Report: Iran has 'extremely advanced' nuclear program

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Odin
The reason Iran wants nukes, I bet, is Israel and Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech. It is a self defence and a "don't mess with us" thing. I don't think Iran has any intention of using them, they want nukes as a deterant. I'm sick of Bush acting like the US is the only nation allowed to have nukes.

The Mullahs must have been precient regarding the Axis of Evil speech, as this program has been underway for years and years before Bush was even elected. The U.S. under many presidents has consistently wanted to see a ME free from nuclear weapons. Among many reasons for this is the potential for even a small nuclear force of wiping Israel off the map with a first strike. The Iranian regime is pretty scary in comparison to the almost powerless Iranian people. They have sponsored and do sponsor numerous terrorist acts and groups. We don't like proliferation by anyone, but Iran has to be one of the countries we would least like to see having their words and deeds backed by nuclear weapons.

Is the rolleyes so common to your posts some sort of stage direction, indicating the proper emotional state one should have while reading them? If so, then it is particularly apt.

[Az]

Closer to 4-6 billion total (military and direct aid), IIRC.

2-3, IIRC. Military aid only these days. Besides, it was a strategy to balance the military and civilian aid given by the Soviets to various arab regimes. a cold war tactic.

When Syria receives $90+ billion from US taxpayers (and says thanks by spying on us then selling the info to the Soviet Union), and when I have to wonder whether my own elected officials are more loyal to the US or to Syria, then I'll worry about a "double standard" in Lebanon.

hmmm, so do you mean that elected officials in the US are loyal to Israel?
someone has been reading jewwatch.com too much, lately.

the only thing being US military assistance is being increased by almost the same amount.

link?

Khomeini was as loony as they get, Azazel, but he's been dead for some time now.

good to know that the voice of reason has returned now to Iran.

[MarkG]

Citing unnamed diplomatic sources

yiiiiiha!

On a visit last month to Iran, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, visited the facility.....

...But diplomatic sources quoted by TIME say he found the plant much further advanced than previously believed.

i guess he cant speak for himself so the "sources" had to come out with the truth.....

[Az]

go away, troll.

[MarkG]

TIME should write "a diplomat with a black hood told us that".....
it would be more dramatic

[uh Clem]

hmmm, so do you mean that elected officials in the US are loyal to Israel?
someone has been reading jewwatch.com too much, lately.

Typical. Criticize the Israel lobby's influence in Washington and you're Julius Streicher.

When Henry Jackson (who was as goyish as lutefisk) was Senator from Washington, one of his staff people passed classified info from the National Security Council to Israel. The staffer was Richard Perle, now the Bush regime's Psycho-In-Chief on the Middle East. Perle was never disciplined nor fired.

You may think that it's your country's right to stay in the occupied territories as long as it likes. I disagree. But either way, I don't want my country assisting Israel in that endeavor. Believe it or not, that doesn't turn me into some who believes in the Protocols, so take your smears and stuff 'em.

[Panag]

Originally posted by uh Clem


Typical. Criticize the Israel lobby's influence in Washington and you're Julius Streicher.

When Henry Jackson (who was as goyish as lutefisk) was Senator from Washington, one of his staff people passed classified info from the National Security Council to Israel. The staffer was Richard Perle, now the Bush regime's Psycho-In-Chief on the Middle East. Perle was never disciplined nor fired.

You may think that it's your country's right to stay in the occupied territories as long as it likes. I disagree. But either way, I don't want my country assisting Israel in that endeavor. Believe it or not, that doesn't turn me into some who believes in the Protocols, so take your smears and stuff 'em.

hi ,

we are not in any "occupied teritories" , .....

if next week canada invades the state of NY and holds it for twenty years and the US takes it back , would it then be justified 30 years later for canada to say the US has no right there , ......

no , it would not be , the same counts for Israel , ....

we have given back all the land we ever held that does not belong to us , .....

have a nice day from the liberated territories

[Az]

uh Clem : you didn't criticize the lobby's influence, you said that you think that the loyalties of the US gov't and elected officials lay not with the USA, but with Israel.

now if they were TRUE patriots....

[PLATO]

Israel is right. The Palestinians are wrong. That's my firm belief. It is correct for politicians to support Israel.

Where Israel can do better is to give the Pals some hope. While it is true that they(the Pals) have done everything they possibly can to put themselves in this position and little if nothing to improve it, they do need to have hope of a better future before the tide will turn for them.

They can start by getting NEW LEADERSHIP. If their policies change then they may get the support of American politicians as well.

[St Leo]

OT: I just misread the thread title as "Imran has 'extremely advanced' nuclear program".

