International News
See other International News Articles
Title: Obama Threatened to Shoot Down Israeli Jets Attacking Iran
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ob ... eli-jets/2015/03/01/id/627575/
Published: Mar 1, 2015
Author: g richter
Post Date: 2015-03-01 20:24:06 by out damned spot
Keywords: Obama, Iran, Israel
Views: 20826
Comments: 102
President Barack Obama threatened to shoot down Israeli planes in 2014 if they were sent to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, according to reports attributed to a Kuwaiti newspaper. According to the website Israel National News, the Bethlehem-based news agency Ma'an cites Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida. Al-Jarida reports that the alleged threat from the White House forced Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to cancel the planned attack. President Barack Obama threatened to shoot down Israeli planes in 2014 if they were sent to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, according to reports attributed to a Kuwaiti newspaper. According to the website Israel National News, the Bethlehem-based news agency Ma'an cites Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida. Al-Jarida reports that the alleged threat from the White House forced Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to cancel the planned attack. An Israeli minister on good relations with the Obama administration reportedly tipped Secretary of State John Kerry to the plan and that Obama vowed to shoot down the planes when they crossed over U.S.-controlled airspace in Iraq. Al-Jarida quoted "well-placed" sources saying that Netanyahu, Minister of Defense Moshe Ya'alon and then-Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman made the plans for airstrikes after consulting top commanders. In addition to the attacks, Netanyahu and his ministers decided to try to thwart any nuclear deal between the United States and Iran over fears that a nuclear Iran is a threat to Israel's existence, the newspaper said. Israeli pilots reportedly trained for weeks on the mission and even were able to fly into Iranian airspace without being detected by radar. Israel's fears of nuclear attack are not new. In 2007, an Israeli airstrike took out a suspected nuclear site in Syria. A 1981 airstrike took out a suspected nuclear reactor in Iraq. Israel National News quoted a Daily Beast interview from 2009 in which former President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski urged Obama to take on any threat to Iran from Israel. "They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?" Brzezinski said. "We have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not." Brzezinski even suggested, "No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse." That was an allusion to an incident in the 1967 Six Day War in which Israeli jets and torpedo boats attacked the USS Liberty in international waters. Israel later called the attack an incident of "friendly fire." Netanyahu is set to address a joint session of Congress on Tuesday over the Iranian nuclear threat. Most Democrats have said they will not attend and Obama has said he will not meet with the prime minister since the talk will occur two weeks from Israeli elections.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: out damned spot (#0)
That would be a reasonable assumption.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
A nuclear Iran would be a check on Sunni Muslims also. And that is also good.
Then Zionism is a stupid idea - thanks for gathering all the Jews in one place to make their killing more economical. Bibi asked Jews to leave France for the safety of Israel - seems that won't be a safe bet after all.
Iran should be careful, and remember the often quoted "Samson Option".
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Brzezinski is another subversive asshole the world would be better off to get rid of.
That would be a reasonable assumption. Islam already controls most of Europe. With the conquest of Israel, the next in line is the U. S. with Obama and Shinki's help.
For how long? How long do you think it would take Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. to acquire nukes of their own (if they already do not have them) once Iran gets one?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Hey, what are allies for?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
The Iranians can absorb any Israeli nuke strike and the world would not begrudge Iran's revenge. So this so called "Samson Option" is bullshit. Also, the Jews will forever lose their "Holocaust" survivor's sympathy support.
Islam does not control most of Europe. Wow...
The Arabs already have nukes, Pakistan is storing them for them.
It is not too much of a stretch to think that the nukes have already been distributed given the extreme distrust within the region even among so-called tribal brethren.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
It is not too much of a stretch to think that the nukes have already been distributed given the extreme distrust within the region even among so-called tribal brethren. So it makes perfect sense for Iran to defend itself with nukes against the Sunni Muslims and the Zionist Israelis and the Americans - just ask Qaddafi what giving up WMD did for him....
If you say so, Sparky. The last I checked no-one in the Mideast is threatening to wipe Iran off the map a la Iran's stated goal for Israel.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I see a nuclear armed Israel threaten Iran all the time. And the USA did wipe Saddam's Iraq out after he gave up WMD...and by the way, Iran said that Zionist Israel would one day cease to exist - not the same thing as a threat. I say this as someone who is anti-Iranian regime. I am just arguing that an nuclear armed Iran is no more worth going to war over than a nuclear armed Pakistan.
Muslims are incompatible with peace on earth. Anyone who decides to become a Muslim is by definition evil. If they take their kook Koran Satan inspired book literally. So no Muslim nation should ever be permitted to have Nukes. Israel should destroy Iran if they have intelligence of Iran building nuclear weapons. Afterall Iran did threaten to wipe Israel off the map. In fact their satan inspired book calls them to do that and murder other people too.
Gods idea of giving Israel to the Jews is stupid? I don't think God is stupid.
No they can't. Wow!
No what makes sense. Is to wipe every Muslim government off the face of the earth. That would smell good.
Close your eyes and tap your ruby slippers together and repeat "there is no place like Oz".
NewsMax publishing a story from a website which got it from a Bethlehem news outlet which got it from a Kuwaiti newspaper? Does this really pass for news at NewsMax (or anywhere else)? It's laughable. NewsMax should consider its own reputation more than just churning out its regular Obola Scandal Of The Week. C'mon, let's hear it from the Jerusalem Post or Haaretz if there is anything factual to this. This level of reporting is about like Debka.com or Sorcha Faal fake news accounts.
The report is based on third hand information and may be fantasy. The fact that it is reported says a lot about the perception of the relationship between Netanyahu and Obama.
Like some obscure Kuwaiti newspaper no one ever heard of is privy to the innermost communications of Israel and America. It's laughable and completely lacking in evidence to support the story.
No they can't. Wow! Iran is a large nation is what that means. Israel can not nuke Iran into submission.
Then Zionism is a stupid idea Gods idea of giving Israel to the Jews is stupid? I don't think God is stupid. Why? God said he made mistakes when he made mankind - kind of stupid of him to the point he had to flood the world - which was also kind of stupid - if you wnat to play this game.
This report is bullshit which is why I treat it as a joke/make light of it.
What's really surprising is this story from the Israeli website is Drudge's big headline today. What is Matt thinking? Including this anywhere on his page is questionable, using to headline makes him look gullible and ridiculous.
"I read it in
To assist us and fight beside us when we need them. Just as Israel did in both Desert Shield and Desert Storm against Iraqi forces in Kuwait, and as they did later in our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Oh, wait. No they didn't. Our "strategic partner in the Middle East", armed with billions of dollars of American weapons paid for by the U.S. taxpayer, never fired a shot. I did a google search of "Gulf War Allies" and Israel wasn't listed. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Egypt and 34 other countries. But no Israel.
