Article

2006-10-20 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Oztralian 2006-10-20 05:40|| || Front Page|| [12 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I wonder how the Iranians would feel if Israel started talking the same way about them? Maybe detonate a nuclear device in the mountains outside Tehran, close enough for them to see the towering mushroom cloud, maybe get a little breeze from it. That would pretty much put the argument to bed.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2006-10-20 07:42|| 2006-10-20 07:42|| Front Page Top

#2 How more clear can this guy be?
"You should not complain that we did not give a warning. We are saying this explicitly now."

"This regime (Israel) will take its supporters to the bottom of the swamp."

You know anyway you frame it, this guy is going down badly it's just a matter of how many go with him at this point. I can't for the life of me see how things can ever be "worked out" with this nutjob. Let's hope he falls down stairs

Posted by Dunno 2006-10-20 08:11|| 2006-10-20 08:11|| Front Page Top

#3 I have a feeling it's Iran that will be going.

Israel, please don't be too accurate, splash a few in Saudi and Pakland.

Posted by Bright Pebbles in Blairistan 2006-10-20 08:14|| 2006-10-20 08:14|| Front Page Top

#4 Haven't we heard something like this before?

"The Jew miscalculated. The spiritual hero did not come too late. He took up battle with Pan-Jewry and won the victory. The world knows the name of this hero. He is Adolf Hitler, the Führer of the German freedom movement. The Jew sank under his blows in the dust. Now he sees the enormous danger he faces. He has been uncovered, his criminal plans have been discovered, and a battle is coming like the world has never seen. World Jewry faces Adolf Hitler. World Jewry faces Germany. The Jews will fight without pity. We must also fight without pity against Pan-Jewry. The Jewish people is the people of the Devil. It is a people of criminals and murderers. The Jewish people must be exterminated from the face of the earth."

Julius Streicher

Posted by Skidmark 2006-10-20 09:40|| 2006-10-20 09:40|| Front Page Top

#5 We have been seeing this since the Middle Ages.

The new Jew hate, same as the old.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2006-10-20 09:43|| 2006-10-20 09:43|| Front Page Top

#6 Again, an algerian free thinker (whose name I can't remember because my mind is rotten by pr0n), who wrote a book examining the public discourse of the islamocreeps before the 1992 start of the civil war, said that "they said what they were going to do, and they do what they said".

These are True Believers (though there's always the public consumption angle), and their words shouldn't be taken lightly, like "mein kampf" should have evoked more worry from liberal democrats and joooos back in the olden days.

Posted by anonymous5089 2006-10-20 09:45|| 2006-10-20 09:45|| Front Page Top

#7 In all seriousness, if Israel were to explode several nuclear weapons in Iran NOW they would be perfectly justified. The Iranian would-be mass murderer could not have stated his intentions more clearly. He intends to exterminate Israel and the only thing he is waiting for is his nuclear weapons to arrive.

I see no reason why Israel should wait to be hit first. The Holocaust should have taught a lesson about that. If the Israelis don't hit first they may well not have anything left to defend no matter what their second-strike capacity is.

I'd give Iran one very clear warning, something on the order of "The next statement Ahmedinejad makes threatening Israel will result in the total destruction of Iran." Then, when he oversteps the line I'd strike very soon and with sufficient weaponry to put Iran back into the Stone Age. The Iranians will have no one but themselves to blame for their predicament.

One more thing: count on this American's sympathy meter having its needle welded on zero. These bastards have had a world-class ass-kicking coming ever since 1979 and it's long past time they got it.

Posted by mac 2006-10-20 09:48|| 2006-10-20 09:48|| Front Page Top

#8 So it seems, as I were saying, the NorK nuke test was a proof for Ahmadinutjob that the good are in order. Whether they been already delivered or are to be, is the question.

Israel may have no choice but to pre-empt, and soon.

Posted by twobyfour 2006-10-20 10:22|| 2006-10-20 10:22|| Front Page Top

#9 For everybody who talks so gleefully about the use of nuclear weapons, I know you are doing it in jest, or you just don't know a hell of a lot about nuclear weapons. In either case, please cut back on the "nuke 'em" suggestions.

Lots of our soldiers have fought and died specifically so that we *wouldn't* use nuclear weapons.

If America was inclined, sure, we could use nuclear weapons to solve most military disputes. We could set up death camps to exterminate repugnant peoples who are nothing but trouble to us and everyone else, like the Norks.

We could drop chemical and biological weapons onto cities, wiping out millions of people. All very easy to do.