[MRT144]

Imran is too wise to use those weapons in an offensive manner. maybe he needs a fan club

[Ned]

uh Clem, a democrat congressman, Jim Moran, said the other day that the reason Bush is so adament about Iraq is the Jews in the US support the removal of Saddam and are urging war.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ews/index.html

This is very close, if not the same thing, as you just said in connection with the Palestinian situation.

Moran has apologized because his remarks were clearly anti-Semitic.

Will you apologize?

[uh Clem]

Sorry, Ned, but you're going to have to point out the specific anti-Semitic remark that I made. None of this "A is kinda like B and B is bad so A must be bad."

I'm not surprised. If you don't want the foreign policy of the United States unduly influenced by another country, the only plausible explanation is that you hate the people of that country and their entire ethnicity. Yeah, that must be it.

Over the past year the War Party's arguments have been so relentessly shoddy that this is pretty much what they're reduced to.

[Ned]

uh Clem, why would you say that US foreign policy is "unduly" influenced by Israel?

[Az]

Ned, this is exactly my problem with that. I have no problem with him saying we're wrong. I have no problem with him saying that his gov't is wrong by supporting us.

His theory that Israel and it's authorities somehow control the US gov't......

[KrazyHorse]

sarcastic comment not posted due to possible repercussions

[Az]

[KrazyHorse]

I might have to change my sig.

Ming, I'd like to complain about Boris' unfettered homophobia.

[Az]

What about an on-topic response?

[KrazyHorse]

On topic: Jews are an important demographic in the US and affect US policy in the same way that expatriate Cubans affect US policy towards Castro. This doesn't mean that Israel runs the US, but it does mean that the US is more pro-Israel than it might otherwise be. That's one of the consequences of letting people decide their own leaders.

And Iran and a dozen other nations have been keeping their nuke programs on the back burner for ages. It keeps them in compliance with the IAEA and NPT, but keeps something in reserve for the day they need it. The US has adequately demonstrated to anybody with eyes that that day is upon us. There's going to be a hell of lot of Pu and U-235 floating around now that might not otherwise have been.

Please don't ban me for this. I might have to take myself to a site where they still value wit.

[Az]

Counterglow?


Frogger: I pretty much agree with your analysis. Yet we shouldn't forget that there are plenty of reasons for the US to be more friendly to the arabs as well. ( That's why the US was rather ambivalent to us until the mid-60s when then they understood that they cannot win the arab nationalists, and better have a side of their own in the region. They still had to keep a good record with the other arabs ( eg Saudis ), so they were only OK with us, even after that.

[KrazyHorse]

Az, I disagree with your assumption that it is a net benefit to have n ally in the region like Israel, when a large part of the US' problems stem from having that ally.

It might be viewed as a good idea (or not; I have no idea how politicians think) but IMO it would have done the US more good to maintain a more stand-offish position to the ME and let the money they're willing to pay for oil with no strings attached speak for itself.

Completely mercenary tactics like that would probably have worked better...

[Az]

Frogger: cool. I disagree with you, but I have no problem with such position.

In any case, my point is that the US government must see some things that we don't see about this relationship, or it wouldn't support it.

And we've seen how well those mercenary tactics worked with the Shah, for example.

[uh Clem]

His theory that Israel and it's authorities somehow control the US gov't......

????

Where did this come from? A country that has a minimum of one political party per citizen somehow controls the US government? Sheee...

[Az]

When Syria receives $90+ billion from US taxpayers (and says thanks by spying on us then selling the info to the Soviet Union), and when I have to wonder whether my own elected officials are more loyal to the US or to Syria, then I'll worry about a "double standard" in Lebanon.

since you compared the situation of Israel and Syria in the US foreingn policy, you obviously think that you have to wonder whether the US elected officials are more loyal to the US or Israel.

why would they be loyal to the Israel? is it because they're Israeli agents? if you have some other answer, please post it. If the above answer is what you believe in.....


Oh and about your cute shot at Israel: I guess your two-party system is much better, huh?

[uh Clem]

My cute shot at Israeli politics was taken from Israeli sources. I assumed you had a sense of humor. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

why would they be loyal to the Israel? is it because they're Israeli agents?

Yeah, that's it, fine, whatever.

Cut the crap, Azazel.

I criticized Israel for its invasions & occupations of its neighbors. You implied that if I didn't also criticize Syria, I'm displaying an anti-Semitic double standard.

This is the new fallback position for Israel's apologists: you can't critcize Israel unless you also criticize someone who's as bad or worse.

(So if Kim Jong Il summarily arrests and executes 100000 political dissidents, while John Ashcroft summarily arrests and executes only 50000 political dissidents, I'd be giving away my anti-Bush Administration bias if I criticized Ashcroft without denouncing Kim at least as much. Right.)