I chalk this up as typical disinformation put out ahead of Netanyahy's speech to make him look like a warmonger. Unfortunately those who want to believe it ... will believe it.
"On 8 May 2006, then Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres said in an interview with Reuters that "the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map,"
And Iran has never said they would use nuclear weapons to do it. But so what if they did? During the Cold War, the USSR threated to wipe us out every day. With nuclear weapons. Nikita Khrushchev even said, "We will bury you". But we managed to sit down with them and negotiate a truce. Israel can do the same. The problem is, Israel doesn't want to. Right now, they're the bully on the block and they like that.
And exactly why do you think that was? Are you really that uninformed?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
OMG, a threatening response to an overt threat. Why those dirty Israeli bastards! How dare they defend themself?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
The "why" is irrelevant. What good is an ally if they can't help?
You said, "The last I checked no-one in the Mideast is threatening to wipe Iran off the map". I was simply replying to your erroneous statement.
The "why" is irrelevant. What good is an ally if they can't help? The why is not relevant? Wow, you really are a little sick puppy if you truly believe that. The why is exactly the reason that Israel was in fact a good ally. The U.S. ASKED Israel to stay out of the fighting. I can't believe how disingenous or intellectually dishonest you are.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I was simply replying to your erroneous statement. You are totally f*cked in the head. Kiss off, moron.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I chalk this up as typical disinformation put out ahead of Netanyahy's speech to make him look like a warmonger. Unfortunately those who want to believe it ... will believe it. Whatever he is Bibi is not a peacenik. He also, as a private citizen of Israel (I think he was not leader of Likud then - maybe MP?), urged Congress as a special witness to go to war after 9/11 to topple Saddam, so he, like Bush and Clinton, have American blood on their hands.
I find the Christian Zionist the funniest ones of all - they should welcome Iran having nukes as it will usher in the return of Jesus per their formulation.
The hypocrisy of condemning Bibi for intercontinental campaigning is particularly rank coming from this White House. Does no one else recall Obama's huge campaign event in Germany in 2008? He tried to get the rally at the Brandenburg Gate (equivalent to the Arc de Triomphe or addressing a joint session of the American Congress). Obama's speech in Berlin was in July of 2008 (not in October) but he certainly didn't seem quite so fussy about intercontinental campaigning at famous landmarks back in 2008. And Bibi probably has more dual-citizen voters here in the States than Obama had in all of Europe. What does a pol do when he campaigns? He finds all the voters he can. Imagine how many Israeli voters live in NYC, Chicago, L.A. and Miami alone? What a whiny hypocrite Barky has become in this sorry episode.
I don't disagree but does that mean Israel has become the 51st state with all the mutual political visits to each country? I mean, can anyone run for president and not visit Israel first? Or can a PM of Israel not need to come to the States?
Just when it looks as though he can't get more disgusting...
NOW ask why. The answer to that question is why Israel cannot be our ally in the Middle East. So what's the point in pretending they are?
Yeah, I don't like the back and forth. I find Obama's obvious hypocrisy of Germany-for-me-but-no-Capitol-for-thee-Bibi a little annoying. I'm sure the sharp-tongued writers at major Israeli outlets have not failed to recall Obama's foreign campaigning. I notice Lurch jumped in front of cameras this morning to assure everyone that Bibi was totally welcome to come here and how America and Israel have never had a stronger relationship than now. Apparently, we've reached the Send In The Clowns phase of the Bibi/Barry dueling banjos scene.
Really? Israel isn't our ally in the ME? Are you that dense? Israel probably provides most of the U.S. intelligence in the region as well as covert operations. If sh*t truly hit the fan in the ME Israel military capablilities will be an invaluable asset and most certainly be readily available. Take the last word, I am done with your willful ignorance on this subject.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Believe what you want kid.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/01/report-obama-admin-denies-claim-president-threatened-to-shoot-down-israeli-fighter-jets-targeting-iran/ Translated: "We did say that but are lying to try and cover our asses".
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Like tricking us with false intel into taking out Saddam?
We did that to ourselves. None of the crucial bad intel came from Israel. It came from CIA and some of their EU counterparts, Britain mostly. Israel did not cause our phony invasion of Iraq.
President Barack Obama threatened to shoot down Israeli planes in 2014 if they were sent to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, according to reports attributed to a Kuwaiti newspaper. [...] An Israeli minister on good relations with the Obama administration reportedly tipped Secretary of State John Kerry to the plan and that Obama vowed to shoot down the planes when they crossed over U.S.-controlled airspace in Iraq. Control of Iraqi airspace was returned to the Iraqis in 2011. http://iraq.usembassy.gov/airspacepr.html Press Releases U.S. Transfers Control of Baghdad Airspace Sector; Iraq Now Responsible for All Domestic Airspace On October 1, 2011, the U.S. Air Force (USAF) transferred management of the Baghdad/Balad Airspace sector to the Iraq Civil Aviation Authority (ICAA). Iraq’s air traffic controllers are now directing the movement of all aircraft within the area, the busiest and most complex airspace in Iraq. With this step, Iraq has assumed full air traffic control responsibility for the country’s airspace for the first time since 2003. There is no U.S. controlled Iraqi airspace for Kerry to worry about. The anachronistic comment goes to a previous administration when permitting Israelis to fly through such airspace was rejected as unlawful. The US was an occupying nation with the responsibility to secure the airspace of the occupied territory. Simply, Israeli has no capability to carry out such a mission over Iran. It requires in-flight refueling and lengthy flight times in Iranian airspace. Israeli air tankers are refitted Boeing 707s. Iran has an air force. They need only take out an air tanker or two and the Israeli air force will fall out of the sky before it can get back to Israel. There is no friendly territory for them to land in. Israel will not be welcomed to use Turkish airspace. The targets, if Israel even knows where they are, are somewhere far from Israel. Russian radar can detect Israeli or American aircraft, even stealth aircraft. Iran shares an international border with Russia and is not inviting the US, Israel, or NATO into Iran any more than it has welcomed the US/NATO into Ukraine. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2009/6/iran-strategy/06_iran_strategy.pdf The Saban Center for Middle East Study Analysis Paper Kenneth M. Pollack Chapter 5, pp. 89-99, is "Leave it to Bibi: Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike."
It may be more accurate to say Muslims have nukes. I have not seen where Pakistani nukes, developed by Pakistan to keep up with India, belong to any Arab nation.
