Iran Threatens To Attack Tel Aviv...

[Black Dog]

Of course it does B Dog. It demonstrates precisely the kind of suicidal fanaticism that blinds its leaders to the suffering they cause others in the name of moral righteousness. It shoulds they think nothing of destroying their own people-if that is not what suicidal fanactism is what is it? Harmless benevolence?

Uh: how about "power?" Dictatorial regimes the world over and since time immemorial have been characterized by their obsession with retaining their grip on power. Why would Iran be any different? they've spent more than 25 years cementing their power base and you think they'll just toss it aside in a nuclear fireball for shits and giggles?

As we speak the Arab League of Nations has announced its full support for the leader of Sudan.

Relevance? And link? 'cause here's what I have:

"the Arab League's envoy to Sudan on Tuesday described the indictment of the country's president on genocide and other charges as a serious blow to peace efforts in Darfur.

The Egyptian diplomat, Salah Halima, told reporters at his office in Cairo that the indictment filed by a prosecutor at the International Criminal Court on Monday will have a negative impact on the stability of a region already beset by internal and cross-border conflict."

I love this selectivity as to who we can poo poo when it comes to human rights violations.

One more time: where did I "poo poo" Iran's record on human rights? Quote it or drop it.

Sorry B Dog your selectivity is about as credible as the Arab League of Nations announcing full support of the President of Sudan or China criticizing Israel while providing military supplies to the soldiers carrying out the genocide in Sudan.

I'm very sorry basic reading comprehension is a struggle for you today. I shouldn't have to explain this, but questioning Iran's commitment to nuclear suicide and the wisdom of starting yet another war in the region is in no way, shape or form a defense of Iran's human rights track record or a denial of its crimes. Simple stuff.

Edited July 16, 2008 by Black Dog

[M.Dancer]

The issue of Iran's suicide is a strawman.

1) They could very well believe that they could nuke Tel Aviv and not incur the wrath of the world. Given the hand wringing that some do every time a palestinian sparrow falls they may believe that no one would really risk war over the deaths of a few hundred thousand Israelis...

2) They could believe that if a strike on Tel Aviv actually motivates people to stanbd up to Iran, Russia and Chi8na will protect them.

3) They could believe that whatever retaliation is unleashed on them they could survive.

4) Or they could simply use the threat of a Nuclear armed Iran to become a regional superpower and hegemon.

[Black Dog]

1) They could very well believe that they could nuke Tel Aviv and not incur the wrath of the world. Given the hand wringing that some do every time a palestinian sparrow falls they may believe that no one would really risk war over the deaths of a few hundred thousand Israelis...

And what of Israel itself, which could likely do the job of wiping out Iran single handed with its own nuclear arsenal?

2) They could believe that if a strike on Tel Aviv actually motivates people to stanbd up to Iran, Russia and Chi8na will protect them.

Just like China and Russia protected Iraq for lesser crimes?

3) They could believe that whatever retaliation is unleashed on them they could survive.

Possible, but unlikely. Even a small-scale nuclear exchange would completely devastate the mullah's power base.

4) Or they could simply use the threat of a Nuclear armed Iran to become a regional superpower and hegemon.

Ding ding ding!

Given that their goal is to actually increase their power and influence in the region, why would they jeopardize that by launching an unprovoked attack on Israel? It seems far more likely that their threats and rhetoric are borrowed from Nixon's madman theory: they want people to think they are crazy enough to do anything so that they will do what Iran wants. Whether that's effective or not is debatable, but a lot more realistic than the "apocalyptic looney" theory.

[M.Dancer]

And what of Israel itself, which could likely do the job of wiping out Iran single handed with its own nuclear arsenal?

Unlikely. Given that no one even knows for sure that Israel has the bomb it is far more likely the would have a number of small tactical nukes than strategic. Tactical nukes would be used as a last ditch attempt to stave off being overrun by armoured forces. That being said, they could probably neuter Iran's military capability to World War One levels with their conventional forces.

Just like China and Russia protected Iraq for lesser crimes?

ummmm...Just like China protects Sudan....mind you, it's suicidal to count on that, but I'm not counting on cow eyed virgins...

Possible, but unlikely. Even a small-scale nuclear exchange would completely devastate the mullah's power base.

Why? What is more likely? Would we (the west, the good guys) attack their ability to fight or their daycares?

Ding ding ding!

