What if Iran goes nuclear?

[Baltic]

What if Iran goes nuclear?
Ahead of Iran's presidential election, JID's nuclear correspondent highlights the potential implications if Tehran is indeed engaged in the covert development of a nuclear arsenal as Washington alleges. At the same time, there can be no doubt that Iranian hardliners remain intent on provoking Tehran's mainly Western critics.

On 28 May, Iran's powerful Guardian Council approved legislation that would compel the Islamic Republic to continue with its nuclear programme, including an eventual resumption of uranium enrichment. This decision will henceforth have to be respected by Iranian diplomats during future negotiations. More importantly, it signals a clear determination that Iran should have the means to acquire a nuclear capability in the future. Although the Iranians have suspended enrichment following intense diplomatic efforts by the European Union, this is likely to be only a temporary pause.

The likely consequences of Iran going nuclear continue to cause serious concern. The main fear is that it could spark off an all-out arms race in the Middle East which is likely to leave Israel more vulnerable. The Israeli government might feel constrained to declare its nuclear status - well known, but never officially acknowledged - which in turn is likely to put pressure on Egypt, Syria, Algeria and Saudi Arabia, all of which would feel threatened by Iran's new regional status as a nuclear-capable state. This chain of events might lead any, or all, of these regimes to step up their own efforts to develop nuclear programmes.

A future declaration by Tehran would also highlight the fact that the international nuclear non-proliferation regime would have finally collapsed. Although some critics already argue that North Korea's acquisition of nuclear weapons has already sounded the death knell for the non-proliferation system, an Iranian bomb would be cited as proof that efforts at diplomatic persuasion have failed. A more optimistic view is that a nuclear-capable Iran might evolve from being a 'rogue state' to a stable nuclear power like India by taking its position seriously and demonstrating a stronger commitment to regional stability.

The US administration and its allies are currently debating what to do if multilateral diplomacy fails to persuade Tehran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Proposals for externally influenced regime change are gaining ground in Washington. Some observers believe overthrowing the Tehran regime should have come ahead of military intervention in Iraq, which has turned out to have neither a nuclear capability nor other weapons of mass destruction.

Legislation has been proposed that would authorise the US President to provide assistance to foreign and domestic opposition groups. Apart from noting disparity among such groups, opponents of such direct interference in Iran believe that the growing internal clamour for reform will lead to the Iranian people eventually changing the nature of their government anyway and that intervention by external forces is likely to hinder, rather than help, achieve 'regime change'. However, this view risks underestimating the fact that the pursuit of a civilian nuclear programme enjoys broad support in Iran, while many Iranians - perhaps mindful of events in neighbouring Iraq - also favour the development of a nuclear deterrent. A popular consensus appears to exist that, as a sovereign state, the Islamic Republic has the right to its own nuclear fuel cycle and that it also has the legal right to develop nuclear weapons if it so chooses.

Of prime importance, however, is whether such 'regime change' can occur before or after Iran attains a nuclear weapons capability, which is viewed as being possible by 2006, particularly if it focuses on plutonium separation rather than uranium enrichment. A military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities - whether by the US or Israel - is still being advocated, despite the number of sites involved and US military forces being under constant attack in Iraq and Afghanistan. Added to this is the tendency to locate covert facilities deep underground. Following the much vaunted 'success' of US conventional precision-bombing during the 1991 Gulf War and the 1999 Kosovo conflict, rogue regimes have relocated sites to locations where conventional bombs - or even existing nuclear weapons - cannot destroy them.

It was the nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan in 1998 that conclusively demonstrated both states' entry into the nuclear 'club', even though they were widely regarded as nuclear-capable nations long before then. However, as testing is a rare event, other evidence such as intelligence, information from local scientists, UN inspectors and satellite surveillance is used to assess weapons capability. These methods are not foolproof.

Intelligence failures over Iraq, as well as having damaged the credibility of the US as the leader in the global battle against nuclear proliferation, have also made it all the more difficult to argue that other 'rogue' states such as Iran, which is much further on with its nuclear programme than Iraq ever was, have such ambitions. Many experts doubt whether Washington has any better intelligence about the nuclear capabilities of either Iran or North Korea.

Some analysts believe that current US intelligence is manifestly incapable of supporting a doctrine of pre-emptive war and that Washington is now entering a period of increased vulnerability to nuclear proliferation.

Would-be nuclear nations could step up their efforts to develop or acquire weapons in order to further deter the US from attacking them. None of those nations appears willing to accept US security guarantees given the Bush administration's preference for 'regime change' and nuclear pre-emptive strikes.

:|

[<Gypsum Fantastic>]

Every country has the right, and often the need to have a nuclear deterrent. This is established by those countries who have decided to establish nuclear weapons for themselves. They can't then say 'We can have it , but you can't'

A massive double standard.

[Clearday-TRForce]

What countries can do with nuclear weapons? Therein lies the real core of international anxiety: the United States seeks arms control only insofar as specific measures help guarantee U.S. preeminence...

The United States is fast losing whatever authority it might have had in global efforts to curb the spread of weapons of mass destruction; it is increasingly perceived as part of the problem, not as part of the solution. ;)

If U.S. unilateralism triggers the disintegration of the system of interlocking agreements and treaties that comprise the international nonproliferation and security regimes, the consequences would be far reaching. By the time the United States realizes that partnership and restraint provide greater security than going it alone, it could be too late. Nuclear weapons are a great leveler.

Pentagon gets to exercise its toys and call the shots--and as long as few Americans get hurt.

The underlying trend is toward U.S. unilateralism, which has the potential to destabilize international relations and frustrate international objectives on nonproliferation, war prevention, and disarmament... ;)




regards.

[b33f]

Every country has the right, and often the need to have a nuclear deterrent. This is established by those countries who have decided to establish nuclear weapons for themselves. They can't then say 'We can have it , but you can't'

A massive double standard.
The good guys are allowed to have it.
The evil ones not (but some have them and they should be taken away from them).

It's that easy.

[Ayura]

Every country has the right, and often the need to have a nuclear deterrent. This is established by those countries who have decided to establish nuclear weapons for themselves. They can't then say 'We can have it , but you can't'

A massive double standard.
The good guys are allowed to have it.
The evil ones not (but some have them and they should be taken away from them).

It's that easy.


The Iranians consider themselves the Good guys and you Americans to be the bad guys....we have two good guys and two bad guys :S

[Moledet]

Every country has the right, and often the need to have a nuclear deterrent. This is established by those countries who have decided to establish nuclear weapons for themselves. They can't then say 'We can have it , but you can't'

A massive double standard.
The good guys are allowed to have it.
The evil ones not (but some have them and they should be taken away from them).

It's that easy.


The Iranians consider themselves the Good guys and you Americans to be the bad guys....we have two good guys and two bad guys :S
The world leader decides about who's bad and who's good, so the US decides.

If Iran goes nuclear than the bunkerbusters will just make a much bigger blast.

