missiles upon Israel wouldn't be devastating enough?
Secondly, the estimates for Iran having a nuke warhead are as little as a year. Even if 2-5 years, that isn't a critical concern to you?
They have the delivery means and that is the most crucial aspect.
And consider this possibility.
Pakistan furnishing Iran with warheads.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/02/2009 @ 12:21pm
antisocialist,
Mask asked up above ".....then why didn't DUBYA do something about it before leaving office???..." (about Iranian nuclear capability)
By my rough count, I think that is the 2,754,926 th time that Mask has asked that question.
Mask is being Mask here, but what Mask doesn't say is that the question has been answered for Mask before.
But, despite that, as sure as death and taxes and that the sun comes up in the morning..... Mask will ask the question again.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/02/2009 @ 12:37pm
Well just few days in office, Israels ex-bouncer FM is being investigated for fraud...
Netanyahu can scream on top of his lungs and divert the issue but I am sure Obama will make him walk the straight line of achieving peace with Palestinians...
If he does not tow the link we can always use the billions sent to Israel over here in US, with the current economy every dollar counts and billions even count more...
Posted by freenation at 04/02/2009 @ 12:40pm
Freenation,
You say Bibi is going to be made by Obama to "walk the straight line".
I doubt it, and I hope not.
Question - will Obama make the Arab world including Palestinians walk the straight line of achieving peace with Israel?
In that case, part of the "straight line" would be for the Arab world to give up the dream of no Israel. Since most of the world ignores that aspect of things, and some part of the world wants that as bad as the Arab world does, and with another one of those Durban UN "conferences on racism" coming up (that are really bash-Israel conferences) the prospects do not look too good.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/02/2009 @ 12:45pm
sjchermak:
One step at a time my friend...first the 2 state solution implementation and then the rest...
Don't use the tactic which Bibi is using to divert the issue, NO one is SAINT here...Neither Bibi nor Hamas...
This is about peace loving people in Israel and Palestine...which side you are?
Posted by freenation at 04/02/2009 @ 1:06pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/02/2009 @ 12:21pm
If Iran fired conventional missiles at Israel....what would Israel fire back, Larry?
Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 1:08pm
Posted by sjchermak at 04/02/2009 @ 12:37pm
Because the answers are CONTRADICTORY, SJ.
Can't be BOTH "Dubya protected us from terrorism and 'took the fight to' the terrorists and rogue nations"...
AND he was opening talks with Iran which you guys also claim is "a terrorism sponsoring state less than 2 years away from a nuke which they will immediately give away to Hamas as soon as it's built or fire at Israel themselves!"
Why was there this "blind spot" to Iran from the "Man Who Protected Us For Seven Years"....he sure TALKED about Iran enough....but then DID...nothing?!??!?!!?
Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 1:11pm
If Iran fired conventional missiles at Israel....what would Israel fire back, Larry?
Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 1:08pm
Conventional weapons.
But back to the issue of the thread. Dreyfuss claims Israel is bluffing because Iran is not a threat.
I've already shown that Iran has more than enough capability to be a threat.
Couple that with their ongoing verbal threats and only a fool would jeopardize his nation believing it only to be a bluff.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/02/2009 @ 1:44pm
AND he was opening talks with Iran which you guys also claim is "a terrorism sponsoring state less than 2 years away from a nuke which they will immediately give away to Hamas as soon as it's built or fire at Israel themselves!"
Why was there this "blind spot" to Iran from the "Man Who Protected Us For Seven Years"....he sure TALKED about Iran enough....but then DID...nothing?!??!?!!?
Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 1:11pm
Nonsense. Bush continuously warned about the danger of Iran and certainly we were engaged in trying to stop their nuclear development.
And haven't I read here about how Sy Hersh exposed how we were supposedly conducting covert operations in Iran? Which way is it? He did nothing or he was a cowboy trying to interfere with peaceful Iran?
Posted by antisocialist at 04/02/2009 @ 1:57pm
Nonsense. Bush continuously warned about the danger of Iran and certainly we were engaged in trying to stop their nuclear development.----Posted by antisocialist at 04/02/2009 @ 1:57pm
Larry...did that contradict what I said?
i.e. that Bush was TALKING a lot, but not DOING anything....except what Obama's doing, trying to open up talks.
Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 2:02pm
why are so many humans so afraid to let love reign? i think that is the fundamental problem to be addressed. if we can address that then we can solve the nightmare in the middle east and every other place in the world where people are killing, raping, hating, robbing and otherwise violating each other.
anything else is just a waste of time... does the human race has that kind of time to waste?
shit, all we've been doing all these human years is wasting time. wasting time pretending that we are more than god's creatures. now we've pretended for so long that we actually believe it and can only find meaning in fear and power. how tragic is that? when we're not fearing or powering something or someone we feel life isn't happening.
life, oh sweet life!
we must continue to clamour for peace always and never for war. but if some bad men are bent on taking on each other, let them engage in hand-to -hand combat and let the remainder of us find our way on this journey on this planet in peace.
Posted by sufi1952 at 04/02/2009 @ 2:06pm
"You will have to wait until afterwards, just like me and everybody else, to find out how it was done."
Posted by sjchermak at 04/02/2009 @ 11:14am
Izzatso?
You presume a great deal.
It doesn't matter much though. This little pissing match between Imadidajob and Bibi is still immature and not a crisis at present.
However, if I may direct your attention to the Korean border, you will find at present a situation that has all the ingredients necessary to absolutely ruin our day.
The president of Iran looks like frickin Mary Poppins compared to the leader of North Korea, who, at present, posseses nuclear ordinance, and would not suprise me one bit if he used it and said damn the consequences.
Posted by Benchrest at 04/02/2009 @ 2:27pm
Mask,
You say the answers are contradictory.
You either don't remember all of the answers, or you are intentionally leaving them out.
What you mention above are not the answers I remember either giving or pointing towards another blogger who gave them.
