Some more $$ and arms to Israel to strike Iran - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-07-2004, 10:00 PM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 02:33 PM
Some more $$ and arms to Israel to strike Iran

Shaul Mofaz is a liar. Israel relies on the U.S. This is the typical shit that will be quoted in case of a preemptive strike to portray a picture that Israel does it all alone. In reality, Israel would be nothing without U.S. arms & finance.


Part of an article in LA Times:

Israel would consider strike against Iran
Laura King, Los Angeles Times
October 31, 2004 ISRA1031

JERUSALEM -- Increasingly concerned about Iran's nuclear program, Israel is weighing its options and has not ruled out a military strike to prevent the Islamic republic from gaining the capability to build atomic weapons, according to policymakers, military officials, analysts and diplomats.

Israel says it would much prefer a diplomatic agreement to shut down Iran's uranium-enrichment program, but if it concluded that Tehran was approaching a "point of no return," it would not be deterred by the difficulty of a military operation, the prospect of retaliation or the international reaction, officials and analysts said.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his top aides have been asserting for months that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a clear threat to Israel's existence. They have repeatedly threatened, in elliptical but unmistakable terms, to use force if diplomacy and the threat of sanctions fail.

Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told the Yediot Aharonot newspaper last month that "all options" were being weighed to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapons capability. The army chief of staff, Moshe Yaalon, declared: "We will not rely on others."

Israel's concerns are magnified by the fact that Iran already possesses the medium-range Shahab-3 missile, capable of reaching Israel with either a conventional or nonconventional warhead.

Preemptive strikes have always been an essential element of Israel's military doctrine. Perhaps the most pertinent example is the air raid that destroyed Saddam Hussein's Osirak nuclear reactor in June 1981.

"It would be a complicated operation. In order to undermine or disrupt the Iranian nuclear program, you would have to strike at least three or four sites," said Ephraim Kam, the deputy head of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University. "Otherwise the damage would be too limited, and it would not postpone the program by more than a year or two, and this could, in the end, be worse than doing nothing."

Few, however, say they believe logistical challenges alone would hold back the Jewish state if it determined a strike were necessary.

"I wouldn't want to speculate about exactly how the ... objective might be achieved, but I will say this: The Israeli air force is extremely, extremely creative in its problem-solving approach," said Dan Schueftan, a senior fellow at the National Security Studies Center at Haifa University and the Jerusalem-based Shalem Center.

Bunker busters

In its arsenal, Israel has the first of more than 100 sophisticated U.S.-built F-16I warplanes, which come with extra fuel tanks to increase their range. It also has signed a deal with Washington to acquire 500 "bunker buster" bombs that can blast through more than six feet of concrete -- the kind of fortification that might be associated with Iranian nuclear sites.
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 11-07-2004, 10:07 PM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:33 PM
Your point being, the IAF will pull another Osirak using US made bunker busters. One way or another the Mullahs nuclear ambitions will be stopped. The assistance given to Israel by the US is perfectly suitable considering what she faces. Note that this is in the event that the carrot and stick approach with the Europeans and UN fails, if the Iranian government intends on adhering to it's obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty then there is no problem - also note that Israel is not a signatory therefore any nuclear weapons that she may or may not posess would be perfectly fine and the threat of which has maintained relative peace for the last 30 years.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-07-2004, 10:39 PM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 02:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Your point being, the IAF will pull another Osirak using US made bunker busters. One way or another the Mullahs nuclear ambitions will be stopped. The assistance given to Israel by the US is perfectly suitable considering what she faces. ...therefore any nuclear weapons that she may or may not posess would be perfectly fine and the threat of which has maintained relative peace for the last 30 years.
Relative peace? What, do you think, would have happened if Israelis, without necessary U.S. backing to maintain their power in the region, would have been driven out of the area?

You think the Arab nations would just have started to terrorize somewhere else, probably gone to take over Turkey, or attack the Soviet Union? I doubt it.

I think terrorism in the Near East wouldn´t have been on the rise if the whole situation wouldn´t have been fucked up by Israel in the long run. After all, before of 1967 there wasn´t a lot of terror.

All the Palestine conflict could have been avoided. Hamas and the PFLP wouldn´t have found many followers.

By the way, its totally logical the U.S. supports the Israelis. After all, they want a big piece of the cake. Not only oil, but arms sales. Then, from time to time, a war - no arms sales without wars in the long run. Later on, reconstruction investment.

