Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran is the headline.
ISRAEL’S armed forces have been ordered by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran, military sources have revealed.The order came after Israeli intelligence warned the government that Iran was operating enrichment facilities, believed to be small and concealed in civilian locations.
There are those who believe that a nuclear Iran is no big deal, that they have as much right as anyone else to develop not only nuclear power, but weapons too. Of course, then again, they have a president who has said Israel is a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the map," and "anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."
Yeah, I know, c'mon Rhodey -- he didn't really mean it! Did he?
Hey, maybe the UN will help Israel on this, eh? Then again, a recent UN conference -- commemorating "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People" -- featured the Palestinian flag on one side, and the UN flag on the other. What's that? On the side of what? Oh -- just this -- a map of "Palestine," UN member state Israel nowhere to be seen on it.
UPDATE (12/13 at 4:44pm): Well this sure won't help: Iran leader reiterates Holocaust doubts.
They will. Just like they carried out a pinpoint pre-emptive strike against Iraq in the 80s. If Iran gets close to having nukes, expect a quick, effective attack from Israel. Period.
No United Nations debate, no occupation, no apology.
Israel does not hesitate to act on legitimate intelligence. That is what gave the lie to the Bush propaganda prior to the invasion of Iraq.
We were talking about this on Saturday. I was too young to pay attention to it when Israel took out Iraq's reactor, but why did it seem like nothing happened except a lot of hot air in response? No Arab nations did anything that I know of? Was everyone secretly glad that Saddam wouldn't get the bomb? Did the US "explain" to the rest of the world the consequences of retaliation against Israel?
If someone can explain, I'd appreciate it.
Posted by: Paul Smith at December 12, 2005 05:05 PMSo, Mr. Troll -- what's the deal? Would Israel be correct in doing so? Were they correct in 1981? Why or why not?
Posted by: Hube at December 12, 2005 06:23 PMIt'd be good for the world if Israel did it. Hell I wish we would do it. But I get the feeling we'll have plenty of battles there soon enough. Did anyone else notice how Tom Carper laid out the rationale for war in that land too? Iran is the country we should have gone to after Afghanistan in the first place, but we done fucked all that up. By next summer I wouldn't be surprised at all to see some sort of presence there.
Posted by: Dickie Dunn at December 12, 2005 09:13 PMDon't you think that you're overstating the threat to Israel from Iran. Didn't the IEAE just win a Nobel Peace Prize for its brave work preventing Iran from going nuclear? Right?
Posted by: David Gerstman at December 12, 2005 09:28 PMWould Israel be correct in doing so? Yes
Were they correct in 1981? Yes
Every country has an right to self protection when legitimate threats are confirmed. That is what makes what Bush did a crime.
Jason: what a bunch of nonsense (as if that is a surprise). If you answer "yes" to both (was Israel correct in '81 and in a future attack on Iran) -- when neither country did anything to Israel to precipitate the attack (well, Iran still may), then it's plainly ludicrous to call Bush's actions "crimes." Saddam violated countless resolutions and stipulations of the '91 Gulf War agreement. Those ALONE make the US's actions "more legal" than either Israeli attack.
Your certifiable Bush hatred oozes through every pore, you poor soul. It affects your very mind, what there is of it.
FWIW, I certainly agree w/Israel in '81 and if they do it to Iran, then, too. Both countries desire(d) Israel wiped from existence. But "legally," I believe Bush's case stronger than Israel's. Morally? Perhaps not. Nevertheless, I'm on record as being against attacking Iraq; I just do not believe in lunatic ravings that Bush's actions were "criminal" etc. etc. etc. I simply disagree with his decision.
Interestingly, too, I saw DE's biggest socialist claiming that Vietnam (after the US had vacated) invaded Cambodia "on humanitarian grounds." Gotta love it. Yet, the US goes into Iraq and it's "criminal" and "illegal." What a riot.
BTW: ... Jason -- the scourge of the DE blogosphere -- not only has his own "blog" now, he is actively projecting yours truly into his comment section! I needed a good laugh (the content of the site, and also the brutal butchering of the English language) so I visited the site today. The scourge believes that I am the one making various comments, anonymously and otherwise.
Two things: 1) I prefer to have a conversation where there is at least SOME chance of a give and take. With the scourge, there is absolutely none; 2) the scourge could actually prove it was me by looking at the logged IP address of the commenter(s), but this is impossible since I haven't commented at all in many weeks. Indeed, I commented once and once only -- at the dawning of the scourge's "blog." Either he is just too plain stupid to figure this out, or he is one bored and schizo SOB.
Posted by: Hube at December 13, 2005 05:18 PMSo we agree about Israel and about John McCain. That shows some give and take.
BTW: I was saying "Hi" because I knew you were lurking. Which, it seems, you were.
Don't freak out bro. It is only blogging. It aint brain surgery.
Posted by: jason at December 13, 2005 05:46 PMLOL....how can it be you knew I was lurking when the comment was made a couple hours before I even visited the site? YEESH.
Alas....
Posted by: Hube at December 13, 2005 05:52 PM