[Rictor]

Every country has the right, and often the need to have a nuclear deterrent. This is established by those countries who have decided to establish nuclear weapons for themselves. They can't then say 'We can have it , but you can't'

A massive double standard.

What he said. Standards apply to everyone equally or not at all.

As for what would happen: absolutely nothing. Do any of you really, truly believe they would nuke Chicago or something? You may not like the Iranians, but give them more credit than that.


The world leader decides about who's bad and who's good, so the US decides.

If Iran goes nuclear than the bunkerbusters will just make a much bigger blast.

Might make right, eh? Fine, just please don't ever refer to law, justice or freedom again, as they are completely incompatible with the rule of force.

[Tim Nice But Dim]

What if Iran goes nuclear?

The same thing that happened when North Korea declared that it had a nuclear capability, absolutely nothing. Why? Because it is not smart to start a fight with a state which has a NBC capability.

[AROUETLJ]

What if Iran goes nuclear? Doesn't change anything. China and Pakistan are just as "evil", and, unlike Iran, they are not democracies. And yet we don't lose any sleep over them.

[BigBaribal]

There's one big problem in this world: people who are simply unable to understand that the motives of their enemies are simply similar to their own motives and that all the human beings basically work the same way.

This said, it's not a reason to rally the motives of your enemies or more subtly to forget to fight at first for one's own motives.

In fact, the worst threat in this world is not the patriots, but the guys using the patriotism for biased interests towards this globalism which can take many different forms.

[b33f]

Every country has the right, and often the need to have a nuclear deterrent. This is established by those countries who have decided to establish nuclear weapons for themselves. They can't then say 'We can have it , but you can't'

A massive double standard.

What he said. Standards apply to everyone equally or not at all.

As for what would happen: absolutely nothing. Do any of you really, truly believe they would nuke Chicago or something? You may not like the Iranians, but give them more credit than that.


The world leader decides about who's bad and who's good, so the US decides.

If Iran goes nuclear than the bunkerbusters will just make a much bigger blast.

Might make right, eh? Fine, just please don't ever refer to law, justice or freedom again, as they are completely incompatible with the rule of force.
Of course not, those that protect freedom, law and justice must eventually make use of force to uphold them.

[wiking]

Excellent posts Gypsum and Clearday-TRForce

[wiking]

Every country has the right, and often the need to have a nuclear deterrent. This is established by those countries who have decided to establish nuclear weapons for themselves. They can't then say 'We can have it , but you can't'

A massive double standard.
The good guys are allowed to have it.
The evil ones not (but some have them and they should be taken away from them).

It's that easy.


The Iranians consider themselves the Good guys and you Americans to be the bad guys....we have two good guys and two bad guys :S
The world leader decides about who's bad and who's good, so the US decides.

If Iran goes nuclear than the bunkerbusters will just make a much bigger blast.

Is this a joke\sarcasm or do you sincerely mean this?

[promillo]

Before they will get the bomb, they will ne liberated.

We will not repeat the mistake like northkorea.

The islamofascist dictatorship iran has nor right to own them. Its a criminal state, led by criminals ant iw would use them to blackmail neighbours (including old Europe) and israel.

We can not tolerate this grave danger.

[Weasel]

Every country has the right, and often the need to have a nuclear deterrent. This is established by those countries who have decided to establish nuclear weapons for themselves. They can't then say 'We can have it , but you can't'

A massive double standard.

x2

Good post.

[b33f]

Every country has the right, and often the need to have a nuclear deterrent. This is established by those countries who have decided to establish nuclear weapons for themselves. They can't then say 'We can have it , but you can't'

A massive double standard.

x2

Incorrect post.
Objectiveness is out of place when it comes to weapons.

[promillo]

Every country has the right, and often the need to have a nuclear deterrent. This is established by those countries who have decided to establish nuclear weapons for themselves. They can't then say 'We can have it , but you can't'

A massive double standard.

x2

Incorrect post.
Objectiveness is out of place when it comes to weapons.

Its not about objectiveness...
its about, if you allow someone who committed many crimes, to get new tools to commit even more crimes.

[b33f]

Every country has the right, and often the need to have a nuclear deterrent. This is established by those countries who have decided to establish nuclear weapons for themselves. They can't then say 'We can have it , but you can't'

A massive double standard.

x2

Incorrect post.
Objectiveness is out of place when it comes to weapons.

Its not about objectiveness...
its about, if you allow someone who committed many crimes, to get new tools to commit even more crimes.
I agree.

[Falco]

The difference I see with the US having NBC capabilities and Iran having the same capabilities is that the States haven't sworn to destroy Israël (or anyother country for that matter) by anymean possible.

I'm pretty sure the there is a law in a few countries that states that once you are convicted of a certain crime, you aren't allowed to possess firearms anymmore. It's the same principle with countries like Iran.

[CG51]

Iran's ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel. If Iran starts putting nuclear warheads on their new missiles, I seriously doubt that Israel will stand by and allow that.

Iraq was never a threat, and North Korea is a joke. Iran is the biggest threat to world stability, and it is only a matter of time before a major clash of interests happen in that region.

[BigBaribal]

I've not the littliest sympathy for the iranian mollahcracy (1), but the wish to destroy Israel is simply fantasmatic, even for these radical muslims: they perfectly know that attacking Isreal would mean total vitrification of Iran some minutes after their attack. Btw, it's a kind of racism to think that some peoples cannot think in a rational way. And this is especially wrong for the iranians.






(1) what a dream, the great Iranian people coming back to its persian roots and its real religion, the zoroastrism.

[Stormy]

what a dream, the great Iranian people coming back to its persian roots and its real religion, the zoroastrism.

Yes, I must admit it is a dream, unfortunitly. All the ancient religions are long gone and I don't see it coming back. The past greatness of the Ahura Mazda, Dionysus, Zeus, Aphrodite, Apollo, Mars, Mercury, Horus , Isis and Ra are long gone and by millions forgotten and replaced long ago by Abrahamic religions.

[Clarsachier]

I've not the littliest sympathy for the iranian mollahcracy (1), but the wish to destroy Israel is simply fantasmatic, even for these radical muslims: they perfectly know that attacking Isreal would mean total vitrification of Iran some minutes after their attack. Btw, it's a kind of racism to think that some peoples cannot think in a rational way. And this is especially wrong for the iranians.

(1) what a dream, the great Iranian people coming back to its persian roots and its real religion, the zoroastrism.


Yes, that's all well said.

Nuclear proliferation sucks big time but, there's nothing we can do about it. Those who're proponents of carpet bombing Iran due to some theoretical future threat to Israel are vocalizing the Israeli right wing's
agenda. Israel maintains a deterant by far in excess of what's necessary
to deter any 'nuke strike' by Iran or anybody else in the region.

Israel will just have to get used to having somebody else in the region who could retaliate. I'm sure that'll take some getting used to.

[DuDe]

What if Iran goes nuclear? Doesn't change anything. China and Pakistan are just as "evil", and, unlike Iran, they are not democracies.
ROFL, is that supposed to be a joke? Iran is no more a democracy than China, Pakistan or the lond dead USSR.