So go back through the blogs and find the answers that were given, and try again.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/02/2009 @ 3:29pm
freenation,
You say first the 2 state solution.
The proposal for the 2 state solution DID come first.... in 1948.
And Israel did not object.
Israel's enemies did... and things have gone downhill ever since.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/02/2009 @ 3:31pm
Benchrest,
The discussion was about Iran, which is a threat.
You bring up North Korea, and correctly point out that it is a dangerous situation.
That is absolutely true.
Who is to blame for that one? A crisis developed in 1994 where North Korea was developing nukes.... and good old Mr. Peanut went over there (without Clinton's permission, apparently) and brokered a deal which diffused the situation and saved the day.
So everyone thought - but now it appears that the North Koreans went back to working on the nukes at about the same time the wheels on Carter's plane left the ground in North Korea on his way back home!
I only point that out, even though that was not part of your comment, because here is another example of Mr. Peanut's meddling that has had disasterous consequences.
But as far as Iran... North Korea has nukes and is a danger... Iran is developing nukes.... yes, we need to deal with North Korea, but it would also be a good idea to stop Iran so that we are not faced with a similar situation from them, as well.
And Iran poses another problem...the "dear leader" of North Korea is a ruthless communist dictator who also seems to have some bats in his belfry. A severe danger because there is no telling what he will do.
Iran, on the other hand, has a President who is a ruthless and sick monster who DOES seem to have complete control of his mind.... and thus he will put all energy and thought to what he can do to bring about the end of Israel.
So it is six of one and half dozen of the other...two different leaders.. but both grave threats.
We still have time, however, to stop the second one from having nukes.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/02/2009 @ 3:41pm
Posted by sjchermak at 04/02/2009 @ 3:41pm |
Okay, SJ...here's a NEW one for ya...
given the threat of North Korea...
what did Dubya do about them????
LOL
Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 3:47pm
Mask,
Since he was stuck with a situation where there already were nukes in North Korea... President Bush pursued avenues of diplomacy....
There did not appear to be much success......but.....you on the left are the ones who always preach diplomacy....
Posted by sjchermak at 04/02/2009 @ 3:49pm
Who is to blame for that one? A crisis developed in 1994 where North Korea was developing nukes.... and good old Mr. Peanut went over there (without Clinton's permission, apparently) and brokered a deal which diffused the situation and saved the day.
So everyone thought - but now it appears that the North Koreans went back to working on the nukes at about the same time the wheels on Carter's plane left the ground in North Korea on his way back home!
Really!!!! As I recall the N Koreans shut down their reactor from 1994 to 1998 based on Mr Carters agreement. But the US never ratified that agreement and the North koreans were supposed to get two light water reactors in exchange for shutting down their dirty reactor. The US never did build the reactors so the NK started their old reactor again. The US renegged on the deal Carter made, not the NK's. look it up!
Posted by notsleepy at 04/02/2009 @ 5:21pm
Certainly nobody can encourage the Israeli regime of seeking peace anywhere in the region ... they're all about war, war, war, and triumphalist claims to land they have no right to.
Posted by syfriendly at 04/02/2009 @ 6:34pm
"encourage" = "accuse"
Posted by syfriendly at 04/02/2009 @ 6:36pm
Kill your parents. Cruise through Crown Heights and kill some kikes. Kill some church ladies leaving the Wednesday night mega-service. Kill a cop. Kill the mailman. Kill a mallcop. Kill an Army recruiter. Kill a cowboy. Kill a black guy who doesn't act black enough. Kill an Arab chick for not wearing a veil, sell-out. Kill Air Supply. Kill people who listen to Air Supply. We are the cancer on the world. Us and the Jews. Let's immolate ourselves.
Posted by gangpapist at 04/02/2009 @ 7:41pm
Most comments run with Netanyahu's threat against Iran and ignore the article's point, which is that he's using Iran to deflect attention from Palestine. He's certainly effective at deflecting the commenters' attention.
The rhetoric evolves, but the fact remains: Someone on one of several sides to this conflict is always sabotaging a settlement, and has been from the outset. This year it's Netanyahu/Lieberman. It would seem Israel's policy, and Hamas' policy as well, is to keep this deadly circus going until or unless the fundamentalist notion of Armageddon comes true.
However, the international community has no choice but to act as if a satisfactory settlement is possible, and continue efforts to resolve the conflict, unless or until.... Which leaves us with the soap opera/tragic farce from hell. And an audience that likes to flip channels.
Posted by JFHill at 04/02/2009 @ 8:24pm
You're right about one thing: Israel won't attack Iran anytime soon. Israel may very well attack US, 9/11 style, with all the evidence readily "available" to "prove" that Iran did it..... Warfare by conventional rules has never been Israel's M.O. They've figured out a much easier way......
Posted by DejaVu at 04/02/2009 @ 8:44pm
Posted by JFHill at 04/02/2009 @ 8:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Figures as illustrious as President Carter himself have openly claimed that Hamas has been seeking to extend the previous (pre-Gaza slaughter) truce with Israel accepting only partial lifting of the economic (strangulation) "blockade" of Gaza by Israel. I refer you to Carter's December editorial in the Washington Post "An Unnecessary War".
The only figure seeking to avoid peace in Palestine amongst the serious players is the Israeli regime and its utterly barbaric rightwing "settler" movement.
Posted by syfriendly at 04/02/2009 @ 8:46pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ article/2009/01/07/AR2009010702645.html
" ... I know from personal involvement that the devastating invasion of Gaza by Israel could easily have been avoided ...
The top Hamas leaders in Damascus, however, agreed to consider a cease-fire in Gaza only, provided Israel would not attack Gaza and would permit normal humanitarian supplies to be delivered to Palestinian citizens.
After extended discussions with those from Gaza, these Hamas leaders also agreed to accept any peace agreement that might be negotiated between the Israelis and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who also heads the PLO, provided it was approved by a majority vote of Palestinians in a referendum or by an elected unity government.