We have never needed allies. It would all be so much easier if everybody just feared us than playing stupid diplomatic games with assholes like the president of Iran and Saddam.

But if you think the industrial genocide or the chemical and bio weapons are repugnant, think again. They can easily have far *fewer* casualties and fatalities than nuclear weapons. So why would you think they are somehow less tasteful? Death is death, and horrible injury is none the less from blast, heat and radiation than from bullets and bombs. Often times far worse.

The smart part of the world lived in fear for 50 years from a massive thermonuclear exchange. But in truth, while it is fearsome, the use of just one nuclear weapon, or just a few, taken with the blase attitude that "it's just a big bomb", is something that the world should put off as long as we can.

It is even worth the lives of thousands, or tens of thousands of Americans, to *not* have a war using nuclear weapons.

And just because imbeciles cannot conceive of the destructive force that they are playing with, or religious fanatics *want* to destroy the world to appease their god, is no reason for us to open the bottle and let the monster out.

But it is every reason to stop them, as strongly as possible, from doing it either. To see the blood of our children flow and their mangled bodies lying in the streets of some foreign nation. It is worth it. That is why we are Americans.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-10-20 12:01|| 2006-10-20 12:01|| Front Page Top

#10 Well said, Anonymoose.

twobyfour: So it seems, as I were saying, the NorK nuke test was a proof for Ahmadinutjob that the good are in order. Whether they been already delivered or are to be, is the question.

Israel may have no choice but to pre-empt, and soon.

Ahmadi's been hinting at that recently:

The reformist daily Aftab-e Yazd reported that Ahmadinejad had said in his address that Iran must stand firm [in its nuclear policy]; we have one more step, and if we pass that, this [matter] will be attained.

A few days previously, on October 11, 2006, Ahmadinejad had made similar statements on the nuclear issue, in a speech in the city of Shahriyar:...The enemies are completely paralyzed, and cannot in any way confront the Iranian people. If our people maintain unity and solidarity, they [i.e. the enemies] must expect a great [Iranian] victory, because we have [only] one step remaining before we attain the summit of nuclear technology.

ht: memri via LGF.

Posted by xbalanke 2006-10-20 12:33|| 2006-10-20 12:33|| Front Page Top

#11 'moose, the logical and rational part of my brain is obliged to agree with you. First use is still out of the question. That said, I'll add that my own resistance to first use is rapidly being eroded by the incessant Islamic atrocities.

What we need to do is, whenever Ahmadinejad has one of his "we are invulnerable" hissy fits, detonate a MOAB slightly outside of Tehran. It will makea nice big ominous mushroom cloud and the tremors will be felt for 100 miles.

I feel that many people here and most people in general do not fully appreciate how dangerous it is to let Ahmadinejad continue spewing his bilious vomit. He is programming his masses with incredibly misleading information. We need to discredit him while instilling doubt and fear in Iranian minds. This will serve a double function in putting other regimes on notice as well.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-20 13:20|| 2006-10-20 13:20|| Front Page Top

#12 Hmmmm... the MOAB sounds like a good compromise.....

The Dems would all sputter, drool, and then fall over dead from "Karl's October Surprise"

Posted by Bobby 2006-10-20 13:51|| 2006-10-20 13:51|| Front Page Top

#13 Emotional revenge always focuses on the means. But if you focus on the most desireable ends, if that is what really matters most to you, then you have to accept that it will never be emotionally gratifying.

The ends, in this case, are two goals: preventing Iran from using a nuclear weapon; and, to prevent them from building a nuclear weapon ever again.

Both of these are predicated on either the Iranians testing a nuclear weapon, and thus proving they have one; or launching a ballistic missile carrying a nuclear weapon, hopefully that is intercepted before endangering any target.

For Iraq, the international community relied on its ability to gather the intelligence that proved Iraq was building a nuke. That was such a debacle that international intelligence gathering has been discredited for being adequate "proof" needed to start a preemptive war.

So therefore we must rely on Iran acting first, even if we are sure of it otherwise. However, that being said, once Iran *does* act, we will have carte blanche to respond in any way we see fit.

The response itself is the tactics of a battle plan, and since tactics can be argued ad infinitum, let us just say that the end result is an air war that destroys much of their nuclear capability.

This also assumes that we are loathe to fight a ground war, though we are more than able, if it can be avoided.

The second goal is to prevent Iran from ever building a nuclear weapon again. And this is why I advocate partitioning Iran. Because if they are left with their oil, their uranium, and their knowledge base, by hook or by crook, they will rebuild their program. And they have said as much.