[oldsoak]

Its been said before - the nuclear djinn is out of the bottle ( or some suitable non-alcoholic container :P ). It might have been top secret in 1945, but its all public domain now. Very few secrets stand the test of time.

[Pille1234]

Most has already been said. Fact is, we can't do anything about that. Earlier or later, Iran will get the nuclear weopons. An air strike here and there may delay the timetable, but it is impossible to prevent it without a full scale attack, which is even more impossible.
Before some of you get wet dreams about bunker busters and cruise missiles, remember Germany had the highest military industrial output in late 1944, when the whole country was under permanent air bombardment. Now compare the size and geography of Germany and Iran and make your own conclusion.
We should better get used to the idea of a nuclear armed Iran and think about our behaviour. Every threat or actual use of force will only increase their determination and the Iranian people will forget their goodwill for the western world and start to sympathize with the hardliners and the antiwestern government.
Instead of threatening them we should try to support the reform elements in the Iranian society.

[oldsoak]

If you support the reformists, you wil alienate the hardliners - what then ?

[DuDe]

We should better get used to the idea of a nuclear armed Iran and think about our behaviour.
Yeah, because appeasment worked so well at 1939?

[Clarsachier]

Most has already been said. Fact is, we can't do anything about that. Earlier or later, Iran will get the nuclear weopons. An air strike here and there may delay the timetable, but it is impossible to prevent it without a full scale attack, which is even more impossible.
Before some of you get wet dreams about bunker busters and cruise missiles, remember Germany had the highest military industrial output in late 1944, when the whole country was under permanent air bombardment. Now compare the size and geography of Germany and Iran and make your own conclusion.
We should better get used to the idea of a nuclear armed Iran and think about our behaviour. Every threat or actual use of force will only increase their determination and the Iranian people will forget their goodwill for the western world and start to sympathize with the hardliners and the antiwestern government.
Instead of threatening them we should try to support the reform elements
in the Iranian society.


IMO, that was part of 'w's' mideast 'vision', the IDF doing the bombing with
U.S. supplying SEAD. But it hasn't happend for 2 reasons, 1: the administration lost the military inititive both militarily and in public opinion and, 2: the Iranians disbursed the entire industry just like the Germans did in WW2.

Anybody who thinks that the U.S. and Israel is going to mount a major carpet bombing campaign to pound Iran into submission probably thinks
the U.S. is up to occupying another country.

[TuNeRsHaRk]

if they go nuclear well just have to send in the seals and take out their leader

http://www.specialoperations.com/Navy/SEALs/SEAL_River_Insertion.jpg

[Freibier]

if they go nuclear well just have to send in the seals and take out their leader

http://www.specialoperations.com/Navy/SEALs/SEAL_River_Insertion.jpg
No, that's what you should've done with iraq.
Mucho cheaper and much more effective. Won't work in Iran though because the whole country isn't run by one person/family like in iraq :P

[Pille1234]

If you support the reformists, you wil alienate the hardliners - what then ?
I can live with that. They are hardliners but not mad freaks who initiate the nuclear armageddon just because radio liberty went on air. Their behaviour may look strange for us, but they are not acting irrational.

We should be far more concerned about Pakistan. There are many people who are really willing to end their life just to kill unbelievers. If those people get access to nukes, then nuclear deterrence may fail. But i really don't see that in Iran.

[promillo]

The difference I see with the US having NBC capabilities and Iran having the same capabilities is that the States haven't sworn to destroy Israël (or anyother country for that matter) by anymean possible.

I'm pretty sure the there is a law in a few countries that states that once you are convicted of a certain crime, you aren't allowed to possess firearms anymmore. It's the same principle with countries like Iran.

Very good explanation.

[promillo]

...We should better get used to the idea of a nuclear armed Iran and think about our behaviour. Every threat or actual use of force will only increase their determination and the Iranian people will forget their goodwill for the western world and start to sympathize with the hardliners and the antiwestern government.
Instead of threatening them we should try to support the reform elements in the Iranian society.

We shall obey the iranian blackmailing?
NEver.
As you said, it will be a full scale liberation if mullah-iran continues to get the bomb.
Problem solved.

[Moledet]

I've not the littliest sympathy for the iranian mollahcracy (1), but the wish to destroy Israel is simply fantasmatic, even for these radical muslims: they perfectly know that attacking Isreal would mean total vitrification of Iran some minutes after their attack. Btw, it's a kind of racism to think that some peoples cannot think in a rational way. And this is especially wrong for the iranians.

(1) what a dream, the great Iranian people coming back to its persian roots and its real religion, the zoroastrism.


Yes, that's all well said.

Nuclear proliferation sucks big time but, there's nothing we can do about it. Those who're proponents of carpet bombing Iran due to some theoretical future threat to Israel are vocalizing the Israeli right wing's
agenda. Israel maintains a deterant by far in excess of what's necessary
to deter any 'nuke strike' by Iran or anybody else in the region.

Israel will just have to get used to having somebody else in the region who could retaliate. I'm sure that'll take some getting used to.
It's not about them using nukes against us, it's about them funding terror to destroy us. You have no clue what terror can cause the economy, it's not like in a war that if you win your economy gets a serious boost, you need to get the confidence of the investors back and that takes years and one terror attack is enough to destroy the confidence again.
And without an economy there's no Israel.

If they have nukes and they fund terror that mean that they can keep on funding them without being punished, can you imagine that? They'll attack the US and Israel as much as they please through terrorists without being attacked back.

[b33f]

...We should better get used to the idea of a nuclear armed Iran and think about our behaviour. Every threat or actual use of force will only increase their determination and the Iranian people will forget their goodwill for the western world and start to sympathize with the hardliners and the antiwestern government.
Instead of threatening them we should try to support the reform elements in the Iranian society.

We shall obey the iranian blackmailing?
NEver.
As you said, it will be a full scale liberation if mullah-iran continues to get the bomb.
Problem solved.
I tend to agree with you, generally. But not in this case, another liberation (like in Iraq) has to be avoided. Only if borders are securable and the countries inbound liberation supporters are able to support the liberators from the end of major bombing raids (knocking out targets of tactical importance) on then it can be tried again.

[AROUETLJ]

Some of you seem to forget that Iran has a democratically elected government. And what shall we liberate Iran from? From the government it elected? So we replace democracy by democracy? This isn't Iraq. It's much more difficult to make a case against Iran.

[Clarsachier]

I've not the littliest sympathy for the iranian mollahcracy (1), but the wish to destroy Israel is simply fantasmatic, even for these radical muslims: they perfectly know that attacking Isreal would mean total vitrification of Iran some minutes after their attack. Btw, it's a kind of racism to think that some peoples cannot think in a rational way. And this is especially wrong for the iranians.

(1) what a dream, the great Iranian people coming back to its persian roots and its real religion, the zoroastrism.


Yes, that's all well said.