The propaganda that Iran or Ahmedinejad threatened "to wipe Iran off the map" has been thoroughly debunked. http://www.counterpunch.org/tilley08282006.html Is Iran's President Really a Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying Islamo-fascist who has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map"? Putting Words in Ahmadinejad's Mouth By VIRGINIA TILLEY Johannesburg, South Africa In this frightening mess in the Middle East, let's get one thing straight. Iran is not threatening Israel with destruction. Iran's president has not threatened any action against Israel. Over and over, we hear that Iran is clearly "committed to annihilating Israel" because the "mad" or "reckless" or "hard-line" President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel But every supposed quote, every supposed instance of his doing so, is wrong. The most infamous quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map", is the most glaringly wrong. In his October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad never used the word "map" or the term "wiped off". According to Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even right-wing services like MEMRI, what he actually said was "this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." What did he mean? In this speech to an annual anti-Zionist conference, Mr. Ahmadinejad was being prophetic, not threatening. He was citing Imam Khomeini, who said this line in the 1980s (a period when Israel was actually selling arms to Iran, so apparently it was not viewed as so ghastly then). Mr. Ahmadinejad had just reminded his audience that the Shah's regime, the Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein had all seemed enormously powerful and immovable, yet the first two had vanished almost beyond recall and the third now languished in prison. So, too, the "occupying regime" in Jerusalem would someday be gone. His message was, in essence, "This too shall pass." [snip] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/jun/14/post155 Jonathan Steele By Robert Mackey http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/lost-in-translation/ Iran never threatened to wipe Israel off the map By Steve Rendall Posted by Glenn Kessler
Israel tricked us? Please send me some of what you are smoking, I need a trip to the Land of Make Believe.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
That is true, he never used those exact words. I gather you do not believe that with just a little bit of reading between the lines of him and others that Iran does not have that intent?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Even at the time, it was thoroughly debunked by Farsi speakers who explained it rather thoroughly. The original remark was that Israel would fade from time. Of course, the subtext for Ahmadinejad's Iranian listeners was likely that Iran would love to do anything to hasten that day when Israel fades from time's tableaux. But then, about half the public still thinks Saddam attacked us on 9/11. Dumbasses.
The good news is that they vote. The better news is that they breed. Both bode very well for the future.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Yes some idiom is at play here. But then again the Mahdi Hatter gave the speech at "The World Without Zionism" conference. So context is important here:) Given the context of the speech, the use of "wipe Israel from the map" is a fair use of idiom in interpretation. And it was not some neocon website which attributed the idiom to Ahmadinejad's speech but: The Iranian presidential website stated: "the Zionist Regime of Israel faces a deadend and will under God's grace be wiped off the map," and "the Zionist Regime that is a usurper and illegitimate regime and a cancerous tumor should be wiped off the map." [81] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wi ped_off_the_ map.22_controversy The rest of the link above describes some fancy footwork used by apologists for Ahmadinejad and his apocalyptic cult. And I'll note...this misunderstanding business and taking out of context meme reminds me of the papal apologists for Francis.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
Or words to that effect. He did not say it. If he has other intent, it was not spoken.
No, it has been deliberately used to create clearly false propaganda. It was used in the same sense as the USSR has disappeared from the map. References to a Zionist regime refer to a government, not a nation. http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/08/28/putting-words-in-ahmadinejad-s-mouth/ Is Iran's President Really a Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying Islamo-fascist who has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map"? Putting Words in Ahmadinejad's Mouth By VIRGINIA TILLEY Johannesburg, South Africa [excerpt] The most infamous quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map", is the most glaringly wrong. In his October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad never used the word "map" or the term "wiped off". According to Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even right-wing services like MEMRI, what he actually said was "this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." What did he mean? In this speech to an annual anti-Zionist conference, Mr. Ahmadinejad was being prophetic, not threatening. He was citing Imam Khomeini, who said this line in the 1980s (a period when Israel was actually selling arms to Iran, so apparently it was not viewed as so ghastly then). Mr. Ahmadinejad had just reminded his audience that the Shah’s regime, the Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein had all seemed enormously powerful and immovable, yet the first two had vanished almost beyond recall and the third now languished in prison. So, too, the "occupying regime" in Jerusalem would someday be gone. His message was, in essence, "This too shall pass." But what about his other "threats" against Israel? The blathersphere made great hay from his supposed comment later in the same speech, "There is no doubt: the new wave of assaults in Palestine will erase the stigma in [the] countenance of the Islamic world." "Stigma" was interpreted as "Israel" and "wave of assaults" was ominous. But what he actually said was, "I have no doubt that the new movement taking place in our dear Palestine is a wave of morality which is spanning the entire Islamic world and which will soon remove this stain of disgrace from the Islamic world." "Wave of morality" is not "wave of assaults." The preceding sentence had made clear that the "stain of disgrace" was the Muslim world’s failure to eliminate the "occupying regime". For months, scholars like Cole and journalists like the London Guardian’s Jonathan Steele have been pointing out these mistranslations while more and more appear: for example, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s comments at the Organization of Islamic Countries meeting on August 3, 2006. Radio Free Europe reported that he said "that the ‘main cure’ for crisis in the Middle East is the elimination of Israel." "Elimination of Israel" implies physical destruction: bombs, strafing, terror, throwing Jews into the sea. Tony Blair denounced the translated statement as ""quite shocking". But Mr. Ahmadinejad never said this. According to al-Jazeera, what he actually said was "The real cure for the conflict is the elimination of the Zionist regime, but there should be an immediate ceasefire first." Nefarious agendas are evident in consistently translating "eliminating the occupation regime" as "destruction of Israel". "Regime" refers to governance, not populations or cities. "Zionist regime" is the government of Israel and its system of laws, which have annexed Palestinian land and hold millions of Palestinians under military occupation. Many mainstream human rights activists believe that Israel’s "regime" must indeed be transformed, although they disagree how. Some hope that Israel can be redeemed by a change of philosophy and government (regime) that would allow a two-state solution. Others believe that Jewish statehood itself is inherently unjust, as it embeds racist principles into state governance, and call for its transformation into a secular democracy (change of regime). None of these ideas about regime change signifies the expulsion of Jews into the sea or the ravaging of their towns and cities. All signify profound political change, necessary to creating a just peace.
Did you miss the part about the original translation coming from the Iranian presidential website? Please spare me the "Zionism" vs. Jews in general meme. One only has to look at what a Palestinian rule would be for Jews. Shall we examine the Palestinian rhetoric on what they want to do with Jews?