Since we were only observers, and not negotiators, we relayed this information to the Egyptians, and they pursued the cease-fire proposal. After about a month, the Egyptians and Hamas informed us that all military action by both sides and all rocket firing would stop on June 19, for a period of six months, and that humanitarian supplies would be restored to the normal level that had existed before Israel's withdrawal in 2005 (about 700 trucks daily).
We were unable to confirm this in Jerusalem because of Israel's unwillingness to admit to any negotiations with Hamas, but rocket firing was soon stopped and there was an increase in supplies of food, water, medicine and fuel. Yet the increase was to an average of about 20 percent of normal levels. And this fragile truce was partially broken on Nov. 4, when Israel launched an attack in Gaza to destroy a defensive tunnel being dug by Hamas inside the wall that encloses Gaza ..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ article/2009/01/07/AR2009010702645.html
Posted by syfriendly at 04/02/2009 @ 8:53pm
"The fence around Israel is airspace restrictions. I just don't see it. Too many tactical hurdles"(Benchrest)
The Israelis must be plutzing because Russia has recently announced it is leaving troops in Georgia, in defiance of its agreement not to do so.The reason has to be Israel. Remember that Russia said that it destroyed the airspaces in Georgia during the war, from which Israel intended to later launch its missiles against Iran. Well guess what? Russia doesn't trust neither Netanyahu nor Saakashvili, and this complicates Israel's plans. It would never be able to get Obama to agree to use Iraq's airspace, and Tel Aviv is far enough away.That won't deter Bibi though. Obama will never use US financial aid as leverage --although he should-- because of the apoplectic reaction from AIPAC. Another spoke in the wheel to Bibi's plans is Iran's brilliant offer to aid America in Afghanistan, and Israel is plutzing over that as well. Two plutzes = foaming at the mouth.
Posted by mystic at 04/02/2009 @ 9:41pm
Posted by mystic at 04/02/2009 @ 9:41pm
Good post.
I'm not sure what good it would do for Israel to launch missiles, as they would achieve little if they are going after the big targets.
However, there are high value targets that are of a more sinister nature to be considered as well.
Posted by Benchrest at 04/02/2009 @ 11:36pm
"To suggest Iran lacks delivery systems is to ignore the facts. From missile Subs to long Range Missiles, Iran has the delivery capability.
Iran Begins Building First Locally-Built Submarine "
A sub-launched SAM system isn't going to be delivering nukes to Tel Aviv any time soon.
You have someone other than the Israelis who claim that there have been tests of the Shahab-5 or Shahab-6? The Shahab-3 does have a 800 mile range which, however, makes it an MRBM, not an ICBM, of which Iran has none. The Shahab-4 wasn't operational as of September 2008, according to the CSIS.
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/081006_iran_nuclear_part2.pdf
"Torpedo fired missiles like Iran uses only need to be fired from international waters. "
The Iranians have a whopping total of three obsolete Kilo-class submarines; which, incidentally, only fire torpedoes from their torpedo tubes.
Posted by brunowe at 04/02/2009 @ 11:46pm
And what does Israel plan for AFTER it launches bombs & nukes over Iran?
Does it expect Iran to crumble? Does it expect the rest of the region to sit on its hands?
Or is Israel prepared for Masada Now?
And are there political/business elements in the US & Europe who would just as soon see Israel commit suicide in a regional conflagration?
Posted by sloper at 04/03/2009 @ 03:06am
Since he was stuck with a situation where there already were nukes in North Korea... President Bush pursued avenues of diplomacy....----Posted by sjchermak at 04/02/2009 @ 3:49pm
Cool...so same standard right?
"Since he was stuck with a situation where there already were nukes in North Korea... President OBAMA pursues avenues of diplomacy...."....right?
Or next time NK starts blustering are you going to demand he "take action" and prove yourself a hypocrite?
Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 08:15am
The Europeans are not fools. They see Obama, with all his charm, escalating to around 30,000 troops (every day there are more) and they know this is a pandora's box, especially with Pakistan involved now. They know NATO does not belong in a South-East Asian unwinnable war and I hope they come to their senses and pull out leaving the puppet Obama (=Petraeus)to continue murdering Americans for years to come. Bush must be happy as a lark that his policies are even widening.The Military Industrial Complex has a duty to continue these murders. Meanwhile Iran in a brilliant move is trying to thwart Israel by offering to help Obama in Afghanistan. Where is the outrage in America? We are going down the toilet, in debt up to our kishkes , continue to hand billions every year to Israel to build their settlements, have no jobs, infrastructure, economic stability or health insurance. We allowed the boogeyman Bin Laden to escape and now that Boutto announced that he is dead after all, we have to decide who the bogeyman is going to be. Outrage!!!!! NATO knows what to do and that's get out fast, before things get even worse.That's what a Pandora's Box does.
Posted by mystic at 04/03/2009 @ 09:01am
The Iranians have a whopping total of three obsolete Kilo-class submarines; which, incidentally, only fire torpedoes from their torpedo tubes.
Posted by brunowe at 04/02/2009 @ 11:46pm
You're wrong Brunowe. The Kilo's and the Iranian built Ghadir and Wale Class subs all fire missiles from the torpedo tubes. I've watched video of test firings. This technology was used also by the US in our diesel sub fleet with the Subroc missile which was fired from tubes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUM-44_SUBROC
Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 09:27am
I have a suggestion for Syfriendly and all of the other jihadist supporters.
I think you ought to show the firmness of your convictions and go stand with your Hamas buddies in Gaza and give a one finger salute to the Israeli Army.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 09:35am
Hmmm. And, google any of these particular Democrats names + AIPAC. They're all historically huge supporters. Unfortunately, they can't separate their love for Israel from their duty to America.
Posted by LeftRightLeft at 04/03/2009 @ 09:52am
Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 09:35am
And what would the Israeli Army do in that case, Larry?
Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 10:17am
And what would the Israeli Army do in that case, Larry?
Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 10:17am
I'm satisified to leave it to their judgment.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 10:46am
Mask,
You asked ".....Or next time NK starts blustering are you going to demand he "take action" and prove yourself a hypocrite?....."
Answer: No
Since North Korea has a nuke, I do not know what kind of "action" could be taken.
By the way, North Korea IS blustering now, threatening to unleash holy hell upon anybody that dare shoot down their missile, when they launch it.
This, of course is why Iran needs to be prevented from ever getting a nuke, so we don't wind up in the same situation some day.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/03/2009 @ 11:07am
"The Kilo's and the Iranian built Ghadir and Wale Class subs all fire missiles from the torpedo tubes. I've watched video of test firings."
I'll rephrase. They don't fire missiles that can hit ground targets. The Shkval is an anti-surface ship weapon.
The Ghadir and Wale-class boats are midget submarines which would also fire the Shkval.
"with the Subroc missile which was fired from tubes. "
The SUBROC is an anti-submarine missile.
The point is that you have asserted that Iran has delivery systems which could threaten ground targets in Europe and the United States. They don't. They do have an anti-ship capability that poses a potential threat to shipping in and near the Persian Gulf.
Posted by brunowe at 04/03/2009 @ 11:08am
Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 10:46am
Well, you can atleast offer an opinion, Larry on what the Israeli Army should do to people pointing their fingers at them?
Or you could admit you know the trap that's coming if you answered honestly....LOL!
Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 11:58am
This, of course is why Iran needs to be prevented from ever getting a nuke, so we don't wind up in the same situation some day.----Posted by sjchermak at 04/03/2009 @ 11:07am
You mean Iran would start acting like North Korea?
Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 11:59am
Well, you can atleast offer an opinion, Larry on what the Israeli Army should do to people pointing their fingers at them?
Or you could admit you know the trap that's coming if you answered honestly....LOL!
Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 11:58am
No, because there any number of variables that could enter into the situation. What happens after the initial confrontation being the largest.
If you go to the front lines of a war and give the finger to the opposition, you deserve whatever happens. Is that clear enough?
Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 12:05pm
Is that clear enough?---Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 12:05pm
Not quite...but we all know you won't be completely clear because of the obvious implication.
That being you would endorse the Israeli Army KILLING people who make hand gestures at it....and would show how fringey you are ...again.
heheh
Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 1:02pm
Not quite...but we all know you won't be completely clear because of the obvious implication.
That being you would endorse the Israeli Army KILLING people who make hand gestures at it....and would show how fringey you are ...again.
heheh
Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 1:02pm
if you go on the front lines of an enemy soldier and give them the finger, you deserve whatever happens including being shot---is that clear enough?
Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 1:08pm
While Ross may have had some contact with Congress, Israel has many supporters in Congress. The Israeli Lobby has a lot of political clout. However, I don't think the Israeli Air Force has the strategic reach to mount a sustained successful attack on Iran. They will keep trying to get us involved, but I don't think even Bush was that stupid.
Posted by pjcasey at 04/03/2009 @ 1:36pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 1:08pm
Well, since you mentioned NOTHING about them shooting at the Israelis, or even being armed...
you'd endorse the Israeli Army shooting unarmed people for merely gesturing then, wouldn't you?
Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 2:13pm
'As Arab thoroughfares go, Hamra Street in the center of Beirut is probably the most chic of them all. International in flavor, cosmopolitan in character, it boasts the sort of smart little café where a Lebanese sophisticate can pause between water-skiing in the Mediterranean in the morning and snow-skiing in the mountains just above the city in the afternoon. "The Paris of the Middle East" used to be the cliché about Beirut: by that exacting standard, I suppose, Hamra Street would be the Boulevard Saint-Germain.
Not at all the sort of place you would expect to find a spinning red swastika on prominent display. Yet, as I strolled in company along Hamra on a sunny Valentine's Day last February, in search of a trinket for the beloved and perhaps some stout shoes for myself, a swastika was just what I ran into. I recognized it as the logo of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, a Fascist organization (it would be more honest if it called itself "National Socialist") that yells for a "Greater Syria" comprising all of Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, Cyprus, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, and swaths of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt. It's one of the suicide-bomber front organizations--the other one being Hezbollah, or "the party of god"--through which Syria's Ba'thist dictatorship exerts overt and covert influence on Lebanese affairs.
....
Try picturing a Shiite-Muslim mega-church in a huge downtown tent, with separate entrances for men and women and separate seating (with the women all covered in black). A huge poster of a nuclear mushroom cloud surmounts the scene, with the inscription OH ZIONISTS, IF YOU WANT THIS TYPE OF WAR THEN SO BE IT!' -- Christopher Hitchens -- Vanity Fair -- May 2009
Posted by HonestLiberal at 04/03/2009 @ 2:42pm
Posted by HonestLiberal at 04/03/2009 @ 2:42pm
Hey, HL...wanna post some Hitchens' quotes on...economics...or religion?
No?
LOL
Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 3:03pm
'...And yet--the believers still claim to know! Not just to know, but to know everything. Not just to know that god exists, and that he created and supervised the whole enterprise, but also to know what "he" demands of us--from our diet to our observances to our sexual morality. In other words, in a vast and complicated discussion where we know more and more about less and less, yet can still hope for some enlightenment as we proceed, one faction--itself composed of mutually warring factions--has the sheer arrogance to tell us that we already have all the essential information we need. Such stupidity, combined with such pride, should be enough on its own to exclude "belief" from the debate. The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species. It may be a long farewell, but it has begun and, like all farewells, should not be protracted. ...