Nuclear proliferation sucks big time but, there's nothing we can do about it. Those who're proponents of carpet bombing Iran due to some theoretical future threat to Israel are vocalizing the Israeli right wing's
agenda. Israel maintains a deterant by far in excess of what's necessary
to deter any 'nuke strike' by Iran or anybody else in the region.

Israel will just have to get used to having somebody else in the region who could retaliate. I'm sure that'll take some getting used to.
It's not about them using nukes against us, it's about them funding terror to destroy us.

You have no clue what terror can cause the economy, it's not like in a war that if you win your economy gets a serious boost, you need to get the confidence of the investors back and that takes years and one terror attack is enough to destroy the confidence again.
And without an economy there's no Israel.

Are you saying that when Iran get's a nuke, foriegn investors will all pull out of Israel? So, you'll become a kind of nuclear hostage like S. Korea?

And BTW you're very wrong, I know what a terrorist attack can do to the economy. My industry (airline related) was hit so hard, I've been on a special airline workers program from U.S. government unemployment where I've gotten grants to go back to school and I haven't worked for a few years.

If they have nukes and they fund terror that mean that they can keep on funding them without being punished, can you imagine that? They'll attack the US and Israel as much as they please through terrorists without being attacked back.

You have good points. What we disagree on is that bombing them is going to help. Look at Iraq. Every intelligence agency in the world says that we've created a factory there for producing nwe OBLs. Nothing can stop nuclear proliferation - it's too late. Everything can't be resolved with force. Look at the occupation (Israel's not ours although our is a good example at the moment.)
I know that you're going to say it's because, "Israel hasn't been allowed to use enough force but then what would Israel become?"

[Pille1234]

If they have nukes and they fund terror that mean that they can keep on funding them without being punished, can you imagine that? They'll attack the US and Israel as much as they please through terrorists without being attacked back.
In other words, right now they are not supporting or funding terror because they have to fear retaliation, correct? Did they in the past? Have they been punished for that in the past and did the punishment change their behaviour?

[MadMAXxX]

What if Iran goes nuclear?


They are going to take care of israel (hopefully)...

[promillo]

Some of you seem to forget that Iran has a democratically elected government. And what shall we liberate Iran from? From the government it elected? So we replace democracy by democracy? This isn't Iraq. It's much more difficult to make a case against Iran.

rofl
Iran and democracy?
Ok, the commies called the russian occupation zone in eastern germany "german democratic republik".
But it was much as a democracy thn the mullahdictatorship.

[<Gypsum Fantastic>]

What if Iran goes nuclear?


They are going to take care of israel (hopefully)...

:| Care to explain?

[Moledet]

If they have nukes and they fund terror that mean that they can keep on funding them without being punished, can you imagine that? They'll attack the US and Israel as much as they please through terrorists without being attacked back.
In other words, right now they are not supporting or funding terror because they have to fear retaliation, correct? Did they in the past? Have they been punished for that in the past and did the punishment change their behaviour?
They are fuding terror, just not global terror. They help smuggling weapons to the Palestinians through Hizbullah, they offer money for terror attacks against Israel, they fund and equip Hizbullah and they recruit people to fight in Iraq. They still haven't attacked the US to an extent that it would get the US retaliation and same with Israel.

[Moledet]

I've not the littliest sympathy for the iranian mollahcracy (1), but the wish to destroy Israel is simply fantasmatic, even for these radical muslims: they perfectly know that attacking Isreal would mean total vitrification of Iran some minutes after their attack. Btw, it's a kind of racism to think that some peoples cannot think in a rational way. And this is especially wrong for the iranians.

(1) what a dream, the great Iranian people coming back to its persian roots and its real religion, the zoroastrism.


Yes, that's all well said.

Nuclear proliferation sucks big time but, there's nothing we can do about it. Those who're proponents of carpet bombing Iran due to some theoretical future threat to Israel are vocalizing the Israeli right wing's
agenda. Israel maintains a deterant by far in excess of what's necessary
to deter any 'nuke strike' by Iran or anybody else in the region.

Israel will just have to get used to having somebody else in the region who could retaliate. I'm sure that'll take some getting used to.
It's not about them using nukes against us, it's about them funding terror to destroy us.

You have no clue what terror can cause the economy, it's not like in a war that if you win your economy gets a serious boost, you need to get the confidence of the investors back and that takes years and one terror attack is enough to destroy the confidence again.
And without an economy there's no Israel.

Are you saying that when Iran get's a nuke, foriegn investors will all pull out of Israel? So, you'll become a kind of nuclear hostage like S. Korea?

And BTW you're very wrong, I know what a terrorist attack can do to the economy. My industry (airline related) was hit so hard, I've been on a special airline workers program from U.S. government unemployment where I've gotten grants to go back to school and I haven't worked for a few years.

If they have nukes and they fund terror that mean that they can keep on funding them without being punished, can you imagine that? They'll attack the US and Israel as much as they please through terrorists without being attacked back.

You have good points. What we disagree on is that bombing them is going to help. Look at Iraq. Every intelligence agency in the world says that we've created a factory there for producing nwe OBLs. Nothing can stop nuclear proliferation - it's too late. Everything can't be resolved with force. Look at the occupation (Israel's not ours although our is a good example at the moment.)
I know that you're going to say it's because, "Israel hasn't been allowed to use enough force but then what would Israel become?"
No, i'm saying that if Iran gets nukes it'll openly fund terror attacks against Israel, that will drive investors away because who knows? Maybe their business will be hurt next and they'll loose millions (both in stocks and damage repair).

I don't support carpet bombing the whole country, just to attack certain facilities that will stop them from having nukes. It's possible to stop nuclear proliferation, we did it just two decades ago.

[Clarsachier]

[/quote]
No, i'm saying that if Iran gets nukes it'll openly fund terror attacks against Israel, that will drive investors away because who knows? Maybe their business will be hurt next and they'll loose millions (both in stocks and damage repair).

I don't see why they'd fund terrorists more when they have nukes.

I don't support carpet bombing the whole country, just to attack certain facilities that will stop them from having nukes.

The best intel I can get from Janes says that their nuclear enrichment program is disbursed quite effectively. And an attack would only set them back a few years. And then, it wouldn't be only Iran funding terror against Israel.

It's possible to stop nuclear proliferation, we did it just two decades ago.[/quote]

:roll:

[Moledet]

No, i'm saying that if Iran gets nukes it'll openly fund terror attacks against Israel, that will drive investors away because who knows? Maybe their business will be hurt next and they'll loose millions (both in stocks and damage repair).

I don't see why they'd fund terrorists more when they have nukes.

I don't support carpet bombing the whole country, just to attack certain facilities that will stop them from having nukes.

The best intel I can get from Janes says that their nuclear enrichment program is disbursed quite effectively. And an attack would only set them back a few years. And then, it wouldn't be only Iran funding terror against Israel.

