So, when will Israel be attacking Iran's Nuclear Plants then?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by MOBIUS
The Israelis have a history of aggressive international pre-emptive strikes across the entire region - including the USS Liberty of their own allies!

We weren't allies in 1967. Israel was viewed with some suspicion by the U.S. because it was seen as too close to the USSR. After the Six Days War, the U.S. decided that Israel could be a very useful ally.

I suggest reading Michael Oren "The Six Day War" for a more accurate view of the Johnsons admin view of Israel. In fact the US did at that point see Israel as an ally, though the relationship was not as developed as later on. And being allies did not preclude having different POVs on a number of matters. And the USSR was working closely with Egypt and Syria (though of course not Jordan). There is some controversy as to whether the USSR could have done more to restrain Syria in particular.

Israel had not received arms from the Soviet bloc since about 1950 or so. Ben Gurion had tilted "West" very early after independence was achieved.

And the relationship with France had already broken before 1967.

And Oren provides an excellent and detailed explanation of what happened wrt The Liberty. The short answer is that what happened has less to do with the Mobius kind of troll - its more in line with the typical KH "Israelis arent supermen" troll. In particular pilots whove been flying far too many missions in support of a quick victory in Sinai, whove had little sleep, who arent well trained in IDing naval targets, and some related incompetence on Israels part.

[Arrian]

That's right, Moby, it's me who looks like a dick.

-Arrian

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by polarnomad
The statement made by the Iranian President was probably just a case of acting tough... (At least I would hope so.) I do agree that it was somewhat of a silly comment in regards to the current tug-of-war over their desire to develop nuclear power purportedly for energy needs. However, as far as developing nukes for military purposes, strategically it wouldn't even be worth dropping nukes on Israel considering the fallout would affect all its Arab neighbors.

I'm sure that the US will love to use this gaffe to back its stance on Iran though... (ie: See! See! I told you soooo!)

What a stupid thing for him to say.

The appalling horrors of fallout from the use of nuclear weapons are *hugely* exaggerated. I suspect this is partly because in the past most assumptions about fallout following a nuclear war were assuming a global nuclear exchange between the cold war superpowers.

*THAT* would create some serious fallout.

OTOH a couple dozen nukes exploding over israel would pretty much just mean a blip in the health statistics of the countries downwind.


[edit --hmmm I failed to notice just how old the post I was replying to is]

[Victor Galis]

How much longer does Ahmedinajad have in his term? I honestly don't think he's getting reelected.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Geronimo


The appalling horrors of fallout from the use of nuclear weapons are *hugely* exaggerated. I suspect this is partly because in the past most assumptions about fallout following a nuclear war were assuming a global nuclear exchange between the cold war superpowers.

*THAT* would create some serious fallout.

OTOH a couple dozen nukes exploding over israel would pretty much just mean a blip in the health statistics of the countries downwind.


[edit --hmmm I failed to notice just how old the post I was replying to is]

Yes, because what the world really needs right now is for it be acceptable to use limited nuclear war as a viable tactic. That would make the world so much safer

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


Yes, because what the world really needs right now is for it be acceptable to use limited nuclear war as a viable tactic. That would make the world so much safer

What is point behind your irony? Are you saying that the dangers of fallout from a limited number of nuclear strikes are not in fact exaggerated or are you responding to perceived advocacy on my part of engaging in limited nuclear wars?

If it is for the latter not only will I state for the record that I find the idea of resumption of use of nuclear weapons in warfare dangerous and appalling but I would also point out that no where in any of my posts have I even hinted that I think contemplation of use of nuclear weapons is acceptable.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
How much longer does Ahmedinajad have in his term? I honestly don't think he's getting reelected.

He will. When you have the mullahs toss out any opposition who is more popular then you then you're a shoe in to win. The mullah's man always wins.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin


He will. When you have the mullahs toss out any opposition who is more popular then you then you're a shoe in to win. The mullah's man always wins.

except its more complex than that. based on my impressions, there are, too simplify, broadly four factions in Iran. The revolutionary Guard radicals, the mainstream ruling faction, the "loyal opposition" reformers, and the anti-regime reformers. And ALL of these factions has clerics in its camp, even the last (notabably Gr Ayatollah Montazeri) The mainstream regime faction is largely identified as corrupt - they gave Ahmadinajad leeway in the elections while denying space to Khatamis "loyal opposition" because they wanted an outlet for discontent with corruption and economic problems. Now theres apparently growing discontent on the street with the continued and worsening economic problems, associated with the confrontation with the West. The "mainstream" regime faction may want to shift power back to Rafsanjani and its own guys, away from Ahmadinajad and his pals, but I think you are right, they still want to keep both of the "opposition" factions from gaining any real power.

Certainly its interesting that we see this ferment largely in response to our so far limited sanctions, when some said the sanctions would have no impact.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6286771.stm

[Arrian]

Sanctions always have an impact. The question is whether the impact is the intended result, or unintended/unforeseen.

-Arrian

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Geronimo


What is point behind your irony? Are you saying that the dangers of fallout from a limited number of nuclear strikes are not in fact exaggerated or are you responding to perceived advocacy on my part of engaging in limited nuclear wars?

If it is for the latter not only will I state for the record that I find the idea of resumption of use of nuclear weapons in warfare dangerous and appalling but I would also point out that no where in any of my posts have I even hinted that I think contemplation of use of nuclear weapons is acceptable.