It´s a perfect way to make loads of money. Like I said elsewhere, one of the priciples of capitalism is to create differences in order to be able to "resolve" them and make huge profits by doing so. Israel is a fine example for over 35 years of that strategy.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 11-08-2004, 12:19 AM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:33 PM
Israel shall remain, and she has many friends.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-08-2004, 02:46 AM   #5
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Israel
Posts: 112
Local Time: 02:33 PM
While I do believe that Israel should withdraw from the Gaza strip & the west bank it's not true that there weren't terror attacks before 67. It might not have been in the form of suicide bombers in busses, but gunmen who penetrated border towns killed many.

True, if Israel gave back right away the territories it occupied right after the war in 67 maybe the situation wasn't as worse as it is toady, but terror existed way before that in the area against Jews, even pre-1948 when there was still no state of Israel and the British had mandate in the region.

And now for something completely different (couldn't help it, Monty Python were on last night)-the US foreign aid. It can be like a bear hug sometimes, economically speaking, and I'm talking here just as a citizen. The X$$ given to Israel can only be used if buying equipment from Americans manufactures, meaning-importing. Many local factors, ones who manufactured uniforms for the army/standard socks and so on (textile in general) were shut down because no one bought what they were manufacturing any more. Bare in mind that mostly 40-50 year old women with no formal education worked there, with most of those factors being placed at areas where there are few jobs options, and now we have a considerable number of middle-aged women with no future, low/no income, a lot of them are single moms to.

This is also an example of how our governments (most of them, not just the current one) placement of security as top priority (not directly in this matter-but I'm sure anyone can make the connection) makes us all pay in other aspects of our lives. The relatively piece of the pie from the government's budget going to security related matters is the biggest, even more than education. (BTW, I've just learnt the other day that one third of our budget goes for debt payment, it kind of struck me)
__________________
sarit is offline  
Old 11-08-2004, 03:25 AM   #6
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:33 PM
It is quite worthwhile to preempt the inevitable argument about "Jewish terrorist groups" pre-'48 like the Irgun and Stern Gang there were many acts of violence commited in the region. One only needs to look at events like the Hebron massacre in 1929 to see how long such terror has been inflicted, or the political ties of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during the war. People don't seem to think that the Palestine in Palestine Liberation Organisation encompasses all of Mandate Palestine which includes all of Israel. There are problems on both sides but it would be doubtful that as soon as they withdraw from the disputed territories terrorism would cease, those voices of violence today would just start demanding more (although one could find the idea of Hamas increasing it's demands furthur - perhaps it would get to the point where they are demanding the entire world). Very good point on the economic effects that all this sorry business has upon the people in their day to day lives and benefits to certain business.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-08-2004, 05:04 AM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 02:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by sarit
While I do believe that Israel should withdraw from the Gaza strip & the west bank it's not true that there weren't terror attacks before 67. It might not have been in the form of suicide bombers in busses, but gunmen who penetrated border towns killed many.

True, if Israel gave back right away the territories it occupied right after the war in 67 maybe the situation wasn't as worse as it is toady, but terror existed way before that in the area against Jews, even pre-1948 when there was still no state of Israel and the British had mandate in the region.

And now for something completely different (couldn't help it, Monty Python were on last night)-the US foreign aid. It can be like a bear hug sometimes, economically speaking, and I'm talking here just as a citizen. The X$$ given to Israel can only be used if buying equipment from Americans manufactures, meaning-importing. Many local factors, ones who manufactured uniforms for the army/standard socks and so on (textile in general) were shut down because no one bought what they were manufacturing any more. Bare in mind that mostly 40-50 year old women with no formal education worked there, with most of those factors being placed at areas where there are few jobs options, and now we have a considerable number of middle-aged women with no future, low/no income, a lot of them are single moms to.

This is also an example of how our governments (most of them, not just the current one) placement of security as top priority (not directly in this matter-but I'm sure anyone can make the connection) makes us all pay in other aspects of our lives. The relatively piece of the pie from the government's budget going to security related matters is the biggest, even more than education. (BTW, I've just learnt the other day that one third of our budget goes for debt payment, it kind of struck me)
Interesting post, thank you.

So what do you think, how could this old conflict be resolved? The only Israeli people that I spoke with were always pointing fingers to the Palestinians/ or other Arab nations, saying sth like "If you wouldn´t have terrorized us, we wouldn´t have used military force" etc.

The Arab nations do the same, they point their fingers to Israel and say "If you wouldn´t have taken our land, we wouldn´t have fiananced terrorism". It´s like that old quarrel where one side says "If you hadn´t done this, we wouldn´t have done that". I don´t know how violence can be excused by saying it is revenge.