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025 by Arash Norouzi cross the world, a dangerous rumor has spread that could have catastrophic implications. According to legend, Iran's president has threatened to destroy Israel, or, to quote the misquote, "Israel must be wiped off the map." Contrary to popular belief, this statement was never made. On Tuesday, October 25th, 2005 at the Ministry of Interior conference hall in Tehran, newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a speech at a program, reportedly attended by thousands, titled "The World Without Zionism." Large posters surrounding him displayed this title prominently in English, obviously for the benefit of the international press. Below the poster's title was a slick graphic depicting an hour glass containing planet Earth at its top. Two small round orbs representing the United States and Israel are shown falling through the hour glass' narrow neck and crashing to the bottom. Before we get to the infamous remark, it's important to note that the "quote" in question was itself a quote – they are the words of the late Ayatollah Khomenei, the father of the Islamic Revolution. Although he quoted Khomeini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual words belong to Khomeini and not Ahmadinejad. Thus, Ahmadinejad has essentially been credited (or blamed) for a quote that is not only unoriginal, but represents a viewpoint already in place well before he ever took office. The Actual Quote: So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Farsi: "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "regime." pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem). So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh" is not contained anywhere in his original Farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's president threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." despite never having uttered the words "map." "wipe out" or even "Israel." The Proof: The full quote translated directly to English: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Word by word translation: Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from). [snip]
Israel tricked us? Please send me some of what you are smoking, I need a trip to the Land of Make Believe. http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4529120/netanyahus-expert-testimony-iraq-2002 Netanyahu's Expert Testimony on Iraq in 2002 Following his first term as Isrel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu testified to Congress on Sept. 12, 2002 as a private citizen, and advised Congress that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would be "a good choice."
That is true, he never used those exact words. I gather you do not believe that with just a little bit of reading between the lines of him and others that Iran does not have that intent? Iran has not started any offensive wars in living or historical memory - despite claims Iran is looking to initiate the end times by crazed American end-timers. How many wars has the USA initiated since the fall of their puppet Shah? And I am a Shah supporter - I am anti-Islamist Iran but Islamist Shia Iran is better than Sunni Saudi Arabia is for women and Christians (and surprisingly Jews) with those minorities given seats in the Iranian parliament. As bad as the embassy hostage taking was by Iranian radicals - it fell short in comparison to what Saudi jihadis did on 9/11. I find Iran acts in a rational manner despite neocon foaming at the mouth about how Iran is ruled by a jihad suicide cult.
I have lost count of the times that Israel has indicated that if the United States did not take out Iranian nuclear facilities, Israel would be forced to go it alone, because Iran would have nukes in six months or a year or whatever, the time to Armageddon being flexible. About as often, I have pointed out, Israel does not have the military capability to go it alone. http://opiniojuris.org/2013/01/28/yet-another-estimate-of-when-iran-will-have-the-bomb/ by Kevin Jon Heller McClatchy reports that Israel now believes Iran will not be able to produce a nuclear weapon until 2015 or 2016. That is progress of a sort; Netanyahu had previously been claiming that Iran would have the bomb no later than late summer 2013 — around six months from now. But Israel is still insisting that Iran is only two or three years away from nuclear capability, so I think it is useful to recall and update the timeline I mentioned early last year of breathless Israeli and Western claims about Iran’s nuclear program: 1992: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells the Knesset that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon. 1995: The New York Times reports that US and Israeli officials fear “Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than previously thought” – less than five years away. Netanyahu claims the time frame is three to five years. 1996: Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres claims Iran will have nuclear weapons in four years. 1998: Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claims Iran could build an ICBM capable of reaching the US within five years. 1999: An Israeli military official claims that Iran will have a nuclear weapon within five years. 2001: The Israeli Minister of Defence claims that Iran will be ready to launch a nuclear weapon in less than four years. 2002: The CIA warns that the danger of nuclear weapons from Iran is higher than during the Cold War, because its missile capability has grown more quickly than expected since 2000 – putting it on par with North Korea. 2003: A high-ranking Israeli military officer tells the Knesset that Iran will have the bomb by 2005 — 17 months away. 2006: A State Department official claims that Iran may be capable of building a nuclear weapon in 16 days. 2008: An Israeli general tells the Cabinet that Iran is “half-way” to enriching enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon and will have a working weapon no later than the end of 2010. 2009: Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak estimates that Iran is 6-18 months away from building an operative nuclear weapon. 2010: Israeli decision-makers believe that Iran is at most 1-3 years away from being able to assemble a nuclear weapon. 2011: An IAEA report indicates that Iran could build a nuclear weapon within months. 2013: Israeli intelligence officials claim that Iran could have the bomb by 2015 or 2016. The McClatchy articles quotes an Israeli intelligence officer as asking “Did we cry wolf too early?” That’s amusing: Israel (and the West) have been crying wolf over Iran’s nuclear capability for nearly three decades. January 28th, 2013 - 7:24 PM EDT
No need to get sarcastic. : )
Ahmadinejad did not call for Israel's destruction on that occasion as was alleged. He did do so publicly on dozens of other occasions. I did like his sheer smartassery in 2005:
I've seen that list or a similar one before. And I recall some of these hysterical announcements as well.
You're a fool. The Hezbollah war a few years ago when Israel had to send them back to the stone age. Iran proxies.
The Hezbollah war a few years ago when Israel had to send them back to the stone age. Iran proxies. That is a stretch, stretch. And let us say that that is so - what Hezbollah did was a minor action (a military raid) that Israel decided meant war. Hezbollah stated they did not expect a war over that raid. Again, it shows Iran is more reserved in such engagements.
Hezbollah is actually stronger than ever. Their missile inventory is now more advanced and much larger than ever. It is widely estimated that they have at least 30,000 missiles in stock and it is likely they have up to 45,000. All of them pointed toward Israel. A lot of these are small dumb missiles but many of them are much more sophisticated. Obviously, they can use the small missiles to shield their main missiles from Israel's anti-missile defenses. And Hezbollah felt strong enough to send militia units to reinforce Assad. Not exactly hiding in a stone age.
Yeah. Only then will Israel think about using some of that $100 billion worth of equipment we gave them. In the meantime, you're telling me that our $3 billion annual military aid to Israel buys us intelligence. Intelligence that we can't get from Saudi Arabia or other friendly Arab countries.
My point is to show that Iran has been much more constrained than the propoganda against it has portrayed it. That does not mean Iran is a "good guy" but I am not buying the propaganda Iran is eager to usher in the end of days via some Shia prophecy as you hear many talk radio types utter over and over.
I am still waiting for SOSO to comment on the learned wisdom of Bibi's that invading Iraq would be a good idea when he was before congress.
That is a good comeback, I must say.