Do you think that's a good thing that a nation that sponsors terrorism, murders at will and generally behaves in an uncivilized manner have a giant trump card? Isn't more pragmatic to neutralize the threat?

[GostHacked]

M Dancer

Do you think that's a good thing that a nation that sponsors terrorism, murders at will and generally behaves in an uncivilized manner have a giant trump card? Isn't more pragmatic to neutralize the threat?

Even democratic nations have sponsored genocide. So by that, many countries cannot take the high road because for the most part, their human rights record is about as abismal as Iran's. Don't discount propaganda from both sides to make things seem way more urgent/threatning than what it really is.

[DogOnPorch]

If (save your breath) Israel has the Bomb they no doubt have thermonuclear weapons rather than the smaller atomic bombs (Hiroshima etc); so any attempt at a nuclear exchange would likely go rather badly for the Muslim side. That's not to say a lone A-Bomb wouldn't ruin your day.

The real worry is what a strike on Iran's various nuclear facilities would do to the entire region. Would Iran send troops into Iraq? Would Pakistan remain stable? Would Hamas and Hezbollah start doing their thing again? Would Syria get involved if everyone else was?

Big question marks...

-----------------------------------------

I've been down so G+dd@mn long that it looks like up to me.

---The Doors

Edited July 16, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

North Korea actually HAS nukes. But we hear of nothing but 'talks' between NK and the west. NK thumbs their nose up at the west often enough, and STILL HAS NUKES!!!

It's doubtful now that North Korea has a working atomic weapon. Their test...and this relates to an earlier conversation...was a big fizz at under 1 kiloton yield. It is likely that something basic has not been solved yet and further tests will need to be done before they can claim a reliable device.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Great ideology creates great times.

---Kim Jong Il

[M.Dancer]

M Dancer

Even democratic nations have sponsored genocide.

Go ahead. Name names.

[Black Dog]

Unlikely. Given that no one even knows for sure that Israel has the bomb it is far more likely the would have a number of small tactical nukes than strategic.

Oh come on.

ummmm...Just like China protects Sudan...

Hmmm. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that a unprovoked nuclear strike on amajor ally of the U.S. is upping the ante from a destructive civil war in some African backwater.

mind you, it's suicidal to count on that, but I'm not counting on cow eyed virgins...

Yeah because I'm sure Iran would just plough ahead without any indication from their allies as to the degree of support they would receive...it's not a game of Risk, you know.

Why? What is more likely? Would we (the west, the good guys) attack their ability to fight or their daycares?

How about both. Do you honestly believe a nuclear strike against a civilian population centre would not be met in kind?

Do you think that's a good thing that a nation that sponsors terrorism, murders at will and generally behaves in an uncivilized manner have a giant trump card?

Don't confuse my belief in our inability to prevent Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons by military means with an endorsement of that goal.

Isn't more pragmatic to neutralize the threat?

Based on intelligence estimates of Iran's nuclear program, a military strike is the least pragmatic solution. There's too many variables, not the least of which is the distinct possibility that an attack on suspected nuclear facilities would not significantly hamper their efforts and that such a strike would further bend Iran's will to building a bomb. It seems that those advocating a military solution simply aren't calculating the fallout from a successful strike, let alone entertained the possibility that a strike might not be successful. I know you lot are still dazzled by the success of the Osirik strike, but Iran's nuclear program isn't sitting out in the open in the middle of the desert, ripe for the picking.

[M.Dancer]

How about both. Do you honestly believe a nuclear strike against a civilian population centre would not be met in kind?

Yes. I believe our professional soldiers are a lot smarter than that. There may be N strikes, or there may not be, but any strike would be part of a winning strategy, not forrevenge aznd in the end, there are no points for our side in killing civilians needlessly.

[Black Dog]

Yes. I believe our professional soldiers are a lot smarter than that. There may be N strikes, or there may not be, but any strike would be part of a winning strategy, not forrevenge aznd in the end, there are no points for our side in killing civilians needlessly.

I think that's an incredibly naive p.o.v. In the event of an unprovoked nuclear strike on a civilian population centre, all bets would be off. "An eye for an eye" is a Jewish thing, after all.

Edited July 16, 2008 by Black Dog

[DogOnPorch]

I think that's an incredibly naive p.o.v. In the event of an unprovoked nuclear strike on a civilian population centre, all bets would be off. "An eye for an eye" is a Jewish thing, after all.