It's possible to stop nuclear proliferation, we did it just two decades ago.[/quote]

:roll:[/quote]

Why would they fund more terror? Because they wish to, they want the destruction of Israel and of the US and that's the only way they gonna get it, they can't blow us up with nukes because we'd blow up them and any other muslim country. So they'll just heavily fund terror to hurt us.

You are right, that's the reason we bought 100 bunkerbusters (the US sold it only to Israel) and 102 F16Is. In addition we always have Jericho missiles and Dolphin submarines to bomb remoted areas.

[Clarsachier]

Why would they fund more terror? Because they wish to, they want the destruction of Israel and of the US and that's the only way they gonna get it, they can't blow us up with nukes because we'd blow up them and any other muslim country. So they'll just heavily fund terror to hurt us.

That has nothing to do with nuclear proliferation. But you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

It's obvious to any reasonable person that Iran absolutely has no chance
of destroying the U.S. or Israel. Even if they had nukes, they would be commiting suicide to use one.

But in order to maintain their military posture there is a great deal of propaganda about the 'big threat' from Iran. But people are beginning to see through the BS. It's an Israeli problem and not anybody else's.

If Israel wanted peace, they'd quit the occupation. But, they want land. They made their choice, which supports only right wing extremists who like all othe extremists are not hesitant to utilize terrorism.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2012256.stm

I support the president's position regarding Israel and Palestine. Here's a quote ;

Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations.

From : http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050526.html

So, as a country we don't support the occupation.

You are right, that's the reason we bought 100 bunkerbusters (the US sold it only to Israel) and 102 F16Is. In addition we always have Jericho missiles and Dolphin submarines to bomb remoted areas.[/quote]

Great! Buy U.S. made goods! Support American jobs!

(I wish. Those bombs wern't 'purchased', they were positioned in Israel
by Bush to threaten Iran. But as you can see from the president's statements things are changing.

[Moledet]

Iran might destroy Israel through terror attacks, i'm not talking about one attack but hundreds.

As always since you have nothing to say about the topic you bring the Palestinian issue, I wouldn't discuss it because the Iranians have said it better than me, "If any muslims country will have the bomb they should use it against Israel, the gain will be bigger than the loss", guess who's the loss. So don't bull**** me about Iran caring about the Palestinians, they do not care about them or any other Arabs.

The bombs were pruchased (model GBU-28), it consted us around 300million dollars. In addition, Prof. Itzhak Ben Israel said that Israel already has local made bunkerbusters.

[Clarsachier]

Iran might destroy Israel through terror attacks, i'm not talking about one attack but hundreds.

That's simply nonsense and an increasingly transparent and failing attempt to justify military action and the occupation. Nobody believes that and the more the rhetoric is repeated - the less credability Israel has. Israel's in no danger of being destroyed. Except economically, through draining the economy by the occupation.

As always since you have nothing to say about the topic you bring the Palestinian issue,

The'Palestinian issue' is the main issue which all Israel's problems stem from. Arab countries have already offered peace in return for Israeli withdrawal, but Israel prefers land to peace. And there's a never ending
list of excuses such as, 'the Arabs don't really care about the Palistinians.'
We all know, 'Caring' isn't the issue. Review Bush's speech, it's all in there.

I wouldn't discuss it because the Iranians have said it better than me, "If any muslims country will have the bomb they should use it against Israel, the gain will be bigger than the loss", guess who's the loss. So don't bull**** me about Iran caring about the Palestinians, they do not care about them or any other Arabs.

The bombs were pruchased (model GBU-28), it consted us around 300million dollars. In addition, Prof. Itzhak Ben Israel said that Israel already has local made bunkerbusters.

I don't think anybody thinks that the U.S. will see that money!

Sure bombs are cheap & easy to make. It comes down to again, Israel not having to worry about war with Iran - unless it starts it which seems to
be a popular idea.

I repeat my point that as 50 years proves, military and belligerence will not bring peace for the Israeli people. Most of whom, are tired of keeping their entire economy in a mode of supporting fanatic settlers. (I can sympathize with a people dominated by a militant right wing! ;) )

[achilles]

http://english.pravda.ru/img/2005/07/iran-next.jpg
p-)

[promillo]

http://english.pravda.ru/img/2005/07/iran-next.jpg
p-)

woot woot woot

[Moledet]

Iran might destroy Israel through terror attacks, i'm not talking about one attack but hundreds.

That's simply nonsense and an increasingly transparent and failing attempt to justify military action and the occupation. Nobody believes that and the more the rhetoric is repeated - the less credability Israel has. Israel's in no danger of being destroyed. Except economically, through draining the economy by the occupation.

As always since you have nothing to say about the topic you bring the Palestinian issue,

The'Palestinian issue' is the main issue which all Israel's problems stem from. Arab countries have already offered peace in return for Israeli withdrawal, but Israel prefers land to peace. And there's a never ending
list of excuses such as, 'the Arabs don't really care about the Palistinians.'
We all know, 'Caring' isn't the issue. Review Bush's speech, it's all in there.

I wouldn't discuss it because the Iranians have said it better than me, "If any muslims country will have the bomb they should use it against Israel, the gain will be bigger than the loss", guess who's the loss. So don't bull**** me about Iran caring about the Palestinians, they do not care about them or any other Arabs.

The bombs were pruchased (model GBU-28), it consted us around 300million dollars. In addition, Prof. Itzhak Ben Israel said that Israel already has local made bunkerbusters.

I don't think anybody thinks that the U.S. will see that money!

Sure bombs are cheap & easy to make. It comes down to again, Israel not having to worry about war with Iran - unless it starts it which seems to
be a popular idea.

I repeat my point that as 50 years proves, military and belligerence will not bring peace for the Israeli people. Most of whom, are tired of keeping their entire economy in a mode of supporting fanatic settlers. (I can sympathize with a people dominated by a militant right wing! ;) )
What can I say? You don't wish to believe me, that's your problem, we already have enough evidences linking Iran to terrorism in the middle east (a HUGE one is Karin A ship).

As for 'occupation', it was proved that as long as we have more control over the west bank nad Gaza strip and as long as we assassinate more terror leaders, the number of terror attacks drops drasticaly. There was even a study done about it, and we both know you can't argue with statistics.

I think you misread the Arab plan, they want us to kick 200,000 Israelis out of their homes in the west bank and Gaza strip and another million or so from the Golan. Does that sound reasonable to you? In the whole country the population density is 350 people per square kilometer, that's just second to Japan. And in Tel Aviv it gets to 7,100 people per square kilometer, that's twice more crowded than Gaza.
How are we suppose to be the home for the Jews all over the world if there's no place for them?

With neighbours like we have we'll always live by the sword, at least as long as they are controled by dictators.

BTW, the compensation for each family that will be kicked is about 300,000$ at least, some will even get to over a million because of the value of the agriculture land and equipment in the Golan. Double that in about 400,000 families. Even the US can't pay for that.

[Clearday-TRForce]

...We should better get used to the idea of a nuclear armed Iran and think about our behaviour. Every threat or actual use of force will only increase their determination and the Iranian people will forget their goodwill for the western world and start to sympathize with the hardliners and the antiwestern government.
Instead of threatening them we should try to support the reform elements in the Iranian society.

