The Coming Catastrophy in Iran - Page 2 - 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 07-06-2008, 03:40 AM   #16
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 08:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadelynIris View Post
Israel has quietly been picking off supposedly non-existant nuclear weapons facilities all over the middle east for years, and we've (US) has been quite happy about that.
Well, not exactly...the Reagan Administration (Baker, Bush Sr., Weinberger and Kirkpatrick in particular) were openly condemning of Israel's 1981 attack on the Osiraq reactor, and the US supported UN Res 487 condemning the attack (in fact, Kirkpatrick co-wrote it). Of course, given that we were at the time beginning to cultivate Iraq as a counterweight to revolutionary Iran, this response was unsurprising; and doubtless the present Administration, given their original case for invading Iraq, would take a more "nuanced" view of that incident. It is true that the Bush Administration said relatively little about last year's attack on Syria (though I wouldn't really characterize their response as "quite happy"); however, there was a bizarre international silence in general on that incident, including from the rest of the 'Arab world'--perhaps in part because of the considerable doubt, confusion and conflicting 'leaks' as to what exactly the target was and how convinced the Israeli government was about that. Of course it should also be noted that Iran is a considerably more formidable power than Syria circa '07 or Iraq circa '81.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 07-06-2008, 04:50 AM   #17
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 07:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
Of course it should also be noted that Iran is a considerably more formidable power than Syria circa '07 or Iraq circa '81.
Not when comes to the quantity and quality of conventional military weaponry available to the Syrians vs. what Iran currently has. For example, Syria has nearly 3 times as many main battle tanks as Iran and nearly 6 times as many modern main battle tanks. Iranian tank inventory still includes tanks from when the Shah was in power in addition to Iraqi tanks captured during the Iran/Iraq war. The comparison with Iraq in 1981 might be closer, but even here prior to much of Iraq's military build up in the 1980s, Iran today is behind in numbers of tanks and other conventional weapons that Iraq had in 1981.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-07-2008, 11:08 AM   #18
Refugee
 
A stor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: U.S.A. East Coast
Posts: 2,464
Local Time: 07:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Vest View Post
Geez, great answer...no concern about the thousands who would be killed on both sides, the reprecussions to the whole middle-fuckin-east, the possible domino effect of such an attack etc. etc. Hmmm.
I care....about the thousands who would be killed. Forgive me if I am wrong, but what right do they or even we (Americans) have to "attack" another nation?

Look what happened in Iraq. Where are those weapons of mass destruction? Faulty information, lead to war. And thousands have paid the price.

And didn't Iran comply with the inspectors and it was determined that their nuclear capabilities were being used for energy sources?
__________________
A stor is offline  
Old 08-05-2008, 09:25 PM   #19
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 08:27 AM
A bit tangential to the thread topic, but likely to be very relevant in the long term...
Quote:
Israel's Political Vacuum
The nation is looking for a leader and an agenda. It can't seem to find either.


By Shmuel Rosner
Slate.com, Aug. 1


To the American spectator, the parallels with Israel seem obvious. The departing leader is unpopular and scarred by an unsuccessful war. For the time being, the focus is on the primaries in which two candidates are vying for the leadership of the Kadima Party. One is a woman, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. The other is the "dark-skinned candidate," Transportation Minister and former Defense Minister and military chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, a member of the Sephardic Jewish diaspora, none of whose members has ever been prime minister.

But Livni is no Hillary Clinton—she's the more dovish of the two candidates, and she would not be Israel's first woman prime minister; Golda Meir played that role almost 40 years ago. And Mofaz is no Barack Obama. He has a lot of experience, is more hawkish, and the group of Sephardic Jews he belongs to—Mofaz was born in Iran—is not a minority in Israel. Still, this political fight will be all about the rules of the Kadima primary: Livni is more popular with the general public, but Mofaz has the edge when it comes to mastering the game of political deal-making.

When one of them wins the primaries in September, he or she will have the opportunity to form a coalition without elections—but most Israelis assume such a coalition couldn't survive for long. As tired as they might be, Israelis want elections. They want to reshuffle the cards yet again. There's a problem, though: The candidates—from the other parties as well as Kadima—aren't all that promising. Defense Minister Ehud Barak, the leader of the Labor Party, was prime minister in the late '90s and has never managed to recover his popularity with the public. Likud's hawkish leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, was prime minister before Barak. Netanyahu is currently ahead in the polls, but half the country seems to shudder whenever his name comes up. Both Barak and Netanyahu were kicked out of office by unhappy voters way before their terms were scheduled to expire.

The early departure of Ehud Olmert—a result of his mounting political and legal troubles—is another sign of Israel's leadership crisis, which I wrote about at the end of 2005, when his predecessor, Ariel Sharon, collapsed. The younger generation of leaders, "first Netanyahu and then…Ehud Barak were so disappointing, such juvenile prime ministers, that they sent Israeli voters rushing back to older, more experienced leaders—the men who were already there when the state of Israel was born"—men like Sharon. But after Sharon's collapse, "when the shift to a younger generation is no longer a luxury, it's not…clear where the leaders will come from."

Olmert was the accidental successor who just happened to be there when Sharon slipped off stage. Olmert inspired no awe—but whoever succeeds him will have the same problem. Livni, Mofaz, Netanyahu, Barak—none will have the benefit of personal dominance; all will find it difficult to win over voters. One of them will become prime minister—but only because the country has to have someone playing that role. Lacking the aura of natural authority, whoever is elected will have to find an achievable agenda in order to survive. Olmert supposedly had one when he was elected: He promised to continue Israel's withdrawal from the occupied territories. A worthy cause, but there was one problem: It was a goal out of tune with reality. The conditions for an agreement with the Palestinian Authority, or the Syrians for that matter, were not in place. Olmert kept trying, but Israelis looked on with dismay. They thought, perhaps rightly, that the prime minister was playing politics, that his talks with the Arabs were aimed at diverting attention from the failed war he launched and from his own legal problems.

But the agenda Olmert's potential successors represent does not make voters confident. Arguably, there's close to a consensus about the solutions (or lack thereof) for the problems Israel now faces and very little difference among them: All will continue peace talks, but none believes that talks can lead to a lasting solution; all will emphasize the challenge posed to the region by Iran; all will struggle with the apparently unsolvable problem of Hamas' rule in Gaza; all understand that the international community failed to follow through and contain the power of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Rhetorical differences aside, all four candidates will take Israel in approximately the same direction—or will be dragged to similar conclusions by the conditions on the ground.

Returning to the Democratic primary parallel, the Israeli election will be more about personality than agenda. That's ironic, since a dominant personality is what Israelis are having trouble finding.
The comparison to the US Democratic primary is somewhat interesting.

I sure hope it doesn't wind up being Mofaz or Netanyahu.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland 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 02:27 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