More like "almost all". Here are some Hezbollah jihadists launching one:
That's mostly true - the missiles launched back then were upgraded bottle rockets for the most part - more an annoyance than a threat - though I am sure the Hezies now may have deadlier stock.
You gotta hand it to the guy. Getting the U.S. to fight his enemies for him. Shhhh! Don't tell that to the terrorist groups. They'd be pissed if they knew we were Israel's military puppet, doing their dirty work for them. Why, the terrorists might even attack us.
I especially enjoyed the indignant responses of Chancellor Merkel and Chancellor Schüssel to the idea that they should give their own land to the Jews as reparations for what their predecessor, Chancellor Hitler, did to the Jews. It was a witty point and one well worth considering.
Wiki offers estimates of 30-50 thousand and lists the types they are known to have. Most analysts believe they even have some SCUDs. They would use the dumb rockets to exhaust Israel's anti-missile defenses and then launch their heavy stuff. We can also get some idea of what they have by considering the three major types of missiles that the Palis launched from Gaza at Israel last year. The Palis had none of the heavier stuff though.
Tell the people of Lebanon and Israel ,that. You are woefully uneducated on the subject. Iranian operatives are the prime mover behind Hezboolah, among other radical Islamic terrorist actions.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I am still waiting for SOSO to comment on the learned wisdom of Bibi's that invading Iraq would be a good idea when he was before congress. First, where is the tirck here, Fool? Second, so did John Kerry and every one of his DIMWIT party memeber that voted for it, including Billary. As usual you are short on the facts so this link should help you learn them. Did Kerry and Clinton also "trick" the U.S.?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Oh, you mean the country that gace us intelligence that 19 or so of its countrymen were going to knock down the World Trade Center? That ally? Well, okie dokie then, Lance.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
So that means Israeli intel is useless so your point is moot. Or the USA based its intel on Israeli intel and that is bad - badder if Israel fed us bad intel to get the idiot Americans to vote for war. With allies like this.............
Tell the people of Lebanon and Israel ,that. You are woefully uneducated on the subject. Iranian operatives are the prime mover behind Hezboolah, among other radical Islamic terrorist actions. Even if you count that - it was a war fought by Lebanese Arabs for their own purposes - and they would do it again if Iran vanished off the face of the earth. This idea Persians are the leaders of Arabs is nonsense. They have a mutual enemy in the Sunnis and the American/Israelis while being independent of each other.
The Saudi Arabia that provided 118,000 troops, 550 tanks, and 180 airplanes to help us win the Gulf War. Not to be confused with our "strategic partner in the Middle East", our "friend", our "ally" -- Israel -- which provided 0 troops, 0 tanks, and 0 airplanes.
You have a terrible command/undrestanding of the English language. I didn't say Iran was the leader of the Arab world. I said it is the prime mover of many aggresive hostilities towards other governments in the region. And it is.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Are you dense? The U.S. told Israel to not get overtly involved in the military actions.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Please don't insinuate that Mensa Boy is stupid.
That's my point. They're no ally if they can't help us. They suck up $3 billion a year in military aid and wave to us as we pass by on our way to fight their enemies for them.
My take on why Israel does not want a peace treaty with Iran and the USA is because - with the withdrawl of US troops from Iraq and a pivot towards Asia, Israel loses its significance to American foreign policy. "Peace in the Middle East" means Israel is not that important anymore.
The only point you have is on your head. What part of "the U.S. telling Israel to stand down on military action" don't you understand. It was the U.S. call not Israel's. Israel was clearly in a position to engage militarily if requested. Your point that the U.S. didn't ask becuase Israel couldn't or wouldn't is flat out stupid. If you can document that the U.S. asked Israel to engage its military and it refused please present it. Otherwise this discussion is over.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Please don't insinuate that Mensa Boy is stupid. I think that I did more than insinuate.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Maybe my reading comprehension is on the fritz but it seems to me you are both saying the same exact thing about the role Iran plays around the oil patch.
I believe you have a misperception of what happened. How to fight Israeli aggression, and IDF weakness, were demonstrated. Israel does not need another "victory" like that one. Israel was effective in killing non-combatants, including women and children, who made up the significant majority of Hezbollah casualties. Hunkering down and forcing the IDF to engage in small-unit, urban warfare demonstrated a way to frustrate the IDF. Israel could reduce buildings to rubble but they could not eliminate the pests who sheltered and then came back out. Fighting small unit combat, building to building, with small arms, is not something the IDF can sustain long term. Hezbollah were taking out tanks with Russian anti-tank missiles. As is oft repeated, one cannot take and hold an area without an occupying ground force. Rather than reducing Hezbollah to the stone age, only a few hundred Hezbollah combatants were killed. Human Rights Watch identified 250 Hezbollah combatants killed and 860 civilians. After the conflict, Hezbollah admitted 250 combatants killed, Israel reduced its prior claim to 600. Israel asserted its own IDF losses as 121 killed and 1244 wounded. Comparing the losses on both sides in terms of numbers does not tell the whole story. The Confederacy inflicted losses on the Union at a greater numerical rate, with the Union closing the gap only at the end. We know who won. The Confederacy could not withstand losses at the same rate as the Union. The same goes for Israel. Its Arab foes could sustain numerical losses at a much greater rate than Israel and prevail. Israel would have liked to have taken the Litani river. Since Israel was in its planning stage, it has been trying to get the Litani river. Water in that area of the world is like gold. Israel can only fight short wars or conflicts. It can not sustain ground combat over a lengthy period. It could not sustain its grab for the Litani, long term, against the determined resistance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War [...] Ground war Hezbollah engaged in guerrilla warfare with IDF ground forces, fighting from well-fortified positions, often in urban areas, and attacking with small, well-armed units. Hezbollah fighters were highly trained, and were equipped with flak jackets, night-vision goggles, communications equipment, and sometimes with Israeli uniforms and equipment. An Israeli soldier who participated in the war said that Hezbollah fighters were "nothing like Hamas or the Palestinians. They are trained and highly qualified. All of us were kind of surprised". During engagements with the IDF, Hezbollah concentrated on inflicting losses on the IDF, believing an unwillingness to absorb steady losses to be Israel's strategic weakness. However, Hezbollah sustained greater losses than the IDF during ground engagements. Hezbollah countered IDF