In the US media, Israel used to be almost beyond serious criticism or even analysis. Over the years that's become increasingly untenable, so Israel's apologists have a new doctrine: yes, you may criticize Israel, but only on those grounds or for those reasons which Israel allows.

Needless to say, this is not a long list.

So, yeah, I can say Israel invades & occupies, etc, but I must add "but so does Syria!" or I'm guilty of the dreaded anti-Semitism.

Well, let me explain something here: blow it out your butt. I'll criticize Israel whenever I think it's warranted, which is not infrequently.

BTW, I also happen to believe that the alliance between the US & Israel (or their most militaristic factions) is only part of the problem that the US has in the Arab/Muslim world, and not necessarily the worst. It certainly wasn't the "reason" for 9-11, as a relative suggested to me a day or two after the attacks.

But it doesn't help obviously.

[Ned]

uh Clem and Azazel, without doing any thorough analysis on this, I believe our pro-Israel tilt began in '56 when the USSR took over the Aswan dam project and began to support the UAR. It became stronger in '67 when the USSR threatened to invade Israel.

Most of our support for Israel was as a reaction to the growing influence of the USSR in the ME. Our policy since Kissinger was to be more "balanced" to try to get the USSR out of the ME. Well Kissinger's policies largely worked.

Today, we remain friends with Israel in large measure because of the barbarities of Arafat. If the Palestinians had a Gandhi instead of Arafat, America would be far less supportive.

[Az]

uh Clem and Azazel, without doing any thorough analysis on this, I believe our pro-Israel tilt began in '56

ahh, 56', the year when there was a detailed plan to invade my city with a U.S. marine brigade.... *dreams*

I criticized Israel for its invasions & occupations of its neighbors. You implied that if I didn't also criticize Syria, I'm displaying an anti-Semitic double standard.

I never said or implied that your double standard was anti-semitic.

This is the new fallback position for Israel's apologists: you can't critcize Israel unless you also criticize someone who's as bad or worse.

Oh no, but I find something fundamentally skewed, when the amount of attention Israel gets overall by various "Anti war" movements, and their peacetime predecessors, is unproportionately high, in relation to real damage done. All those brutal, deadly regimes get no mention whatsoever in the "non-corporate" news.

In the US media, Israel used to be almost beyond serious criticism or even analysis. Over the years that's become increasingly untenable, so Israel's apologists have a new doctrine: yes, you may criticize Israel, but only on those grounds or for those reasons which Israel allows.

"new doctrine", "Israel allows"?

Well, let me explain something here: blow it out your butt. I'll criticize Israel whenever I think it's warranted, which is not infrequently

Go ahead. I never had any problem with that.


AND MOST IMPORTANTLY:

Yeah, that's it, fine, whatever.

You still haven't got me an alternative answer, so I'll assume that my given option suits you.

[GePap]

Interesting sidebar here....

I do think for many people in Washington Israel is very important. Tha is not the same as saying that Israel controls the US, but it is important to note that Israel holds a very central place in the "issues" of several consittuencies in a way that no other state holds: for example, obviously Mexicans in the Us care about US-Mexico policy, but that care applies only to Mexicans..and since Mexicans don't really expect anyting too dramatic to happen to Mexico the concern is Ussualy muted. That does not hold for Israel: there at at least 2 significant constituencies, American Jews, and American evangelicals for who the security of Israel is one of the top three concerns..Jews for nationalisitc and family reasons, Evangelicvals cause they need Israel for the world to end...and then their salvation. This does mean that the lobby for Israel is very strong in Washington, stronger than the lobby for any other state, any other..be it the UK, China, whatever. Becuase of this the Israeli lobby has gathered this aura, which they both try to get rid off, cause they correctly view it as helping anti-semites, and try to nurture a little, to get legislation they want. This aura is what causes so many to think that the US bends over backwards for Israel..and honestly, what other state would think they can demand that someone who spied for them..and who's espionage might have lead to the deaths of sevral agents, should be let go cause he was spying against the US for Israel,not some enemy state? We should remember, of course, that that it one fight the Isrsel lobby would never win, just like they could not stop AWACS and F-15's to the Saudis.

As for Ned's point: I think the turning point came in 1967, not 56. Until 1967 the US was still trying to stop Israel from getting nukes (damn French and their helping nuclear proliferation in the ME! ). It was Israel's victory in 1967 that really tilted geenral US opinion towards Israel, not 1956.

[Az]

and who's espionage might have lead to the deaths of sevral agents

what case do you mean?

About the US stance:
The US has began to sell Israel it's equipment around 64'.
Aid began in the 70s, after the the 73' war, which was one of the most dramatic wars in that period.