"Wiping Israel off the Map"

[Mallard]

The US told Taiwan to stop trying to produce nukes back in the Seventies.

Why not lead by example and tell your puppet Blair to do likewise?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Not mine, but I suspect that that's the case for the govts involved.

Fair enough. I wouldn't argue with that.

 

[ZAMB]

Why not lead by example and tell your puppet Blair to do likewise?

Good question, but one they'll never ask themselves. To the US, and the current gov'ts of US puppet states, security means having the power to wipe out any other country which won't do their bidding. And what they value is power. Real security comes from co-operation and respect for other countries, not from bombing them to bits.
I used to think that was what the UN was for, until I was old enough to realise that a system with its own built in hierarchy, where all countries didn't have an equal voice, could never be fair or democratic in its workings. Not when one country's veto can over-rule the votes of the rest of the world. The NPT was a good idea, too, but it'll never work until the countries who try to enforce it on others actually abide by it themselves.

 

[London_Calling]

Interesting article here from Prof Paul Rogers on the broader implications of Israel's failure to defeat Hezbollah. source

Hezbollah weren't fighting as 'insurgents' in souhern Leb, they were ther occupiers defending positions and territory - that is what is most striking about that particular engagement.

Comparing what happened there with the "the occupied Palestinian territories" isn't at all helpful, imo.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Hezbollah weren't fighting as 'insurgents' in souhern Leb, they were ther occupiers defending positions and territory - that is what is most striking about that particular engagement.

Comparing what happened there with the "the occupied Palestinian territories" isn't at all helpful, imo.

Was Prof Rogers doing the latter? I hadn't noticed.

 

[London_Calling]

Fair enough, I was waiting for the "extraordinary irony" (Rogers) and ended up misinterpreted his point - which seems to be that the US rationale for supporting Israeli in southern Leb (attacking Hizbollah would reduce Iraninan linfluence) backfired.

 

[Aldebaran]

.../... suppose the US elites really do want endless war? Up to a point, this is highly profitable, especially for defence industries and so on. The assumption here would be that they don't particularly mind a mess like Iraq, because although their counter-insurgency practices don't really solve anything, they can handle that level of hassle almost indefinitely.../...

The main difference being that in Iraq the US managed to get hold of Iraqis to be used as their canon fodder.
Why else do you think this so called "brandnew, newly trained police force" had to be set up? Iraq had a fully functioning civil servant structure before Criminal Bremer came along, the problem being that this army and police force most likely was not into being used as shield for the US military.
If you see it as most likely for such a scenario happening in Iran, I htink you are a bit on the wrong foot. If the US invadres and attempts to occupy, US soldiers need to be used as US canon fodder all the time. (*Some* US generals *may* eventually already ponder about that problem.)

Serious disruption to global oil supplies is quite another matter though. Some companies would profit but a lot would be seriously struggling if that happened, so you'd no longer get a consensus in political circles. For some corporations and other key players, it might then become a matter of survival to change US policies to less disruptive ones.

The problem problem being that none of this is supported by the Saudis so far. In any case not openly. Their first concern is to counter Iran's regional ambitions. Playing with the US instigated fire could end up badly (they would better remember for once that gambling is prohibited by Al Qur'an), but suffering of tunnel-vision is not a new aspect in regional policies (or in policies anywhere).

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

Quinlan said some very sensible things although, Sackur, went unchallenged over this misquote. I would imagine that no-one as yet has challenged this publicly, on the news, unless you know any different, VP?

Occasionally I watch that program. Every time I watched Sackur he came across as absolutely irritating arrogant. I wouldn't permit him to "interview" me for even one second. He is of the type of "journalists" who wants to hear his own words and bias repeated by his guests. I allways wonder on who's payroll he actually operates.

salaam.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The main difference being that in Iraq the US managed to get hold of Iraqis to be used as their canon fodder.
Why else do you think this so called "brandnew, newly trained police force" had to be set up? Iraq had a fully functioning civil servant structure before Criminal Bremer came along, the problem being that this army and police force most likely was not into being used as shield for the US military.
If you see it as most likely for such a scenario happening in Iran, I htink you are a bit on the wrong foot. If the US invadres and attempts to occupy, US soldiers need to be used as US canon fodder all the time. (*Some* US generals *may* eventually already ponder about that problem.)<snip>

Well, their preferred counter-insurgency strategy has always been to recruit death-squads to terrorise the supporting population of any insurgency.

It's a big problem for them that their own troops are directly engaged in Iraq. So it's no surprise they're looking to put some cannon-fodder in the way.

With regard to Iran, I think it's very clear that they have no chance of occupying it. I think they might have a bash at Khuzestan though, due to the large amount of Iran's oil industry easily reachable just over the border.

Most likely what they'll try to do is smash Iran's infrastructure from the air and then try to stir up some internal terrorist groups to attack the regime.

I suspect the result will look a bit more like Lebanon than Iraq, only on a very much larger scale and with more serious knock-on effects globally.