We shall obey the iranian blackmailing?
NEver.
As you said, it will be a full scale liberation if mullah-iran continues to get the bomb.
Problem solved.

:cantbeli:



that war with Iran would be wrong and undesirable.If and when there's threat of serious military action against Iran, the vast majority of the population will forget any desire for "democracy" and flock to the Mullahs to defend the country.The results would be devastating. The universities would close, so would the borders. People would be forced back on rations and young people would once again be volunteering en-masse to defend their country. The Islam-versus Satan rhetoric and Friday-prayer speeches would once again be respected and used to mobilize the whole nation against an invasion. People will risk their lives for "Esteghlal, Azadi, Jomhourye Eslami." And can you really blame them?

As the United States gears up for an attack on Iran, one thing is certain: the Bush administration will never mention oil as a reason for going to war. As in the case of Iraq, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will be cited as the principal justification for an American assault. "We will not tolerate the construction of a nuclear weapon [by Iran]," is the way President Bush put it in a much-quoted 2003 statement. ;) But just as the failure to discover illicit weapons in Iraq undermined the administration's use of WMD as the paramount reason for its invasion, so its claim that an attack on Iran would be justified because of its alleged nuclear potential :roll: should invite widespread skepticism. More important, any serious assessment of Iran's strategic importance to the United States should focus on its role in the global energy equation. ;)

In this sense, more than any other, the current planning for an attack on Iran is fundamentally driven by concern over the safety of U.S. energy supplies, as was the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq... :roll:


promillo and partisans of Bush Walkin Talkin Bull****...


regards.

[promillo]

that war with Iran would be wrong and undesirable.If and when there's threat of serious military action against Iran, the vast majority of the population will forget any desire for "democracy" and flock to the Mullahs to defend the country.

Desire for democracy? They voted for an islamofascists terrorist to be the new chief. Desire for democracy will increase, if the liberators are coming and neutralize the suppressors.


The results would be devastating. The universities would close, so would the borders. People would be forced back on rations and young people would once again be volunteering en-masse to defend their country.


Yes, they would volunteer the new persian army and police to get rid of the mullahscum.
Just like Iran.




The Islam-versus Satan rhetoric and Friday-prayer speeches would once again be respected and used to mobilize the whole nation against an invasion. People will risk their lives for "Esteghlal, Azadi, Jomhourye Eslami." And can you really blame them?

Bull****. They are heard today, they will be silenced after the liberation.


As the United States gears up for an attack on Iran, one thing is certain: the Bush administration will never mention oil as a reason for going to war. As in the case of Iraq, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will be cited as the principal justification for an American assault. "We will not tolerate the construction of a nuclear weapon [by Iran]," is the way President Bush put it in a much-quoted 2003 statement. ;)

Yes, of course. Oil is irrelevant, compared with the danger of a-weapons in the hand of terrorists.


But just as the failure to discover illicit weapons in Iraq undermined the administration's use of WMD as the paramount reason for its invasion, so its claim that an attack on Iran would be justified because of its alleged nuclear potential :roll: should invite widespread skepticism. More important, any serious assessment of Iran's strategic importance to the United States should focus on its role in the global energy equation. ;)

In this sense, more than any other, the current planning for an attack on Iran is fundamentally driven by concern over the safety of U.S. energy supplies, as was the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq... :roll:


promillo and partisans of Bush Walkin Talkin Bull****...


regards.

In most of your posts you argue pro terror and anti-USA- Remember who helped turkey in the cold war and even today?
Thah was not the Mullahterrorists from Iran or the Baathists from Iraq.
It was uncle Sam.
And to show your gratitude, you are telling lies about the USA and the free world at al and you support terroristst and criminals.
Attatuer would have put you in the darkest cell and then he had lost the key.
You are nothing as a terrorist groupie. :-*$

[BigBaribal]

Of course, the new iranian is a radical islamist (1), but frankly why an "islamo-fascist", what has he to do with Mussolini?

Btw, Clearday is right: many iranians voted for this guy (a bad guy for sure, I admit it without problem) because they had to choose between the US-Isreal threat against their country and the islamic power seen as a defence for national identity (two bad choices I admit it again).
Of course, Promillo, as you're not a patriot, you can't understand the concept of "national identity".




(1) I read he was some kind of politic commissar shooting in the head, near the front, the deserters!

[Clearday-TRForce]

In most of your posts you argue pro terror and anti-USA- Remember who helped turkey in the cold war and even today?
Thah was not the Mullahterrorists from Iran or the Baathists from Iraq.
It was uncle Sam.
And to show your gratitude, you are telling lies about the USA and the free world at al and you support terroristst and criminals.
Attatuer would have put you in the darkest cell and then he had lost the key.
You are nothing as a terrorist groupie


(2nd) :cantbeli:

I criticize policy of USA, not USA or his people...I surely dont support any terrorists, u have continuesly mixed all things...Ataturk was a peacekeeper, balanced man,and he was really clever man,do not mix him with ur Bush...Much of the world's conflict is now concentrated in the old precincts of imperial Turkey: the Balkans, Chechnya, Caucasus, Persian Gulf, Levant,... Three years ago diplomat Richard Holbrooke told Congress that "Turkey stands at the crossroads of almost every issue of importance to the United States on the Eurasian continent." In Washington, Turkey is now breathlessly spoken of as a "front-line state" in the perilous Middle East and a key link to Caspian Sea oil. In the language of US strategic significance, Turkey is hot.So you say "we help you", I say "we help you much than u"...



L'IIIustration Newspaper, France
History has seen many great people. It has seen Alexander the Great's, Napoleon's, Washington's. However, in the twentieth century Atatürk broke the record for greatness, this Turkish son of a Turk.


Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Atatürk's death is not only a loss for the country, but for Europe is the greatest loss, he who saved Turkey in the war and who revived a new the Turkish nation after the war. The sincere tears shed after him by all classes of people is nothing other than an appropriate manifestation to this great hero and modern Turkey's Ata.



Dwight D. Eisenhower, President of the United States of America
In connection with the permanent memorial facility for Kemal Atatürk, I take pride in presenting my congratulations to Turkey. Your great country that is advancing on the course that he demonstrated has obtained very significant successes. This ceremony that is being held to commemorate the memory of Atatürk, the architect of progress and Turkish unity, is a very appropriate respect to a person who became a source of inspiration to free peoples throughout the world.



Hayato Ikeda, Prime Minister of Japan
We feel a great admiration for Atatürk in his efforts towards ensuring the modernization of Turkish society by separating religion and politics from each other and by carrying out the Turkish Language Reforms.



General Douglas MacArthur, Commander-in-Chief of the Far East Forces, U.S.A.
He was a military-statesman, one of the greatest leaders of our era. He ensured that Turkey got its rightful place among the most advanced nations. Also, he gave the feeling of support and self-confidence to the Turks, that forms the foundation stone of a nation's greatness. I take great pride in being one of Atatürk's loyal friends.