If partitioned, Iran is denied its oil, its uranium, its valuable ores, and its money to reconstruct its program. The best part is, that the Persian people are not destroyed in the process, in their millions; even though the lives of their army and their Revolutionary Guard are forfeit.

Once again, these are our ends. They are suggested with a coldness that defies emotional gratification. There is no joy in our doing this, in carrying out a "national death penalty" against Iran.

The means will also be methodical and cold, and will be done to the degree it is neccessary, which is far from emotionally satisfying.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-10-20 13:51|| 2006-10-20 13:51|| Front Page Top

#14 Israeli agents should nuke the Iranian nuke areas and then blame the Iranians own nuke program for the blast.

"The Iranians unexpected nuclear test today serves as a warning to Israel and all peaceful nations... blah, blah, blah." Then watch the confusion as the Islamic world praises the Iranians success, and the Iranian confusion over how to explain how they lost the bulk of their scientists and program and aren't sure how and now decide if they want to blame the jews or pretend the test was theres.

Win/win. The only ones who could tell the nuke was Israeli are either their allies or known anti-semites.

Posted by rjschwarz 2006-10-20 14:23|| 2006-10-20 14:23|| Front Page Top

#15 Anonymoose, I agree. The key difference between us in the "reality-based community" and the Progressives is that we choose our actions and our tools to achieve an effective result, whereas they do what makes them feel better, regardless whether it is effective of leads to the desired outcome (not at all the same thing).

Posted by trailing wife 2006-10-20 14:48|| 2006-10-20 14:48|| Front Page Top

#16 While I agree with most of what you say, Anonymoose, I do have one observation. If we have nukes in our arsenal, we should be prepared to use them if the situation warrants.

If we cannot think of any situation that would warrant it, we should immediately and unilaterally disarm.

Under what circumstances would nuclear force be warranted or necessary? Only if the actual survival of the nation is at stake? Personally, I feel that in many ways, the survival of our nation IS at stake. Like any thinking and rational person, I would be reticent to discuss anything as horrible as the nuclear option. But if you can never put it on the table, what good is it?

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-10-20 15:09|| 2006-10-20 15:09|| Front Page Top

#17 Anonymoose raises a very good point. We must remember that the US, alone, retains a substantial conventional bomber fleet. B-2's, B-1's and B-52's raining 500lb HE onto identified targets will be devastating. Sure, send in the random C-130 with a MOAB too. Screw sending in troops unless a clearly supportive "government" takes over. This will be a message that is clearly received throughout the ME.

Posted by remoteman 2006-10-20 15:21|| 2006-10-20 15:21|| Front Page Top

#18 One grand speach + one bullet + one high powered rifle.

Posted by bool 2006-10-20 16:01|| 2006-10-20 16:01|| Front Page Top

#19 mcsegeek1: You pose a good question, which has kind of a philosophical answer, in two parts.

The first part was that nuclear weapons, for the first time in the Cold War, achieved the ultimate in brinksmanship, which we know as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).

It began with a race to develop more and more powerful nuclear weapons, which culminated in the creation of the Soviet Union's ultimate weapon, in 1961, the Tsar Bomba, a 100 Megaton bomb nicknamed "The Continent Cracker", which they modified to reduce its strength before testing, to only 50 Megatons. Oddly enough, a very "clean" bomb, producing little fallout.

But such a weapon was ultimately useless, so both sides began nuclear weapons development in the *other* direction, to make smaller and smaller weapons, and even to use nuclear explosives for non-military purposes, like digging canals and making earthen dams.

Eventually though, the light dawned that since neither side could use *any* of their weapons without the strong risk of igniting a global thermonuclear war, the battle between them turned to an economic battle; with military conflicts being reduced to proxy wars between client states and revolutionary movements.

But that is when nuclear proliferation reared its ugly head. Nuclear science is not devastatingly complex in its basics, and once the knowledge gets out of how to make a nuclear weapon, the rest is just a matter of logistics and engineering.

The problem, however, was a bit more complex. You just can't make a primitive nuke, like the kind used on Hiroshima, and *do* much with it, unless you have a delivery system that can carry it. An aircraft or a missile.

So this means for a nation to become a nuclear threat it must have several very different capabilities. Importantly, it also means that there isn't any way we can *counter* these capabilities.

So only then, when they have everything they need, and we are unable to stop them, does it really come down to us having to bargain with our nukes again. To what amounts to MAD, but on a smaller scale. Basically, "If you use a nuke, then we will utterly annihilate your nation." A truly national death penalty.