armor through the use of sophisticated Russian-made anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs). According to Merkava tank program administration, 52 Merkava main battle tanks were damaged (45 of them by different kinds of ATGM), missiles penetrated 22 tanks, but only 5 tanks were destroyed, one of them by an improvised explosive device (IED). The Merkava tanks that were penetrated were predominantly Mark II and Mark III models, but five Mark IV tanks were also penetrated. All but two of these tanks were rebuilt and returned to service. The IDF declared itself satisfied with the Merkava Mark IV's performance during the war. Hezbollah caused additional casualties using ATGMs to collapse buildings onto Israeli troops sheltering inside. As a result, IDF units did not linger in any one area for an extended period of time. Hezbollah fighters often used tunnels to emerge quickly, fire an anti-tank missile, and then disappear again. On 14 July 2006, INS Hanit a Sa'ar 5-class corvette of the Israeli Navy, suffered damage after being struck by a Hezbollah C-802 (or C-701) anti-ship missile. Four crew members were killed during the attack but INS Hanit stayed afloat, extricated itself and made the rest of the journey back to Ashdod port for repairs on its own power. [...] Four months after the end of the war the deputy chairman of the Hezbollah Political Council Mahmoud Qomati substantially raised the official estimate of the number of Hezbollah fatalities. He now claimed that 250 fighters had been killed in the war. Israel meanwhile also backed down from its war-time estimates. Instead of the 800 Hezbollah fatalities said during the war, Israeli government spokesperson Miri Eisin in December revised that estimate, saying, "We think that it's closer to 600." Three years after the outbreak of war the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs published a summary of the war which concluded that over 600 Hezbollah fighters were killed in the war. According to the Yedioth Ahronoth "Encyclopedia" of the Second Lebanon War, the main reason for the discrepancy between Lebanese and Israeli estimates of the number of Hezbollah fatalities during the war (700 and 300 respectively) was that the former included only Hezbollah combatants while the latter also included civilian members of Hezbollah. Human Rights Watch in an investigation over 94 IDF air, artillery, and ground attacks during the war that claimed the lives of 561 persons, said that only 51 of these were combatants and about half of them were women or children. HRW said it documented the identities of another 548 fatalities, bringing the total of identified Lebanese deaths in the war to 1109. It said that an estimated 250 of these were Hezbollah combatants and the remaining 860 were civilians. [...] Military analyst and former IDF general Giora Eiland concluded that, though outgunned and outnumbered, Hezbollah managed to hold off Israel's advanced armed forces and proved its ability to damage Israel by launching rockets at its territory until the end of the war. He estimates that Hezbollah's destructive capabilities have increased in the years after the war and that the group is capable to inflict "far worse damage on the Israeli homefront" than in 2006. An Israeli official warned that combat with Hezbollah will be very bloody and Lebanon would sustain heavy damage in any future war. In the 2007 BBC documentary, Hunting for Hezbollah, BBC This World reporter Emeka Onono referred to Israel's inability to eliminate Hezbollah as a "humiliation for Israel's supposedly all-powerful army," and he went on to claim that Hezbollah's survival propelled it to hero status throughout many Muslim nations. British military historian John Keegan stated that the outcome of the war was "misreported as an Israeli defeat" due to anti-Israel bias in the international media. He concluded that Hezbollah had suffered heavy losses, and that a cease-fire came into effect before Israel could completely dislodge Hezbollah from its positions. He also stated that the casualties sustained by Israel during the war had alarmed the Israeli Government and High Command because Israel's small population is acutely vulnerable to losses in battle. http://www.wrmea.org/2003-september/israel-u.s.-still-battle-for-lebanon-s-litani-river-water.html Israel, U.S. Still Battle for Lebanon’s Litani River Water By Andrew I. Killgore In 1955 President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent Eric Johnston, president of the Motion Picture Producers’ Association, to the Middle East to “divvy up,” in the phrase of the day, the water of the Litani River. The Arabs could not make the political decision to divide the Jordan River with Israel, but getting a decision from Israel on the exact amount of water it claimed to have coming was impossible. Johnston finally realized that Israel was claiming more cubic feet per second (cusecs) than the total flow of the river. Israel buttressed its claim by citing the Cotton Plan, named for a never-quite-identified American hydrologist. It turned out that “Cotton” had combined the flow of the Jordan and the Litani rivers to come up with Israel’s share. The Litani of course, flows entirely in Lebanon. At the 1919 Peace Conference in Paris, ending World War I, Chaim Weizemann and David Ben-Gurion, respectively first president and first prime minister of Israel, presented a proposed map of the Israel that-was-to-be that included the Litani River within Israeli borders. The Litani did not go to Israel, however, because under the terms of the secret Sikes-Picot Treaty it was assigned to what would be the French Mandate of Lebanon. Iran begins to come into the picture when it changed from a friend to an enemy of Israel. In 1978-1979 Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was overthrown, to be replaced by an Islamic regime under the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, marking the end of a quiet alliance between Israel and Iran. In 1978 Israel—anticipating a new government in Tehran that would support its fellow Shi’i in southern Lebanon—invaded and occupied its northern neighbor up to the Litani River. In 1982 Israel again invaded Lebanon to drive out the Palestine Liberation Organization and to establish a government in Beirut that would allow Israel to exploit the Litani. The war, engineered by Israel’s then-Minister of Defense Ariel Sharon, resulted in the death of 20,000 Lebanese, 2,000 Palestinians massacred in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, and the evacuation from Lebanon of the PLO. The Israeli army slowly retreated from Lebanon under continued harassment from the country’s long-neglected Shi’i—who had originally welcomed them in 1978 as a counter to the Palestinian presence there, but who soon turned against them upon exposure to the occupiers’ contempt and hatred for the Lebanese. The resistance organization Hezbollah, in fact, was founded in 1982 under the guidance of Iran’s ambassador to Syria Ali Akbar Mohtashemi. Israel did not fully withdraw from Lebanon until 2000, however, having retained a slice of Lebanon up to the Litani for more than two decades. The United States gradually began economic warfare on Iran because of Tehran’s continued assistance to Hezbollah. In 1994 Israel claimed that an Iranian military buildup threatened Western interests. Two years later President Bill Clinton issued an executive order imposing sanctions on Iran. In 1996 Congress passed the Iran-Libya Sanction Act (ILSA), written by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and providing for U.S. sanctions against any company—foreign or domestic—spending $20 million on Iran’s oil or gas industry. Russia’s Gasprom, French (then) Total and Malaysia’s Petronas challenged ILSA by contracting to develop Iran’s offshore South Pars gas field for billions of dollars. President Clinton met with his top advisers and decided to take no action, in effect accepting that ILSA was unenforceable. Nevertheless Congress extended it in 2001 for five more years. Perhaps the most successful effort to stymie Iran’s development, however, is the effort to block oil or gas lines from the Caspian from going through Iran. Oil companies operating in the Caspian favored the Iranian route, but the U.S.