Social Demokraten Newspaper, Sweden
The world, by no means and at no time, has witnessed such an exciting event as the re-founding of Turkey with a Western point of view and belief.


Daily Telegraph Newspaper, England
In no other country have women advanced this rapidly. It is truly an unique event in history for a nation to change to this degree



"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says fool me once, shame on . . . shame on you . . . and fool me we can't get fooled again."
--George W. Bush


'Peace at home, Peace in the world'.
-M.K.Ataturk


do not put into same basket Bush and Ataturk,Ataturk is far beyond ur imagination...



regards.

[Clearday-TRForce]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161527,00.html
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
an American airstrike in Afghanistan's rugged eastern mountains killed 17 civilians, including women and children, an Afghan official said Monday. The U.S. military confirmed civilian deaths but said the numbers were unclear.An initial airstrike destroyed a house, and as villagers...



well-performed operations are continuing...lots of innocent people have been killed day by day,u call them "terrorists"... :lol: it s ironic,pathetic...
we will be in a big trouble, u suppose we get rid of them,I dont agree with u all-Bush partisans...

[Clarsachier]

IWhat can I say? You don't wish to believe me, that's your problem, we already have enough evidences linking Iran to terrorism in the middle east (a HUGE one is Karin A ship).

Very little 'evidence for' and definately not enough for a 'military solution'.
As long as there's occupation, there's cause for the terrorism. You don't have one without the other - despite rhetoric about how it's jealousy
or racism or whatever's the current propaganda.As for 'occupation', it was proved that as long as we have more control over the west bank nad Gaza strip and as long as we assassinate more terror leaders, the number of terror attacks drops drasticaly. There was even a study done about it, and we both know you can't argue with statistics.

A whole 'industry' exists to try to show how Israeli occupation, 'helps' the poor savage native Palestinians by keeping them in camps ect. I'm sure there's a dozen 'studies' for anyone who wants grossly opinionated media.
Kinda like saying that putting everybody in a concentration camp stops crime! :roll:

I think you misread the Arab plan, they want us to kick 200,000 Israelis out of their homes in the west bank and Gaza strip and another million or so from the Golan. Does that sound reasonable to you? In the whole country the population density is 350 people per square kilometer, that's just second to Japan. And in Tel Aviv it gets to 7,100 people per square kilometer, that's twice more crowded than Gaza.
How are we suppose to be the home for the Jews all over the world if there's no place for them?

[color=blue]The Arab plan? Bush is not an Arab, here's a quote from his May 26 speech;

Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work.

And the 1949 Armistance as I assume you know, includes the West Bank in Palestine. You're not that missinformed, you're very aware it's not an 'Arab' plan.

With neighbours like we have we'll always live by the sword, at least as long as they are controled by dictators

Yes, you'll definately have to but, Israel is the aggressor in most cases. Threatening war, when Jordanian villages try to irrigate their fields from streams that flow into Israel, botched targeted killings.

Israel's not totally to blame but you assert that that they're 'completely
blameless' and justified in all they do. Who believes that?

BTW, the compensation for each family that will be kicked is about 300,000$ at least, some will even get to over a million because of the value of the agriculture land and equipment in the Golan. Double that in about 400,000 families.

Here's another quote from w's speech ; Israel must remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion. September the 28th, 2000.

Yet despite all this, Sharon's increased settlement building in the area tenfold.

These, people weren't born in the West Bank. They all came from somewhere else. They all came there for cheap land, government grants, and their religous convictions. And they were well aware of the contested nature of the land, the evictions of the rightful owners. So I don't have very much sympathy for them.

The the US can't pay for that.[/quote]

Hopefully, any American president who would consider 'paying' would be impeached.

Anyway all this is to illustrate that Israel's situation is largely of it's own making and the 'Iranian threat' is primarily a rhetorical attempt to substatiate it, somehow. I can't stand self righteous propagandized rhetoric!

The point is that military action against Iran to circumvent their nuclear
program by all valid anylisis would require no less than a major war due to Iranian disbursal of assets and advanced air defence. And such action would only increase terrorism by recruiting terrorists.

And that's the main point - military action would be counterproductive and
by all accounts wouldn't set their nuclear program back very much.

Otherwise, I wouldn't even be arguing the point.

[Moledet]

Terror isn't the product of occupation, the Arabs started their long terror activity tradition in 1921 when they attacked Jewish villages and slaughtered some people. And later in 1929 when they slaughtered all the residents of Hebron that lived there way before the Arabs. And later in 1936 when they attacked cars of Jews that were driving on the roads, burnt vilages, robbed banks, planted bombs, etc...
One of their techniq BTW was to call all the vilage people with their wives when they were surrendered to confuse the British soldiers, very brave bunch.

You see the occupation as the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the terrorists see it as the occupation of the whole country, from the river to the sea.

The research that was done is very clear, it shows numbers, not oppinions. It shows that when we had more Palestinian cities under our control and we did more assassinations the number of terror alerts and terror attacks dropped, that's a fact. And it was done by a non govermental body and was not ordered by anyone.
From 2002 to 2003 we had a 100% drop in terror attacks and victims, from 2003 to 2004 we had another 100% drop.
It seems more like that you are pissed that we are stopping terror.

I thought you meant the Arabian purposal for peace with all the Arabian countries. As you can see Bush's speech is very dodgy, final status must be reached between us and they, but we do not have to retreat to 1949 borders by his speech. We need to get to an understanding based on that that they live in the West Bank and we live in Israel and they can't claim anything behind the green line. In addition, he even says that there might be changes to the green line but not to an extent that their country will be scattered islands, that we and the Palestinians need to talk about.
Bush sent a letter to Sharon where he promised to have all kind of settlements and east Jerusalem inside the green line.

You can quote me, Israel except in one case (1956 war) never shot the first bullet. So how was Israel the agressor?
Ofcourse we won't let them take our water, are you insane? We don't have thousands of rivers here, if they'd dry it we won't have any water.

BTW, Jordan doesn't have any streams running into Israel, I think you were talking about Lebanon, that didn't just try to take some water but built a tunnel to stop the flaw of the water into our territory.

"The nature of the land", you mean that it is inhabitate by no one? Because no settlement was built on top an arabian village and there was no need ever to move a village because of settlements expension.
As any non-fascist country Israel has to pay its ciitzens for their proporty if it moves them from their land, and it has nothing to do with your feelings. So either the US pays or we move nothing cause we can't pay that much.

We can't totaly stop them from having the bomb, but we can buy us a lot of time by destroying key elements in the production. We didn't mean to stop Saddam's plans either, we just wanted more time. If Iran will openly fund terrorism after that attack, we might be able to even create a coalition against it, who knows?

When at least 200,000KG of explosives will pound their territory you can be sure it gonna create a major hold back for their plan.

[Laworkerbee]

What if Iran goes nuclear?


They are going to take care of israel (hopefully)...