Is it now?

Oh come on.

Care to give us all a few details about these Israeli nuclear weapons? Don't worry if you can't...nobody else has been able to do so, either.

-----------------------------------

Nahnu, nahnu!

---Mork and Mindy

[M.Dancer]

I think that's an incredibly naive p.o.v. In the event of an unprovoked nuclear strike on a civilian population centre, all bets would be off. "An eye for an eye" is a Jewish thing, after all.

Survival is a Jewish thing too. Not losing your shirt in a business deal as well. You might consider it naive, but I consider it amateurish and unprofessional, and you can call the Jews many things but don't call them amateurs.

[Black Dog]

Care to give us all a few details about these Israeli nuclear weapons? Don't worry if you can't...nobody else has been able to do so, either.

But the fact thay have 'em is one of the worst kept secrets out there. Ask Mordechai Vanunu.

You might consider it naive, but I consider it amateurish and unprofessional, and you can call the Jews many things but don't call them amateurs.

Yeah: Tel Aviv is a smoking hole and they are facing a second Shoa, they're going to worry about looking like amateurs.

[DogOnPorch]

But the fact thay have 'em is one of the worst kept secrets out there. Ask Mordechai Vanunu.

Vanunu's best material was photos of a supposed model of an actual bomb. My point is that even if Israel has nuclear weapons (probability: 90% or so) they have never been tested. So Israel only hopes they work (probability: 90% or so). That may seem like pretty good odds (my guess only) but if one was to launch the Shuttle with a 90% chance of success, there'd be a lot more dead astronauts.

So here's the doomsday scenario: Israel launches a nuke on a Jericho missile towards Tehran. It arrives over target and by rotten luck it falls into that 10% and the device doesn't go off. Now what?

Some folks might argue that Israel has US or French nuclear weapons but, that doesn't really hold water due to the shelf life of such weapons (they'd have to keep on giving nuclear weapons) and the high probability of many more whistle-blowers than Vananu. This would also be true even with 'mere' blueprints...which Iran does have.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Survival kit contents check. In them you'll find: one forty-five caliber automatic; two boxes of ammunition; four days' concentrated emergency rations; one drug issue containing antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills; one miniature combination Russian phrase book and Bible; one hundred dollars in rubles; one hundred dollars in gold; nine packs of chewing gum; one issue of prophylactics; three lipsticks; three pair of nylon stockings. Shoot, a fella' could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff.

---

[M.Dancer]

But the fact thay have 'em is one of the worst kept secrets out there. Ask Mordechai Vanunu.

Yeah: Tel Aviv is a smoking hole and they are facing a second Shoa, they're going to worry about looking like amateurs.

Exactly. They will be professionals and win. What point is there to blow their load on Tehran if Itan's nuclear capability still exists?

[GostHacked]

It's doubtful now that North Korea has a working atomic weapon. Their test...and this relates to an earlier conversation...was a big fizz at under 1 kiloton yield. It is likely that something basic has not been solved yet and further tests will need to be done before they can claim a reliable device.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Great ideology creates great times.

---Kim Jong Il

But this shows how advanced North Korea is compared to Iran. North Korea already tested their bomb, and went back to the drawing board. Iran is still on the drawing board for the first bomb. Because NKs bomb fizzed out, they now have more knowledge on how to make it work.

With computer simultions that supercomputers can do,, you can build a virtual bomb and test all your workings. Much can be done with computers before they even physically make a bomb. Giving the chance of the bomb of actually working, a much higher probability.

Isreal has been a real pain in the middle east ever since it's 'rebirth'.

[bush_cheney2004]

.Isreal has been a real pain in the middle east ever since it's 'rebirth'.

Uh-oh...methinks somebody just turned off their cloaking device.

[myata]

Is it now?

Certainly not! To start a full blown war, in which over 1000 civilians have perished, for kidnapping of 3 (three) soldiers (Lebanon) was only a legitimate "right to defend itself". Nobody on the right (Bush, Harper) had any problem with that. As Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Such are our "morals" we simply can't resist to instill onto the whole world.

[DogOnPorch]

But this shows how advanced North Korea is compared to Iran. North Korea already tested their bomb, and went back to the drawing board. Iran is still on the drawing board for the first bomb. Because NKs bomb fizzed out, they now have more knowledge on how to make it work.

It shows they f**ked up while building their Pakistani nuclear weapon.