I would be quite content to go to their children's bar mitzvahs, to marvel at their Gothic cathedrals, to "respect" their belief that the Koran was dictated, though exclusively in Arabic, to an illiterate merchant, or to interest myself in Wicca and Hindu and Jain consolations. And as it happens, I will continue to do this without insisting on the polite reciprocal condition--which is that they in turn leave me alone. But this, religion is ultimately incapable of doing. As I write these words, and as you read them, people of faith are in their different ways planning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all the hard-won human attainments that I have touched upon. Religion poisons everything....' -- Christopher Hitchens -- 'God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything'
Posted by HonestLiberal at 04/03/2009 @ 3:23pm
'...The written Arabic language has two features that make it difficult for an outsider to learn: it uses dots to distinguish consonants like "b" and "t," and in its original form it had no sign or symbol for short vowels, which could be rendered by various dashes or comma-type marks. Vastly different readings even of Uthman's version were enabled by these variations. Arabic script itself was not standardized until the later part of the ninth century, and in the meantime the undotted and oddly voweled Koran was generating wildly different explanations of itself, as it still does. This might not matter in the case of the Iliad, but remember that we are supposed to be talking about the unalterable (and final) word of god. There is obviously a connection between the sheer feebleness of this claim and the absolutely fanatical certainty with which it is advanced. To take one instance that can hardly be called negligible, the Arabic words written on the outside of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem are different from any version that appears in the Koran....' -- Christopher Hitchens -- God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
Posted by HonestLiberal at 04/03/2009 @ 3:28pm
'...I have heard arguments about whether it was Milton Friedman or Gore Vidal who first came up with this apt summary of a collusion between the overweening state and certain favored monopolistic concerns, whereby the profits can be privatized and the debts conveniently socialized, but another term for the same system would be "banana republic."
...
And still, in so many words in the phrasing of the first bailout request to be placed before Congress, there appeared the brazen demand that, once passed, the "package" be subject to virtually no more Congressional supervision or oversight. This extraordinary proposal shows the utter contempt in which the deliberative bodies on Capitol Hill are held by the unelected and inscrutable financial panjandrums. But welcome to another aspect of banana-republicdom. In a banana republic, the members of the national legislature will be (a) largely for sale and (b) consulted only for ceremonial and rubber-stamp purposes some time after all the truly important decisions have already been made elsewhere.
...
These are the rules that apply in Zimbabwe or Equatorial Guinea or Venezuela, where the political big boys mimic what is said about our hedge funds and investment banks: the stupid mantra about being "too big to fail."' -- Christopher Hitchens -- Vanity Fair -- 9 October, 2008
Posted by HonestLiberal at 04/03/2009 @ 3:40pm
No needless death is welcome, but when the Israeli settlers rob the Palestinians' land and rub their noses in the dirt, you have to agree that the axe killing of a 13 year old Israeli settler by a Palestinian two days ago was provoked. Can't say I feel sorry either.
Posted by mystic at 04/03/2009 @ 3:42pm
No needless death is welcome, but when the Israeli settlers rob the Palestinians' land and rub their noses in the dirt, you have to agree that the axe killing of a 13 year old Israeli settler by a Palestinian two days ago was provoked. Can't say I feel sorry either.
Posted by mystic at 04/03/2009 @ 3:42pm
I'm sure you do since we all know the 13 year old deserved to be hacked to death for being a Jew-isn't that right bigot?
Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 3:48pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 3:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person
And I'm (quite) sure you agree that it was ok for 1300 Palestinians to be killed to help try to get Tzipi Livni elected, and so that the brutish Israeli people could recover their self-esteem after their shocking loss to Lebanon.
(In some countries, warfare against defenseless populations isn't pursued for the same reasons of national pride that normally drive international soccer competitions).
Posted by syfriendly at 04/03/2009 @ 3:54pm
Posted by mystic at 04/03/2009 @ 3:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The killing of the child was certainly a sick thing, and it was a sick person who did it. And it is also sadly true, that the sickness he had was brought on him by Israel. He's accountable for his actions; but so is Israel.
Posted by syfriendly at 04/03/2009 @ 3:56pm
'The only good human is a dead human' -- General Urko
Posted by HonestLiberal at 04/03/2009 @ 4:01pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 3:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Hundreds of Palestinian children were killed in Israel's recent savage and barbaric assault on the Palestinians living in the Gaza prison. And you cheered it on.
You're utterly racist, unforgivably inhuman and racist. Is it your personal religious lunacy? Or just a base character? Who could know? Who cares? You're faced with hundreds of children dying, and you cheer it on. Then you cry to the heavens when child of an ethnicity you approve dies.
I have little sympathy for the few Israelis who suffer or die as a result of Palestinian violence, very little; but I understand that, ultimately, the suffering and dying shouldn't happen in Israel either. The Israeli people are brutal and racist, and their regimes are in general evil, and Israel digs its own hole in so many ways, but I'd just as soon not hear of another of their deaths either.
Posted by syfriendly at 04/03/2009 @ 4:15pm
Whoa, honestliberal, now you've got a quote you can throw in their faces every time: Mystic's
"No needless death is welcome, but..."
Ranks right up there with Stalin's remark about a million deaths being a statistic.
Good shabbas everyone.
ps. I hope your latest blasts didnt hurt Mask, but he DID ask for it.
Posted by Mistral at 04/03/2009 @ 4:16pm
Posted by Mistral at 04/03/2009 @ 4:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The same quote applies to you, a figure who cheered for the Israelis as they slaughtered and injured thousands only last December.
Posted by syfriendly at 04/03/2009 @ 4:32pm
Mistral, either syfriendly is spying on you (because syfriendly claims to know you 'cheered') or just ... how can I put this charitably ... syfriendly's words do not agree with ... reality?
Posted by HonestLiberal at 04/03/2009 @ 4:42pm
>>>The big question is: Did Dennis Ross, the US special adviser for Iran and a hardliner, encourage the members of Congress to send the letter?<<<
No!
This is just another AIPAC inspired maneuver. Israel has absolutely ZERO credibility when it comes to the transparency of nuclear arms development. Iran is the one that has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that Israel refuses to sign.
And shooting off at the mouth about attacking Iran without ANY credible evidence of nuclear weapons development shows the same sort of cowboy mentality that got us into the mess in Iraq.
If Netanyahu is not up to the task of leading and is only capable of making military threats against Israel's neighbors, then he should step aside and let real grown-ups lead his country, as the world simply doesn't have any more patience with those who want to bomb other countries based on shoddy intelligence.
