I was going to leave this be but
how can they get away with this.
Quote:
Israeli minister threatens Iran
A top Israeli official has said that if Iran continues with its alleged nuclear arms programme, Israel will attack it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7440472.stm
If Israel did attack Iran I hope my government would put together a coalition of the willing and launch a retaliatory strike. If they continue to make threats against another state like this then they should be subject to sanctions and if the US or UK sell them weapons then they should also be subject to sanction.
What other nation could get away with making threats based on unsubstantiated allegation of a crime (if it is that) of which they are themselves guilty.
I look forward to your comments.
I'll comment on yours if you comment on mine
Yep. Still have some acquaintances there and from there
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Humphrey
...By the way have you seen some of his latest stuff.
They can't even seem to get more than one quarter of the audience to chant for them.
The rest just stand around looking pissed off that they had to attend :wry:
Probably less than a quarter. The mass of folks are fed up -- not to the point of taking to the street but it's headed that way.
US, Israel, and the Iranian nuclear program
"U.S. puts brakes on Israeli plan for attack on Iran nuclear facilities," Haaretz, 13 August 2008.
Quote:
The American administration has rejected an Israeli request for military equipment and support that would improve Israel's ability to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.
A report published last week by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) states that military strikes are unlikely to destroy Iran's centrifuge program for enriching uranium.
The Americans viewed the request, which was transmitted (and rejected) at the highest level, as a sign that Israel is in the advanced stages of preparations to attack Iran. They therefore warned Israel against attacking, saying such a strike would undermine American interests. They also demanded that Israel give them prior notice if it nevertheless decided to strike Iran.
As compensation for the requests it rejected, Washington offered to improve Israel's defenses against surface-to-surface missiles.
The report mentioned is David Albright, Paul Brannan, and Jacqueline Shire, "Can military strikes destroy Iran’s gas centrifuge program? Probably not" ISIS, 7 August 2008:
Quote:
From the time that Iran halted the suspension of its centrifuge manufacturing efforts and its adherence to the Additional Protocol, the IAEA’s knowledge of Iran’s centrifuge manufacturing complex has degraded dramatically. U.S. and other intelligence agencies appear to have only partial information about Iran’s centrifuge complex and its ability to reconstitute its program following an attack. Iran’s decision to disperse and keep secret several of its key sites further hinders the development of a full picture of its centrifuge complex. Considering the modular, replicable nature of centrifuge plants, we conclude that an attack on Iran’s nuclear program is unlikely to significantly degrade Iran’s ability to reconstitute its gas centrifuge program.
(Apologies to anyone also on MESHnet, since I've made the same post there.)
UK join an anti-Israel coalition?
Wilf & JJackson,
Not a hope in hell. Even more so with a Labour government in power in the UK. Nor would we seek to locate others to join a coalition, I exclude diplomacy in the UN for a vote of censure.
Then there is our much trumpeted "special relationship" with the USA, who is currently Israel's closest ally. Another reason for the UK to stand aside.
I shall leave aside the whole question of whether Iran has a nuclear capability.
davidbfpo
Caroline Glick-Jerusalem Post, Sep. 18, 2008 "It is Time to Act"
Interesting.
"Iran is just a heartbeat away from the A-bomb. Last Friday the Daily Telegraph reported Teheran has surreptitiously removed a sufficient amount of uranium from its nuclear production facility in Isfahan to produce six nuclear bombs. .... The IAEA's report claimed that Iran has taken steps to enable its Shihab-3 ballistic missiles to carry nuclear warheads. With a range of 1,300 kilometers, Shihab-3 missiles are capable of reaching Israel and other countries throught the region."
Cont. at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull
I don't necessarily disagree with either Rex or Bourbon
But it would be nice if someone could show me where IAEA actually has been able to tell for sure how much exactly Iran does have in the first place, let alone where it's at?
Another Dispatch in the Fog
The Wall Street Journal - September 22, 2008
EVERYONE NEEDS TO WORRY ABOUT IRAN
by Richard Holbrooke, R. James Woolsey, Dennis B. Ross and Mark D. Wallace
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122204266977561331.html
"We believe that Iran's desire for nuclear weapons is one of the most urgent issues facing America today, because even the most conservative estimates tell us that they could have nuclear weapons soon."
"A nuclear-armed Iran would likely destabilize an already dangerous region that includes Israel, Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, and pose a direct threat to America's national security. For this reason, Iran's nuclear ambitions demand a response that will compel Iran's leaders to change their behavior and come to understand that they have more to lose than to gain by going nuclear."
"Tehran claims that it is enriching uranium only for peaceful energy uses. These claims exceed the boundaries of credibility and science."
[U]Counter-balancing and balancing all that needs to be do so, would it be interesting to have a discussion on policy and action?/U]