—and Israel—decided that it had to be Baku (Azerbaijan)-Ceyhan (Turkey). The latest manifestation of Washington’s relentless economic warfare against Iran to pressure it to abandon its support of Hezbollah is a recent high-level approach to Japan saying that Tokyo’s relationship with the U.S. will suffer if it signs an agreement to develop part of Iran’s largest oilfield, Azadegan. According to the June 28-29 Financial Times, Azadegan was viewed in Japan as a vital source of long-term energy supply after Japan lost the rights to pump crude oil from Saudia Arabia’s Kafgi area two years ago. Supposedly the U.S. is exercised by Iran’s “suspected” nuclear weapons program, although Thomas Stauffer writes (see p. 28) that it is highly unlikely that it has a program to make the bomb. The U.S. wants Tehran to sign an agreement allowing “intrusive” inspections of its nuclear facilities. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has spoken with top Japanese officials; Secretary of State Colin Powell raised the issue with Japanese Foreign Minster Yoriko Kawa Guchi. The United States doesn’t want Japan to send the “wrong message.” Japan’s minister for economy, trade, and industry was said to be resisting American pressure, but Prime Minster Junichiro Koizumi was seen as susceptible to U.S. pressure. Andrew Killgore is publisher of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, on Middle East Affairs. http://rewild.com/anthropik/2006/08/israels-water-wars/index.html [Excerpts, footnotes omitted] Tuesday, August 15th, 2006 The stated rationale for Israel's invasion of Lebanon was nonsense. Ostensibly, Israel invaded Lebanon because Hizb'allah captured two IDF soldiers that violated the Lebanese border. Later reports in Western media were changed so that Hizb'allah was entering Israel in an unprovoked attack; this is the generally understood scenario in the West, though it conflicts with the original reports and Lebanese police. Hizb'allah asked for a prisoner exchange-like the exchanges Israel has engaged in before—but instead, Israel's Kadima PM Ehud Olmert promised a "very painful and far-reaching response." Israel's army chief of staff, General Dan Halutz, said the war would "turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years." * * * With the collapse of the Coastal Aquifer from Israel's overuse, and signs that the same process may now be happening (though more slowly) at Lake Kinneret, the importance of the Mountain Aquifer is only intensified, but that lies beneath the West Bank, and remains a major flashpoint of tensions. After the 1967 war, Israel siezed 80-85% of the West Bank's water resources. More recently, the "security barrier" has been used as a means of claiming more water for Israel. * * * The Litani River is the primary source of water for southern Lebanon. It starts west of Baalbek, in the Biqa'a valley. The average annual flow of the river is estimated at 920 MCM, with 480 MCM measured at the Khardali Bridge, where it makes an almost 90 degree bend to flow west into the Mediterranean. Another attraction of the Litani River is the high quality of its water. The salinity level is only 20 parts per million, whereas that of the Sea of Galilee is 250 to 350 parts per million. Many aquifers in Israel are stressed, especially along the coast, and the water in them is increasingly brackish. The water of the Litani would lower the saline level of the Sea of Galilee, from which the National Water Carrier channels water to much of the country. "It is this purity that makes the Litani very attractive to the Israelis, who have developed their National Water Carrier System with a view towards potable (as opposed to irrigation quality) water." Not only could the Litani provide the volume of water Israel so desperately needs, but it's a clean source of water, with very low salinity. It could help repair the water sources that Israel's overuse has turned salty and brackish. This has been understood by Israel for a very long time, and we can see the Litani River cropping up in Israeli history on a regular basis. * * * The "security buffer" that Israel is currently fighting to establish extends to the same westward bend in the Litani that the previous invasion pushed towards. The IDF's last-minute push north was to the banks of the Litani. The stated reasons for Israel's actions make no sense, but in light of Israel's current water crisis and its history with the Litani River, we see that there is a reason that does make sense, and fits perfectly with Israel's past actions. The recent war was not fought to defeat Hizb'allah—any fool would know that such an action would only strengthen Hizb'allah—it was fought for access to the Litani River, to provide Israel with the water it needs to survive, and strengthening an irritant like Hizb'allah is a price Israel is willing to pay for that. The zero-sum nature of this game cannot be denied. Without the Litani waters, irrigation would be virtually impossible in the south, and much of the region would become desert. Denying the Shia of southern Lebanon water for domestic and agricultural uses would aggravate their frustrations with the central government. For example, rumors in 1974 that the Litani waters were to be diverted to Beirut to meet forecast shortages sparked massive antigovernmental demonstrations. Without the Litani, southern Lebanon will be laid waste, and in its desperation it will turn to the only organization that has proven the ability and willingness to provide security and basic services: Hizb'allah. This will make Hizb'allah much stronger in southern Lebanon, just as Israel's actions have strengthened Hizb'allah's position with Arab governments. Without the Litani, Israel's water crisis will deepen; the very survival of Israel is at stake. Either Israel will sieze the Litani, or it will perish. Historically, Hizb'allah has been primarily a nuisance to Israel, but never a genuine threat to its survival, unlike Israel's lack of access to the Litani. The price of access to the Litani is a stronger Hizb'allah. That is a price the current Israeli government seems happy to pay. * * * "Water wars" are not a hypothetical future possibility. The recent invasion of Lebanon was a water war. In Israel, they've been raging for four decades. The 1967 "Six Days' War" was a water war; the intifadas, terrorism and strife that has followed from the occupied territories from that war are all, likewise, water wars. Israel's involvement in the Lebanese Civil War was for water; Hizb'allah was created from one of Israel's water wars. Most of the country's history, right up to the recent conflict, can be understood much more easily than the conventional appeals to religious strife, as the simple struggle for enough water to support Israel's human population and its agricultural output.
While water is very important in the Mideast, they are willing to fight over other stuff too. Mostly religion and ethnicity. BTW, Israel is now up to a quarter of its water coming from desalination. They are exporting the technology and expertise with some new plants opening in California due to the drought there in recent years. So thirsty Jews don't explain all of Israel's conflicts with neighbors.