Posted by Metteyya at 04/04/2009 @ 01:46am
How did we sink so low that any loudmouth cowboy with a gun in his hand is considered a serious world leader?
The average 12-year-old can do better than spout off military threats, so where did all of the grown-ups go in the Israeli government?
Posted by Metteyya at 04/04/2009 @ 02:25am
For those optimistic souls who are buying into the Dow this week, I would urge extreme caution. The ‘elephant in the room' is already pondering whether to strike at Iran next week or next month and whether to use its secret nuclear warheads or conventional weapons to endeavour to achieve its aim of continued military dominance in the region.
When we awake that terrible morning, I would advise you to sell all your stocks and retire into your fallout shelter, with your ‘45 at the ready. The world will never ever be the same again. ‘Why did we allow it happen?' will be the cry, and the silent answer will be deafening in its intensity.
Posted by bluecanarygm at 04/04/2009 @ 04:06am
BiBi is the legacy of Bush. Bibi's first time around as PM was an unholy mess. The second time around, just like Bish 43, the people of Israel didn't vote him into office, Shimon Peres assigned him the PM position, just like the supreme court decided in Bush's favor. And like Bush, Bibi is on his way to bankrupting Israel of the last threads of any respect it has in the intl community.
The US needs to stop the foreign policy hypocrisy the feeds Bibi's bluster about Iran. Israel pre-emptively invades their neighbors, Iran does not.
For the US, demonizing and warmongering for Iran to protect Israel is wrong. The Iran 'issue' is 100% Israeli.
For Israel, well, only Israel is destroying Israel, especially with Bibi and the Moldavain thug Lieberman as his FM.
Unlike Iran, Israel simply has too much to hide and wants to keep it that way. When is Israel going to sign the NNPT and allow IAEA inspections ? Which Iran has done.
The US and Israel want Iranian nuclear transparency? Then Israel better be just as transparent.
America's silence about Israelis nuclear weapons and lack of membership to the NPT while maintaining such harsh rhetoric towards Iran's nuclear program, which is legally allowed to enrich uranium as a NPT member is an example of the kind of outright double standard BS that the United States has been following in its foreign policy.
Good news? There will be when the US, Obama, the Congress with AIPAC pulling the strings of it's puppets, recognizes a two-state solution, a separation between Israel and this one, the United States.
Bibi needs to be stopped, I only hope Obama has the guts to stand up to him and AIPAC. The time of the neocons like BiBi is over.
Posted by Betz55 at 04/04/2009 @ 1:23pm
Good news? There will be when the US, Obama, the Congress with AIPAC pulling the strings of it's puppets, recognizes a two-state solution, a separation between Israel and this one, the United States.
Bibi needs to be stopped, I only hope Obama has the guts to stand up to him and AIPAC. The time of the neocons like BiBi is over.
Posted by Betz55 at 04/04/2009 @ 1:23pm
1st of all, Bibi Netenyahu is one of Israel's greatest leaders and a true friend of the US.
2. There has been a 2 state solution since 1922 and in place since 1947. the Arab state that was created out of British Palestine is now called Jordan. More Arab "Palestinians" live there than anywhere else. this Arab state occupies 75% of what was British Palestine.
That was never sufficient for the Arabs since the Qu'ran does not allow for the existence of Israel or Jews in authority anywhwere that has at some time been under the control of Muslims.
When the Arabs finally accept Israel existing on .5 of 1% of the ME, perhaps there can be peace.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/04/2009 @ 4:02pm
If sanity does not prevail and the Palestinians Jews attack another sovereign country surely the time will have arrived to consider the usefulness of such a group. A group that thrives on killing people that they disagree with.
Posted by ehross at 04/04/2009 @ 6:31pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/04/2009 @ 4:02pm
Larry's authority is of course the San Remo conference and the now-defunct League of Nations.
I think the Palestinians should raise his bet and cite the Third Council of Lateran! (Canon 26)
Posted by Mask at 04/05/2009 @ 07:55am
Netanyaya has never been for peace nor has his lunatic Foreign Minister Liebermann. Now with both sounding more and more like Cheeeney every day I'm amazed these lunatics haven't tried to bomb Iran already.
I believe Gates in wrong in this context... Neither of the men mentioned above want anything to do with trying to solve the problem they have in their own back yard and will do everything in their power to divert the world's attention away from the Palestinians. They know, understand and choose to ignore this issue which is what is causing most of the problems in the Middle East in total.
AND, the US is doing nothing to try and discourage military options in lieu of trying to reach some sort of peace arrangement.
Posted by Winski at 04/05/2009 @ 10:17am
Bibi and his enablers seem to want to extend the Israeli, not Jewish, insanity. Israel has become a caricature of its former self and seems to have given itself over to common thugs. I have watched Israel go from the heroic humanistic city state to a thuggish nation with nukes. Not a pretty sight.
Posted by julien38 at 04/05/2009 @ 12:46pm
" You say first the 2 state solution.
The proposal for the 2 state solution DID come first.... in 1948.
And Israel did not object.
Israel's enemies did... and things have gone downhill ever since.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/02/2009 @ 3:31pm "
sjchermak:
What's your point, this means that what was not settled then should be left unsettled forever...seems like coming from Likud camp...
The time to settle this nonsense is NOW, so that whole world can live free of this bull sh*t we are subjected to everyday...
If you are trying to convince that all Israeli politicians which include Bibi, Lieberman are honest brokers then take a hike...we all know they are also radical to the core...IN A BAD WAY...
Posted by freenation at 04/05/2009 @ 2:23pm
Posted by freenation at 04/05/2009 @ 2:23pm
Except for the honest, yet equally crazy Right, like antisoc Larry....you won't get a straight answer from SJCHER on his "solution".
Because they (the SJ guys) know what it means and how it plays in the general public.