In past, I even proposed that by agreement of the major world powers, any other nation that aggresively used a nuclear weapon against their hated enemy, was open to attack with neutron weapons from any of the major powers. Such weapons would destroy all lifeforms in that nation, and everything else left would be given to the victim nation as reparations.

This would terrify the petty tyrants hoping to strike a vicious blow against their hated enemy. That everything on the tyrants side would be given away *to* their (surviving) hated enemy. This would be unbearable to them, such is the pettyness of their world.

And that is a really horrifying alternative, to wipe out an entire nation, forever.

But the alternative is what the tyrants really hope for: a big bomb that will cause pain and destruction on some group which has been at blood fued with his side for hundreds of years.

The irony is that in a way, they are right, that small nuclear weapons can be used pretty much like conventional bombs.

But you see what happens when such a proliferation begins, with North Korea. Instantly, both Taiwan and Japan want nuclear weapons, too. And probably a half dozen more nations want them, just so they won't be behind the power curve, but haven't said yet.

And the more nations that have them, the greater the odds that somebody will use them.

Certainly the US could hold all the nations of the world hostage to the non-use of nukes. Eventually we may end up having to do that. But it is far, far better to just keep it non-nuclear as long as we can.

In a way, the US is already held hostage to a nuclear power: Israel. If Israel feels threatened with destruction, they have made it abundantly clear they *will* use their nukes. This puts the US in the position of having to promise to protect them so that they *won't* have to use their nukes.

This is not a pleasant situation for the US to be in, but such are the demands placed upon us to *not* use, or let be used, nukes.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-10-20 16:51|| 2006-10-20 16:51|| Front Page Top

#20 Iran ~~Israel~~ Must Go: World ~~Iran~~ Leaders

There - fixed that for ya'.

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg 2006-10-20 17:28|| www.fire-on-the-suns.com]">[www.fire-on-the-suns.com] 2006-10-20 17:28|| Front Page Top

#21 until Israel jettisons their current milktoast PM the Iranians, hell even THE FRENCH, will feel free to threaten them.

Put Netanyahu (excuse the spelling) back in and I do believe things will change.

Posted by Justrand 2006-10-20 17:50|| 2006-10-20 17:50|| Front Page Top

#22 I have no qualms against the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, either by the United States or Israel. We face a grave danger from militant islam (99% of it). We have an enemy actively attempting to cause us great harm, while hiding under the guise of a non-governmental force. We know that Islam allows any form of deceit that will assist in victory, and that the word of a muslim is about as good as that of Kim Jong-Il. We've played games at fighting this war ever since the first arab terror attack in the early 70's. We're either going to have to do some very HEAVY fighting, or destroy the middle east and our adversaries. We're outnumbered about 1.2 Billion to 300 Million. Those are not good odds, especially since at least 100 million of OUR citizens are against us doing anything. We have been attacked on our own soil, and yet we want to engage in "nation building" instead of Marine-type "winning hearts and minds" (when you have the enemy by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow). The United States must understand that every muslim nation is an enemy to our peace and security, and that every muslim in the United States is a potential agent of our enemies. Playing nice is for the playground, not war. Get mean, get vicious, and WIN, instead of namby-pamby "force projection". CRUSH our foes, or they will crush us. History is not kind to those that tried to negotiate with Islam in the past. It won't be kind to us unless we accept the nature of our enemy, and pound him into scrap.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2006-10-20 18:24|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2006-10-20 18:24|| Front Page Top

#23 Moose, you're wrong. Plainly, simply wrong. Israelis, of all people, should know that waiting for someone else to come to your aid means staring extermination right in the face. Israel CANNOT depend on the U.S. to protect their country against Iranian nukes. We're not a reliable enough ally. Maybe nobody is, but we certainly aren't. I remember seeing the last helicopter leaving the roof of the American Embassy in Saigon. Are you truly stupid enough to think that they should put such a life-and-death decision ABOUT THEIR LIVES in the hands of venal criminals like Kerry, Clinton and Howard Dean?

Israel cannot get to Iran with a conventional army. They don't have enough people to conquer Iran if they could. The Iranian president has already said that the Islamic world could take the damage of a nuclear exchange and survive, while Israel would be totally destroyed. He considers that exchange acceptable. Maybe his people don't but guess what? They don't get to make the decision! He does! And we KNOW where he stands. If the Israelis wait until he gets those weapons, they're toast.

Last, the world goes with winners. Period. When a country gets conquered or a people get massacred, some few people elsewhere get all upset and teary-eyed, but that's about it. Think Darfur or Rwanda/Burundi. It's the OJ murders writ large. Moral equivalence between victims and victimizers.