I'm suggesting that the real danger from a limited nuclear strike isn't the actual radio-active fallout, it's the precedent that it sets in terms of acceptability of use of nuclear weapons.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


I'm suggesting that the real danger from a limited nuclear strike isn't the actual radio-active fallout, it's the precedent that it sets in terms of acceptability of use of nuclear weapons.

quite true. But you replied to my post which was in turn a reply to that originally posted by polarnomad.

My reply wasn't addressing the dangers from a limited strike in general so I was a bit confused. thanks for clarifying.

[Victor Galis]

I may not have been paying that much attention, it was posted right before a rush to class.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Arrian
That's right, Moby, it's me who looks like a dick.

-Arrian

As I keep telling you, we pretty much agree on everything, basically having the same world viewpoints (which probably royally pisses you off).

So much so that now we even both agree that you are a dick...

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I suggest reading Michael Oren "The Six Day War" for a more accurate view of the Johnsons admin view of Israel. In fact the US did at that point see Israel as an ally, though the relationship was not as developed as later on. And being allies did not preclude having different POVs on a number of matters. And the USSR was working closely with Egypt and Syria (though of course not Jordan). There is some controversy as to whether the USSR could have done more to restrain Syria in particular.

Israel had not received arms from the Soviet bloc since about 1950 or so. Ben Gurion had tilted "West" very early after independence was achieved.

And the relationship with France had already broken before 1967.

Thanks for defending me against Che's evil commie lies...

And Oren provides an excellent and detailed explanation of what happened wrt The Liberty. The short answer is that what happened has less to do with the Mobius kind of troll - its more in line with the typical KH "Israelis arent supermen" troll. In particular pilots whove been flying far too many missions in support of a quick victory in Sinai, whove had little sleep, who arent well trained in IDing naval targets, and some related incompetence on Israels part.

So what you're saying is that we have to believe that the IDF back then was even more incompetent back then, than last year when it got it's ass handed to it on a plate by Hezbollah!!?

I love you Israeli apologists - you seem to believe that if you spew the most bare-faced lies loudly and often enough everyone will believe you!

[MOBIUS]

AMERICAN LEADERS SUPPORT USS Liberty SURVIVORS

The Israeli government, the AntiDefamation League, and
certain notorious apologists for Israel insist that the attack was a tragic accident and that the US government accepts that assertion.

Not so. Virtually every knowledgeable American official with
the lone exception of Robert McNamara is on public record
calling the attack deliberate and the Israeli story untrue.
Here are a few of those American leaders.

"I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. . . . Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous "
-- US Secretary of State Dean Rusk

"...the board of inquiry (concluded) that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty."
-- CIA Director Richard Helms

"I can tell you for an absolute certainty (from intercepted communications) that the Israelis knew they were attacking an American ship."
-- NSA Deputy Director Oliver Kirby

"That the Liberty could have been mistaken for the Egyptian supply ship El Quseir is unbelievable"
-- Special Assistant to the President Clark Clifford, in his report to President Lyndon Johnson

"The highest officials of the [Johnson] administration, including the President, believed it 'inconceivable' that Israel's 'skilled' defense forces could have committed such a gross error."
-- Lyndon Johnson's biographer Robert Dallek in Flawed Giant, Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 430-31)

"A nice whitewash for a group of ignorant, stupid and inept [expletive deleted]."
-- Handwritten note of August 26, 1967, by NSA Deputy Director Louis W. Tordella reacting to the Israeli court decision exonerating Israelis of blame for the Liberty attack.

"Never before in the history of the United States Navy has a Navy Board of Inquiry ignored the testimony of American military eyewitnesses and taken, on faith, the word of their attackers.
-- Captain Richard F. Kiepfer, Medical Corps, US Navy (retired), USS Liberty Survivor

"The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack...was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew.... It was our shared belief. . .that the attack. . .could not possibly have been an accident.... I am certain that the Israeli pilots [and] their superiors. . .were well aware that the ship was American."
-- Captain Ward Boston, JAGC, US Navy (retired), senior legal counsel to the US Navy Court of Inquiry

That the attack was deliberate "just wasn't a disputed issue" within the National Security Agency
-- Former NSA Director retired Army Lieutenant General William Odom on 3 March 2003 in an interview for Naval Institute Proceedings

Former NSA/CIA Director Admiral Bobby Inman "flatly rejected" the Cristol/Israeli claims that the attack was an accident
-- 5 March 2003 interview for Naval Institute Proceedings

Of four former NSA/CIA seniors with inside knowledge, none was aware of any agency official who dissented from the position that the attack was deliberate
-- David Walsh, writing in Naval Institute Proceedings

"It appears to me that it was not a pure case of mistaken identity."
-- Captain William L. McGonagle, Commanding Officer, USS Liberty, speaking at Arlington National Cemetery, June 8, 1997

"To suggest that they [the IDF] couldn't identify the ship is ... ridiculous. ... Anybody who could not identify the Liberty could not tell the difference between the White House and the Washington Monument."
-- Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and later Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, quoted in The Washington Post, June 15, 1991, p. 14

Excerpts from http://www.ussliberty.org/

LotM, when you apologise for such lies, why should we ever take anything you say seriously!!?

I wouldn't be surprised if you were secretly on the payroll of the Israelis, the crap you come out with from time to time...