Posted by Mask at 04/05/2009 @ 3:10pm
Who thinks that this will be settled before our grandchildren are senior citizens (for comparison, remember that the Balkan problem outlasted the Holy Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Third Reich, and the Soviets)?
Posted by Mistral at 04/06/2009 @ 10:14am
freenation,
Despite what Mask says I have given the straight answer time and time again regarding this.
It is not a question of it remaining unsettled forever.. It is a question of why it was unsettled in 1948 and why it remains unsettled today.
And the reason it is "unsettled" is that the Arab world wants no Israel.
That is the reason why the intial conflict began in 1948.. and since the Arab world has never given one inch of ground on that (except for Anwar Sadat and Egypt)... it is why it remains unsettled today.
The Arab world has no intention of ever accepting the existence of Israel.. and most of the world is anti-Semetic and not only will not force the Arab world to do so but actually encourages the opposite.
All we hear over and over again is that there have to be solutions and concessions from both sides, but what happens is that concessions get made by Israel then the Palestinians go back to the goal of no Israel.
And those things that are cited as Israeli "wrongs" (settlements, the occupied territories, the security fence) only came about as Israel was forced to defend itself against enemies that want there to be no Israel.
I have said over and over again I have no solution, because I do not know how to force the Arab world to knock their crap off.
I do know the last thing we need is an administration that is just a re-incarnation of Jimmy Carter, regarding the attitude he had towards Israel, but it appears that is what we have now.
When U.N. conferences on racism turn into bash Israel conferences, then I feel Bibi has every right to do what Israel needs to do to ensure it's continued existence.
You say the time to "settle this nonsense is NOW"... no kidding... who is going to make the Arabs do that?
Posted by sjchermak at 04/06/2009 @ 11:25am
I also would like Mask to explain how my post above is not a straight answer.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/06/2009 @ 11:26am
I have said over and over again I have no solution, because I do not know how to force the Arab world to knock their crap off. ---Posted by sjchermak at 04/06/2009 @ 11:25am
It IS a straight answer, SJCHER....refreshingly so. Most of your fellow Righties want the lvlib/antisoc "Bomb da bastards back to Jordan where they belong"...but know how insane that sounds.
But it also proves that for all your complaints, you're as stuck as anybody else and just know "what we SHOULDN'T do".
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 12:25pm
It IS a straight answer, SJCHER....refreshingly so. Most of your fellow Righties want the lvlib/antisoc "Bomb da bastards back to Jordan where they belong"...but know how insane that sounds.
But it also proves that for all your complaints, you're as stuck as anybody else and just know "what we SHOULDN'T do".
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 12:25pm
I have never said or suggested "bombing" arabs back to Jordan. That is just your usual BS lies.
I've called for agreement by the Arabs to honor the previous agreements that gave them 75% of British Palestine. But like others on the left, you believe that 75% is still an unfair division to the Arabs.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/06/2009 @ 12:29pm
I have never said or suggested "bombing" arabs back to Jordan. That is just your usual BS lies.---Posted by antisocialist at 04/06/2009 @ 12:29pm
Sigh. Okay here we go again. I lay out some phrase that Larry denies because it sounds "too hyperbolic" and "distorts his position"....then I ask a few questions....he agrees with the questions....and it effectively proves my original point, just not the "language" that he would prefer.
The questions are-
1. Do you, Larry, want to see the Palestinians go "back to Jordan" where they "are from"?
2. If they refuse and continue intifada, do you favor using air power of the Israeli Defense Force to try to stop them?
3. Would that involve bombing from the air?
4. Would that, in your hope, get them to surrender and decide to "move back" to Jordan and leave the WB and Gaza to its "rightful owner" Israel?
5. If yes to 1-4, how is what I said wrong?
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 1:48pm
The questions are-
1. Do you, Larry, want to see the Palestinians go "back to Jordan" where they "are from"?
2. If they refuse and continue intifada, do you favor using air power of the Israeli Defense Force to try to stop them?
3. Would that involve bombing from the air?
4. Would that, in your hope, get them to surrender and decide to "move back" to Jordan and leave the WB and Gaza to its "rightful owner" Israel?
5. If yes to 1-4, how is what I said wrong?
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 1:48pm
Because your statement made it appear as if that was the first step in the process rather than a last resort if no agreeement is reached.
Again Mask, everyone agrees that you are long on criticisms, but short on solutions.
Tell us how two intractable sides can find agreement on the 25% that the Arabs refuse to give up?
And you also refuse to answer why the Arabs having 75% of the land is a terrible deal for them.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/06/2009 @ 2:35pm
Because your statement made it appear as if that was the first step in the process rather than a last resort if no agreeement is reached.----Posted by antisocialist at 04/06/2009 @ 2:35pm
But it IS a "resort" of yours, isn't it?
If "need be" to "bomb them back to Jordan"....so Larry...
"I have never said or suggested "bombing" arabs back to Jordan. That is just your usual BS lies."---Posted by antisocialist at 04/06/2009 @ 12:29pm
was it a "BS lie"?
See again, your problem isn't that I'm lying...it's that I'm telling the unvarnished TRUTH about your position, with none of the rhetorical flourish or referencing the San Remo Conference of 1922.
Just the plain simple fact of your "solution"...one might even call it a "Final Solution" given it's a "LAST resort", huh?
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 2:52pm
BTW, my solution?
Negotiations. And telling those ON BOTH SIDES to cool it and compromise.
Even those who "refuse to answer why the Israelis NOT having Gaza and the West Bank is a terrible deal for them"....you know?...like you.
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 2:55pm
was it a "BS lie"?
See again, your problem isn't that I'm lying...it's that I'm telling the unvarnished TRUTH about your position, with none of the rhetorical flourish or referencing the San Remo Conference of 1922.
Just the plain simple fact of your "solution"...one might even call it a "Final Solution" given it's a "LAST resort", huh?
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 2:52pm
yes Mask, you are a liar.