With computer simultions that supercomputers can do,, you can build a virtual bomb and test all your workings. Much can be done with computers before they even physically make a bomb. Giving the chance of the bomb of actually working, a much higher probability.

This is merely speculation on your part. As even you pointed out, North Korea seemed to think it needed testing. Why not Israel? Especially why not Israel when these supercomputers you speak of didn't exist in the 1960s when Israel apparently developed its first weapons.(?) I mentioned this before and you ignored it.

Isreal has been a real pain in the middle east ever since it's 'rebirth'.

Unlike the Arabs.

Uh-oh...methinks somebody just turned off their cloaking device.

A Romulan in Vulcan clothing?

------------------------------

Damn it, Jim, I'm a doctor not a mechanic.

---Star Trek

[DogOnPorch]

Certainly not! To start a full blown war, in which over 1000 civilians have perished, for kidnapping of 3 (three) soldiers (Lebanon) was only a legitimate "right to defend itself". Nobody on the right (Bush, Harper) had any problem with that. As Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Such are our "morals" we simply can't resist to instill onto the whole world.

Had Hezbollah not been out kidnapping IDF soldiers, Lebanon 2006 would have been avoided. It wasn't 'a full blown war', though, because Israel was forced to pull its punches. Had it been 'full blown', the only place one would find Hezbollah would be a history book.

I do find it a chuckle that some people think war should be fair like a football game. Using this mind-think, the Allies should have informed the Germans that Normandy was the target and not the Pas de Calais. You know...give the Germans time to set up properly n' all.

But not to worry...looks like your buds have some of their mass murderers back. That one fellow that smashed the little girl's head on a rock with his rifle butt makes a fine posterboy for their high moral cause.

-------------------------------------------------

That is why if Lebanon concludes a peace agreement with Israel and brings that accord to the Parliament our deputies will reject it; Hezbollah refuses any conciliation with Israel in principle.

---Hassan Nasrallah

[BC_chick]

Had Hezbollah not been out kidnapping IDF soldiers, Lebanon 2006 would have been avoided. It wasn't 'a full blown war', though, because Israel was forced to pull its punches. Had it been 'full blown', the only place one would find Hezbollah would be a history book.

I do find it a chuckle that some people think war should be fair like a football game. Using this mind-think, the Allies should have informed the Germans that Normandy was the target and not the Pas de Calais. You know...give the Germans time to set up properly n' all.

But not to worry...looks like your buds have some of their mass murderers back. That one fellow that smashed the little girl's head on a rock with his rifle butt makes a fine posterboy for their high moral cause.

-------------------------------------------------

That is why if Lebanon concludes a peace agreement with Israel and brings that accord to the Parliament our deputies will reject it; Hezbollah refuses any conciliation with Israel in principle.

---Hassan Nasrallah

I love how all's fair in love and war till someone rams a couple of planes into a building. Then all of a sudden, it's all about fighting fair...

[DogOnPorch]

Fair would have been a 9mm bullet to Samir Kantar's melon years ago. But now he's free to do it all over again.

------------------------------------

I haven't for even one day regretted what I did. On the contrary I remain committed to my political convictions.

---Samir Kantar during his "hero's welcome".

[GostHacked]

Uh-oh...methinks somebody just turned off their cloaking device.

What will blow your mind is that there was no cloaking device to begin with. Maybe you just took your blinders off.

I have always taken the stance that the creation of Israel was a bad idea to begin with. I have stated this in other threads regarding Israel. For over 50 years we have seen plenty of violence directly related to the creation of Israel and even now with this sabre rattling with Iran clearly shows that this is the case. But since Israel has the US as a major backer, this is why Israel has not been whiped out yet. The Arab countries understand that it will mean retaliation by Israel and the US at it will not be pretty.

It's like that once peice of expensive dinner ware in a bull shop.

And if you want to tag me as a Star Trek race .... look at my signature.

[DogOnPorch]

But since Israel has the US as a major backer, this is why Israel has not been whiped out yet.

That doesn't hold water. The Arabs have tried numerous times to wipe Israel off of the map. Israel won all these conflicts without the help of America. In fact, your 'side' often points out the Israel attacked America during the 6 Day War (which it did!). But we'll just ignore that bit...eh?

---------------------------------------------

Did you hear about the Chinese Godfather? He made an offer nobody could understand.

---Junior Soprano

Edited July 17, 2008 by DogOnPorch