 

[Aldebaran]

The only possible way for the USA to get "cooperation" within Iran, is using the Kurdish element.
I don't see that as a route the US can take without instigating even more Kurdish hope to end up with a united Kurdistan, hence I don't see it as a realistic option they can afford to take.
(Kurdish friends of mine and even a Kurdish student I don't know all that well can't hear one bad word about the USA or Israel, not even when Israel was once again bombing the Lebanese civilians. In my view Kurds of all people should reason with more empathy)

salaam.

 

[tangentlama]

Occasionally I watch that program. Every time I watched Sackur he came across as absolutely irritating arrogant. I wouldn't permit him to "interview" me for even one second. He is of the type of "journalists" who wants to hear his own words and bias repeated by his guests. I allways wonder on who's payroll he actually operates.

salaam.

Shalom Aleichem,

He's on the BBC payroll, but I agree that he appears highly biased in his line of questioning and repetition of rhetoric, however, it may be that his more provocative 'quotes' remain unchallenged since no-one has dared yet to challenge his repetition of these 'official' viewpoints and quotes.

He isn't my favourite HardTalk interviewer. Who was the last interviewer before Sackur took the podium?

 

[nino_savatte]

Shalom Aleichem,

He's on the BBC payroll, but I agree that he appears highly biased in his line of questioning and repetition of rhetoric, however, it may be that his more provocative 'quotes' remain unchallenged since no-one has dared yet to challenge his repetition of these 'official' viewpoints and quotes.

He isn't my favourite HardTalk interviewer. Who was the last interviewer before Sackur took the podium?

Tim Sebastian was the previous incumbent of HardTalk.

 

[ZAMB]

I think it's much more likely that other ME countries are afraid that Israel will wipe them off the map. Attempts at the UN to get them to conform to the NPT or disarm their nuclear arsenal failed. The US voted NO on the question of IAEA inspections, which, considering the lies they have told about Iran and the IAEA, shows up yet again the glaring double standards applied to Israel and other ME countries by the USA.

Western nations foil bid to declare Israel nuke 'threat'

VIENNA: Western nations have foiled a bid by Arab and Islamic states to declare Israel's reputed nuclear arsenal a threat that must be removed in a politically charged vote at a UN atomic watchdog meeting. Canada sponsored a 45-29 "no-action" ballot that prevented International Atomic Energy Agency member states from voting on a motion demanding Israel use atomic energy only for peaceful purposes and help set up a Middle East nuclear arms-free zone.
But the gathering voted 89-2 for a milder resolution on Israel, also initiated by Arab states, "affirming the urgent need for all states in the Middle East to accept full-scope IAEA safeguards on all their nuclear activities". Israel neither admits nor denies having atomic weapons but most experts believe it has about 200 nuclear warheads. Feverish negotiations failed to dissuade Arab delegates from pushing the two resolutions to a vote due to heightened resentment over Israel's battering of south Lebanon in war with Iranian-backed Hezbollah guerrillas. Diplomats said many Arabs were fuming at the West's perceived slowness to stop Israel's heavy bombing of Lebanon that killed mainly civilians before an Aug 14 ceasefire imposed by a UN Security Council resolution.
"The (Western) blocking manoeuvre is astonishing when innocent blood has not yet dried in Lebanon," said Syrian delegate Ibrahim Othman. He said Israel's exclusive nuclear might in the region caused a destabilising imbalance of power. The United States, European and other Western allies combined to stifle the "threat" resolution. They said it was politically divisive and undermined the IAEA's traditional consensual approach.
Israel said a regional nuclear arms-free zone was a noble idea in principle but dangerous for it so long as some neighbours continued not to recognise the Jewish state, with Iran openly calling for its destruction. "Current realities in the Middle East force Israel to entertain no illusions. The fundamental goal as in other regions is attaining peace with security and stability, not arms control per se," said Israel Michaeli, Israel's envoy to the IAEA. US foes such as Venezuela and Cuba and some developing nations like South Africa joined the unsuccessful Arab-Islamic effort to put it to a floor vote. Arab and Islamic anger also simmered over "double standards" seen in Western pressure on Iran to shelve its fledgling nuclear energy programme while Israel faced none despite a batch of UN resolutions urging it to scrap its alleged atomic warheads. Nineteen nations, including India and Russia, abstained over the "threat" measure, and three in the safeguards vote. Israel and its closest ally the United States were the sole "no" votes on the IAEA safeguards resolution. -- Reuters

http://snipurl.com/x1k3

 

[ZAMB]

In this radio programme, the speaker talks quite eloquently about the advantages of a 'one-state' solution for Israel/Palestine. I am beginning to think that this may ultimately be the only truly viable and just solution for this area.

Israel / Palestine: The Two State Solution Is Dead

Ali Abunimah, reveals the bankruptcy of the two-state approach, takes on the objections and taboos that stand in the way of a binational solution, and demonstrates that sharing the territory will bring benefits for all.

We spend the hour with Ali Abunimah co-founder of the Electronic Intifada, talking about his new book: One Country, a Bold Proposal to the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse ; also, we’ll hear excerpts from his speech in Oakland last week.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15383.htm

 

[marksl]

If the arab nations copy the british view they could wipe israel from the map by simply redrawing the maps.

btw johnny, why do you always suck so much american dick on these forums? you read like a collaborator sucking up to the americans hopeing they throw you a few crumbs. Your view about the Us acting like the nazis, the way you view and treat them they already are.