Go join your buddy Syfriendly with the jihadists.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/06/2009 @ 3:02pm
'BTW, my solution? Negotiations. And telling those ON BOTH SIDES to cool it and compromise.' -- Mask
'Ahhh...arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you!' -- Ambassador Londo Mollari -- Babylon 5
Posted by HonestLiberal at 04/06/2009 @ 3:15pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/06/2009 @ 3:02pm
Point out the "lie", Larry...specifically.
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 3:46pm
Posted by HonestLiberal at 04/06/2009 @ 3:15pm
"Much as it might offend their sense of perspective, not everything is about Babylon 5."---"Alfred Bester" (Walter Koenig) "Babylon-Five"
heheh
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 3:48pm
'..."I killed Mohammed!"
"No, I killed Mohammed!" ...'
-- from 'The Men Who Murdered Mohammed' by Alfred Bester
Posted by HonestLiberal at 04/06/2009 @ 4:12pm
Mask,
You say (regarding the Middle East):
".......BTW, my solution?
Negotiations. And telling those ON BOTH SIDES to cool it and compromise. ..."
Mask, the Arab world/Palestinians want no Israel... they have no intention whatsoever of compromising.
Telling them to compromise has NEVER worked before.
Anwar Sadat of Egypt decided to go for peace. He wasn't told to do so, not by Jimmy Carter or anybody else. It was his initiative. He was murdered because of this and there have been no more Anwar Sadats, there are none now.
Even when they (Arabs and Palestinians) say they are compromising, they are not.
1. Arafat at one point admitted Israel has a right to exist. IN ENGLISH... in Arabic, the word went out, keep on with the jihad and intifada.
2. The Oslo accords dictated that both sides have understanding of each other and that the rhetoric and hate be toned down, etc... but Palestinian schoolkids opened up their textbooks to find maps of the region showed the area labeled as Palestine. No mention of Israel. They did not live up to that agreement.
Your solution has been tried over and over again and has failed.
I have said I don't know how to make the Arabs knock the crap off.
Maybe somebody, a President of the U.S. perhaps, or a Prime Minister of another country, should tell them that directly and tell them they are totally to blame for the problems in the Middle East..but ...nobody will do that and a lot of people in the world don't agree that is the case to begin with. (they are wrong)
So what is your solution now, since I have pointed out to you your solution has never worked before?
Posted by sjchermak at 04/06/2009 @ 4:36pm
Point out the "lie", Larry...specifically.
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 3:46pm
Nowhere am I calling for or believe in a "Final Solution" for the Arabs.
Nowhere in my views is there a predetermination that bombing the Arabs back to Jordan must take place. In fact the only time I ever support or suggest bombing is in response to Arab attacks.
At the forefront of my position was negotiation. That negotiation must involve the other Arab nations who perpetuate the current status of the ME.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/06/2009 @ 5:00pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/06/2009 @ 5:00pm
1. You have a "last resort"...which is your version of a "solution" to the problem in Israel and Palestine, and since it's "last" it is "final". Semantics.
2. You also have as a "last resort", the use of air power "in response to Arab attacks". As I noted in my above questions, if the Palestinians refuse your generous offer ("get back to Jordan where you belong and give Gaza and the WB back to who the League of Nations said it belongs to!")...and use violence in that refusal...then your option IS "Bomb them" (until they go) "back to Jordan". You've yet to deny that, just get pissy that I boiled down your "Ultimate Answer" (better?) to a simple phrase.
3. Your negotiations are nothing more than "Take it or leave it as it was written in 1922 at San Remo". There is no compromise on YOUR part, yet you demand it from the other side.
Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 07:52am
3. Your negotiations are nothing more than "Take it or leave it as it was written in 1922 at San Remo". There is no compromise on YOUR part, yet you demand it from the other side.
Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 07:52am
Again Mask, the Jews already agreed to an un equal split when the Arabs received 75% of British Palestine.
Why do you insist that they give up even more?
You think you are endorsing a fair compromise that gives them 10-12% of the area?
And where are your consistent demands that the Arabs recognize Israel? Where are your demands that they take out the language on destroying Israel and the Jews?
I don't ever see you post those demands on the Arabs.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 08:52am
Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 08:52am
Larry, what does YOUR side compromise on?
If nothing...I stand by my statement.
3. Your negotiations are nothing more than "Take it or leave it as it was written in 1922 at San Remo". There is no compromise on YOUR part, yet you demand it from the other side.
Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 07:52am
Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 09:35am
Larry, what does YOUR side compromise on?
If nothing...I stand by my statement.
3. Your negotiations are nothing more than "Take it or leave it as it was written in 1922 at San Remo". There is no compromise on YOUR part, yet you demand it from the other side.
Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 07:52am
Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 09:35am
Let me repeat...Israel already made the majority of the compromises. The Arabs received 75% of the land and the Jews 25%.
You want them to compromise an additional 50-60% of the remaining 25 %. In effect, you are joining in with those calling for the elimination of the state of Israel.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 10:25am
Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 10:25am
Let ME repeat....is what I wrote wrong or right?
"3. Your negotiations are nothing more than "Take it or leave it as it was written in 1922 at San Remo". There is no compromise on YOUR part, yet you demand it from the other side."
Is that not an accurate statement?
Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 11:46am
Let ME repeat....is what I wrote wrong or right?
"3. Your negotiations are nothing more than "Take it or leave it as it was written in 1922 at San Remo". There is no compromise on YOUR part, yet you demand it from the other side."
Is that not an accurate statement?
Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 11:46am
It is half a statment. By only providing part of the context, you are wrong.
I'm not going to debate this further with you because you don't actually debate the issue. You just rephrase questions and as I said, you never provide any input of your own.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 11:57am
I wish some of the comments would take history into consideration here.
I mean right back to Abraham, where the whole thing started.
Posted by ficheye at 04/07/2009 @ 12:24pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 11:57am
"Context" is just your spin.
And what "debate"? Your position on what Israel should and should not do is firm and unmoveable and my point was that...
your position is firm and unmoveable.
We agree.
Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 1:02pm