Anyone want to start a pool on how long this azzhat lasts before being banned?

[quellish]

It was the nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan in 1998 that conclusively demonstrated both states' entry into the nuclear 'club', even though they were widely regarded as nuclear-capable nations long before then. However, as testing is a rare event, other evidence such as intelligence, information from local scientists, UN inspectors and satellite surveillance is used to assess weapons capability. These methods are not foolproof.
:|

I'm getting REAL tired of the press forgetting that India tested in 1974. India had been a nuclear power LONG before the 1998 tests. I'm shocked to see Jane's make this kind of error, when I would expect it from, say, Newsweek.

[Clarsachier]

My internet time’s getting less and less. Now where were we?
Terror isn't the product of occupation, the Arabs started their long terror activity tradition in 1921 when they attacked Jewish villages and slaughtered some people. And later in 1929 when they slaughtered all the residents of Hebron that lived there way before the Arabs. And later in 1936 when they attacked cars of Jews that were driving on the roads, burnt vilages, robbed banks, planted bombs, etc...
One of their techniq BTW was to call all the vilage people with their wives when they were surrendered to confuse the British soldiers, very brave bunch.

There were also plenty of Jewist extremist attacks and massacres back then. If you wish, I can dig them up and we can discuss them. In fact, there were atrocities on both sides.
You see the occupation as the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the terrorists see it as the occupation of the whole country, from the river to the sea.

That's BS ; All the major Arab organizations have agreed that they will accept the 1947 boundary of Israel if Israel discontinues the occupation. The views of some fringe terrorist groups aren’t justification for dropping (your words) 200’000 kilos of bombs on Iran.

Additionally, Israel calls every person they kill a ‘terrorist’ whether it’s an innocent bystander, an old lady, or anybody who picks up a gun to defend their property when Israeli tanks roll down their village street crushing cars and knocking over homes. So, the word has little meaning.

The research that was done is very clear, it shows numbers, not oppinions. It shows that when we had more Palestinian cities under our control and we did more assassinations the number of terror alerts and terror attacks dropped, that's a fact. And it was done by a non govermental body and was not ordered by anyone.
From 2002 to 2003 we had a 100% drop in terror attacks and victims, from 2003 to 2004 we had another 100% drop.
It seems more like that you are pissed that we are stopping terror.

Did the ‘report’ mention the generations of ‘terrorists’ that Israel created when their relatives were made collateral damage? The increase in recruitment, and donations worldwide by Islamic extremist organizations?

That’s always been a major excuse for invasion and occupation but the real reason’s got a lot more to do with plain old greed for land. But I’m sure that document’s a propaganda masterpiece – let’s see it.

I thought you meant the Arabian purposal for peace with all the Arabian countries. As you can see Bush's speech is very dodgy, final status must be reached between us and they, but we do not have to retreat to 1949 borders by his speech.

“Dodgy” huh? The point is, that a Palestinian state was a ‘solution’ for mideast peace was a principle Bush expounded in his very first 9/11 speech. This was in context with the actions that the U.S. was taking to protect our security interests. If you remember, Sharon’s position at that time was, that there would never be a Palestinian state. But now, guess what – Sharon now agrees that their will be one. So, I don’t think it was so dodgy when Bush’s getting some results.

It’s evident that Bush’s mideast policy involves some actions by the Israeli’s doesn’t it? And given that without the U.S.’s aid and especially it’s veto in the UN, Sharon’s disregarding of the ‘roadmap’ is a divergence of the mutual interests that have kept American support.

We need to get to an understanding based on that that they live in the West Bank and we live in Israel and they can't claim anything behind the green line. In addition, he even says that there might be changes to the green line but not to an extent that their country will be scattered islands, that we and the Palestinians need to talk about.
Bush sent a letter to Sharon where he promised to have all kind of settlements and east Jerusalem inside the green line.

We are both aware that this is what has to happen. But it would never happen as long as the
Israeli right wing was successful in continuing to expropriate Arab land.
You can quote me, Israel except in one case (1956 war) never shot the first bullet. So how was Israel the agressor?
Ofcourse we won't let them take our water, are you insane? We don't have thousands of rivers here, if they'd dry it we won't have any water.

BTW, Jordan doesn't have any streams running into Israel, I think you were talking about Lebanon, that didn't just try to take some water but built a tunnel to stop the flaw of the water into our territory.

How is Israel the aggressor? Well to start with, the occupation of Lebanon and now Palestine.
The water’s a good example. (Thanks, I forgot what country was threatening- this time.)

Beirut says the plan is to take less that 10 million cubic metres from the Wazzani, which it says falls within its fair share of water according to international law.
Lebanese officials say the Wazzani's annual flow is 50 million cubic metres a year, and the Hasbani's flow is 150 million cubic metres.
Israel’s response :
'Grounds for war'
As final preparations were made on Tuesday, Israeli warplanes circled the area.
The AFP news agency says Israeli soldiers on Wednesday threatened to fire on Lebanese labourers when the engineer leading the project knocked over a UN border marker.
Read the news articles. Everyone seems to agree Israel’s the aggressor.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2267204.stm
Israel controlled the Hasbani during its occupation of southern Lebanon in 1978-2000.
Most inhabitants of Wazzani fled the occupation, during which its homes had no water supply.

"The nature of the land", you mean that it is inhabitate by no one? Because no settlement was built on top an arabian village and there was no need ever to move a village because of settlements expension.

Wrong. There were/are widespread evictions – do you want some links?

As any non-fascist country Israel has to pay its ciitzens for their proporty if it moves them from their land, and it has nothing to do with your feelings. So either the US pays or we move nothing cause we can't pay that much.

I don’t think that the U.S. is paying the cost of the Gaza resettlement.

We can't totaly stop them from having the bomb, but we can buy us a lot of time by destroying key elements in the production. We didn't mean to stop Saddam's plans either, we just wanted more time. If Iran will openly fund terrorism after that attack, we might be able to even create a coalition against it, who knows?

When at least 200,000KG of explosives will pound their territory you can be sure it gonna create a major hold back for their plan.

This comment, the articles of Israeli’s aggression concerning the Lebanon water, and your attitude (as shown by the ‘your for terrorism’ comment) are perfect illustration that Israel’s foreign policy is the predominant cause of it’s problems and it’s diminishing status worldwide.

You mentioned divestiture earlier as something that can undermine Israel. Well, it’s almost every day that I see some group divesting from Israel because of Israel’s belligerent foreign policy. As Israel’s attitude becomes more and more clear, Sharon’s acceptance of the roadmap and his wilfull disregard of it for one example, you’ll see more and more of it.

And if Israel bombs Iran, it may be the last straw the international community accepts. For a country that imports such a large percent of it’s commodities this will not be to Israel’s interest. And the U.S. may not use it’s veto. Besides that, unless the U.S. provides SEAD support the bombing campaign may not be too successful.

Even you agree it will not be in the long run. It’s easy to see that attitudes like yours are the greatest threat to Israel, the middle east, and the rest of the world.