Then, on another note, do you think that a pre-emptive strike on Iran is a "legitimate" try to weaken Iran´s nuclear program, or do you think it is a cover-up reason in for justifying an attack on Iran, in order to gain more influence in the region?

Also, what about the nuclear arms that Israel posesses? As an outsider, not an insider to this conflict, I would be worried about that too - Sharon does not exactly stand for a peaceful, relaxed foreign policy.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 11-08-2004, 07:17 AM   #8
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Israel
Posts: 112
Local Time: 02:33 PM
1) I think that allot of Israelis, when talking to an "outsider" about the conflict, feel the need the defend Israe's actions and way of handling the conflict even though in reality they do accept the we were wrong as well. I know it sounds silly, but maybe it's just the mentality of 'us against the world' and the feeling that allot of the time foreign media is biased.

Other than that it's obvious that the blame is on both sides. After the war in 67 David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first PM and the most dominant Jewish leader in the years before, said that the occupied territories will be like cancer to Israel. Unfortunately this was towards the end of his life when his political career was long gone. Today most of Israelis agree that we should withdraw (according to polls). But other than the occupied territories there are two even bigger problems: East Jerusalem and the Palestinian refugees. While the problem with East Jerusalem may be resolved in some way of an international control of the area (or other solutions) the refugees' problem is a dead end. It goes even back to 48 when Israel was founded: the Arab countries in the area invaded Israel right away but from that point there are 2 versions of what happened-Israel drove away all of the Palestinians out of its territory/the Arab countries encouraged the Palestinians to leave Israel temporarily and go back when the war is over for they were sure they would win and Israel would no longer exist.
In the bottom line-there are Palestinians refugees. Allowing all of them to come back will mean the end of Israel. And as much as some people would like to think that one state for two sides involved could be a neat idea I'll just ask of them to imagine Yugoslavia, only worse.
The solution proposed is a financial compensation to the refugees. The problem is that Palestinians so far won't agree to it. This is a red line for both sides in the conflict.
Every now and then there's a voice heard saying that neighboring Arab nation should take responsibility for the Palestinian problem as well. I don't know if it's a know fact-but the Gaza strip that was occupied in 67 from Egypt was under Egypt's military regime up till that point. Even the Egyptians didn't treat the Palestinians all that great. Mind you, in the late 70's when Israel and Egypt signed the peace treaty Egypt didn’t want the Gaza strip back. The same goes for the west bank and Jordan. They didn't want it back while signing the peace treaty in 94. In fact, 70% percent out of Jordan's population are Palestinians while the royalty family is not. They've always been afraid of a Palestinian uprising in Jordan-and one time during 'Black September' (in the 60's or earl 70's-I don't remember exactly when) it did happen. Many of them (uprising Palestinians) were killed while others deported from the country. The on condition late king Hussein had while signing the peace treaty with Israel was that there would be a Palestinian state-simply out of the fear that an uprising could lead to Jordan turning into one.

One more problem (can you believe it? there's another one!) is the lack of trust between Palestinians and Israelis.
I'll talk just on my own behalf here: Logically speaking I know that we have no business there. But every time I see that it's written in Palestinians School-books that being a 'Shahid' (just like being a suicide bomber) is a noble way to end your life, or the maps in geography lessons that won't even acknowledge the existence of Israel (All of the territory from Lebanon and Syria in the north to Egypt in the south is referred to as
'Palestine') I really don't know if they want to form a Palestinian state alongside with Israel, or just one big Palestinian state-even if it will take them eternity (one that's filled with terror).

2) Iran- I don't think that if there’s an attack on Iran the reason for it will be just gaining influence. No matter what is the reason behind such attack (if it happens at all), the international price will be way to high for the attack to be just to gain influence.

3) Nuclear - I'm not that decisive on this issue. It'll be great if there won't be any nuclear weapon in the ME, but as long as some countries vows to destroy Israel (Iran for example) maybe it's a necessary evil as a determent measure. The past governments had the chance to use them but never did. And as much as I don't like Sharon, he won't use it either.
__________________
sarit is offline  
Old 11-08-2004, 07:25 AM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 12:33 PM
Good grief, it's really tough to be an Israeli.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 11-08-2004, 10:00 AM   #10
Refugee
 
bcrt2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,271
Local Time: 08:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
Good grief, it's really tough to be an Israeli.


don't forget its tough to be on the other side of the coin as well though
__________________
bcrt2000 is offline  
Old 11-08-2004, 12:26 PM   #11
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 340
Local Time: 06:33 AM
Great post, sarit. Thanks.
__________________

__________________
strannix is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com