If we woke up tomorrow to find Ahmedinejad's wet dream come true had happened, I'd bet money you'd have more people asking for us to take in refugees from Iran than Israel. And you can damn sure bet that the rest of the Arab states would be on what was left of Israel in a flash.

They're in a tough spot. They always have been but now it's worse. They can either cower, waiting for the murderers to come to them or they can go take them out first where THEY live. Nuclear weaponry is the only way they can stop Iran and the only way they can prevent themselves from being annihilated. Ben-Gurion wouldn't have found this a tough decision. Israel didn't ask for this fight but now it's here. The only two choices are victory or letting Muslim murderers finish Hitler's work.

Posted by mac 2006-10-20 19:09|| 2006-10-20 19:09|| Front Page Top

#24 I have watched a program recently on the BBC channels that Isreal knows this. The idea of this whole nuking just outside of Tehran is redicuolous, it could go either way. On the program it reported on how the Isreali air force (armed with F-15's) has almost completed its plan to go and bomb there nuclear development sites in one go. I feel this would be much nicer, because without greatly trying except sending in 3 F-15's the Isreali air force has sent Iran back to step one.

Posted by Tom 2006-10-20 19:13|| 2006-10-20 19:13|| Front Page Top

#25 Israel's problem is that she has to assume that an Iranian missile attack would be nuclear, and respond in kind. There is ABSOLUTELY no margin for error. Israel's missile defense shield would have to work perfectly. Iran, by whatever means, could either lob a nuke in or smuggle one into Gaza or West Bank, set it off, during favorable winds, and Israel is largely made uninhabitable by the fallout.

If this happens, the world will just wring its hands and say, too bad for Israel.

And that is why Iranian Mad Mullahs and Nut Job need to be removed---NOW.

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2006-10-20 21:11|| 2006-10-20 21:11|| Front Page Top

#26 Israel's problem is that she has to assume that an Iranian missile attack would be nuclear, and respond in kind. There is ABSOLUTELY no margin for error. Israel's missile defense shield would have to work perfectly. Iran, by whatever means, could either lob a nuke in or smuggle one into Gaza or West Bank, set it off, during favorable winds, and Israel is largely made uninhabitable by the fallout.

If this happens, the world will just wring its hands and say, too bad for Israel.

And that is why Iranian Mad Mullahs and Nut Job need to be removed---NOW.

Bingo, Alaska Paul. This is why I keep trying to have some sort of price tag attached to Ahmadinejad's ravings. If we cannot discredit them, then the intended victims like Israel have no alternative but to believe that they are true.

As mac so ably pointed out, Israel really does not have anyone that they can rely upon. No matter how much America responsibly defends Israel's right to existence, when all is over and done with, the IDF must make their own calls.

While I might oppose American first-use of nuclear arms, the case for Israel is much less clear cut. Absent the conventional means to achieve their ends and granted the direct and proclaimed intent of Ahmadinejad to turn his entire nation into the world's largest suicide bomber, how much choice does Israel actually have? They simply cannot sit around and wait for other more powerful entities (read: the USA) to finally make up their minds.

If we truly respect Israel's right to exist, we must sincerely consider preempting Iran's nuclear ambitions. If not, we had damn well better be ready to back up Israel once they've reduced the Persian threat to smoking glass.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-20 21:36|| 2006-10-20 21:36|| Front Page Top

#27 Non use of nukes is ok if your opposite is rational.
Communism (what's mine is mine what's yours is mine) was nasty but rational.

Islam is not rational by definition. It is a religion based on wars of conquest and bodies for their diety. No different then the sacrifice of of human prisoners by the Aztecs to their hungry gods.

MAD does not work with a warrior religion so first use of Nukes must be on the table no matter how repulsive some may find it.

Posted by 3dc 2006-10-20 23:04|| 2006-10-20 23:04|| Front Page Top

13:56 Anonymoose
23:56 Zenster
23:53 Zenster
23:53 Old Patriot
23:52 3dc
23:46 3dc
23:30 JosephMendiola
23:26 twobyfour
23:20 JosephMendiola
23:18 NoBeards
23:13 3dc
23:10 mrp
23:08 RD
23:05 Chinter Flarong
23:04 3dc
22:59 RD
22:50 gorb
22:47 RD
22:44 Old Patriot
22:30 Old Patriot
22:29 Asymmetrical Triangulation
22:26 Kalle (kafir forever)
22:22 3dc
22:20 Gen. G. S. Patton (Ret)