Yep, it's on the fritz.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Israel Desalination Shows California Not to Fear Drought Alisa Odenheimer and James Nash Feb. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Six decades of providing water in a country that’s 60 percent desert have made Israel a technological leader in the field, a model that points the way for drought-stricken California. If it adds $5 to $7 a month for 10%, as a sole source it would all $50 to $70 to the current average $80 price per month, making $130 to $150 average water bills. The $70 figure nearly doubles the water bill. It may work with pricing the ten percent $8 share up to $13 or $15. Converting to too much of that stuff will require Supplemental Water Assistance Program (SWAP) stamps. Israel is exhausting its water supplies, taking the Palestinian assets first. That will leave a Palestine with no viable water supply. Israel is not self-sustaining and Americans may not desire to incur more debt to finance 100% desalination for Israel. It's expensive. Gibraltar is 100% reliant on desalination for potable water. It uses reverse osmosis plants like what makes much of the bottled water in the U.S. which is expensive purified municipal water. Salt water is used for routine sanitation purposes like flush toilets. It's about 2½ sq miles with about 30,000 people. Quite a ways back, I discovered that when I entered, the Gib authorities stamped my passport (the stamp is in the shape of the Rock of Gibraltar), when I left, the Spanish would not entertain that idea. As far as Spain was concerned, I had not left Spain. I had, however, left Spain's supply of water. California might just as well fear the drought. As water for irrigation, desalinized water is too expensive.
As the west enters drought I keep thinking Martian canals - fictional they turned out to be - but the east and north has water - and they can sell it to the west. Though I am sure the self reliant western Libertarians would demand the federal govt subsidize it for them like they do for most red state economies.
" a nuclear Iran is a threat to Israel's existence "
#2. To: Stoner, out damned spot (#1)
#3. To: Stoner (#1)
" a nuclear Iran is a threat to Israel's existence "
#4. To: Pericles (#3)
#5. To: out damned spot (#0)
(Edited)
Israel National News quoted a Daily Beast interview from 2009 in which former President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski urged Obama to take on any threat to Iran from Israel.
#6. To: Stoner (#1)
" a nuclear Iran is a threat to Israel's existence "
#7. To: Pericles, out damned spot, All (#2)
A nuclear Iran would be a check on Sunni Muslims also. And that is also good.
#8. To: out damned spot, All (#0)
President Barack Obama threatened to shoot down Israeli planes in 2014 if they were sent to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, according to reports attributed to a Kuwaiti newspaper.
#9. To: Stoner (#4)
(Edited)
Iran should be careful, and remember the often quoted "Samson Option".
#10. To: rlk (#6)
Islam already controls most of Europe. With the conquest of Israel, the next in line is the U. S. with Obama and Shinki's help.
#11. To: SOSO (#7)
For how long? How long do you think it would take Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. to acquire nukes of their own (if they already do not have them) once Iran gets one?
#12. To: Pericles (#11)
The Arabs already have nukes, Pakistan is storing them for them.
#13. To: SOSO (#12)
The Arabs already have nukes, Pakistan is storing them for them.
#14. To: Pericles (#13)
So it makes perfect sense for Iran to defend itself with nukes against the Sunni Muslims and the Zionist Israelis and the Americans -
#15. To: SOSO (#14)
(Edited)
#16. To: Pericles (#2)
A nuclear Iran would be a check on Sunni Muslims also. And that is also good.
#17. To: Pericles (#3)
Then Zionism is a stupid idea
#18. To: Pericles (#9)
The Iranians can absorb any Israeli nuke strike
#19. To: Pericles (#13)
So it makes perfect sense for Iran to defend itself with nukes against the Sunni Muslims and the Zionist Israelis and the Americans - just ask Qaddafi what giving up WMD did for him....
#20. To: Pericles (#15)
Iran said that Zionist Israel would one day cease to exist - not the same thing as a threat.
#21. To: out damned spot, A K A Stone (#0)
According to the website Israel National News, the Bethlehem-based news agency Ma'an cites Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida.
#22. To: out damned spot (#0)
President Barack Obama threatened to shoot down Israeli planes in 2014 if they were sent to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, according to reports attributed to a Kuwaiti newspaper.
#23. To: Gatlin (#22)
The report is based on third hand information and may be fantasy.
#24. To: A K A Stone (#18)
The Iranians can absorb any Israeli nuke strike
#25. To: A K A Stone (#17)
#26. To: TooConservative (#21)
#27. To: Pericles, Gatlin (#26)
#28. To: out damned spot (#0)
"According to the website Israel National News, the Bethlehem-based news agency Ma'an cites Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida."
The New York Times Al-Jarida."
#29. To: SOSO (#8)
"Hey, what are allies for?"
#30. To: TooConservative, Pericles, (#27)
#31. To: SOSO (#14)
"The last I checked no-one in the Mideast is threatening to wipe Iran off the map a la Iran's stated goal for Israel."
#32. To: Pericles (#15)
"and by the way, Iran said that Zionist Israel would one day cease to exist - not the same thing as a threat."
#33. To: misterwhite (#29)
I did a google search of "Gulf War Allies" and Israel wasn't listed. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Egypt and 34 other countries. But no Israel.
#34. To: misterwhite (#31)
On 8 May 2006, then Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres said in an interview with Reuters that "the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map,"
#35. To: SOSO (#33)
"And exactly why do you think that was?"
#36. To: SOSO (#34)
"OMG, a threatening response to an overt threat."
#37. To: misterwhite (#35)
"And exactly why do you think that was?"
#38. To: misterwhite (#36)
You said, "The last I checked no-one in the Mideast is threatening to wipe Iran off the map".
#39. To: TooConservative, Gatlin (#30)
(Edited)
#40. To: misterwhite (#32)
But so what if they did?
#41. To: Pericles, Gatlin, out damned spot (#39)
Whatever he is Bibi is not a peacenik. He also, as a private citizen of Israel (I think he was not leader of Likud then - maybe MP?), urged Congress as a special witness to go to war after 9/11 to topple Saddam, so he, like Bush and Clinton, have American blood on their hands.
#42. To: TooConservative, Gatlin, out damned spot (#41)
#43. To: TooConservative, Pericles, out damned spot (#41)
What a whiny hypocrite Barky has become in this sorry episode.
#44. To: SOSO (#37)
"The U.S. ASKED Israel to stay out of the fighting."
#45. To: Pericles (#42)
(Edited)
#46. To: misterwhite (#44)
The answer to that question is why Israel cannot be our ally in the Middle East. So what's the point in pretending they are?
#47. To: Pericles (#9)
#48. To: out damned spot (#0)
Obama Admin. Denies Claim President Threatened to Shoot Down Israeli Fighter Jets Targeting Iran
#49. To: SOSO, misterwhite (#46)
(Edited)
Really? Israel isn't our ally in the ME? Are you that dense? Israel probably provides most of the U.S. intelligence in the region as well as covert operations.
#50. To: Pericles (#49)
Like tricking us with false intel into taking out Saddam?
#51. To: out damned spot (#0)
[Article excerpts]
Embassy of the United States
Baghdad, Iraq Which Path to Persia? [170 pp. PDF]
at the Brookings Institution
Number 20, June 2009
Daniel L. Byman
Martin Indyk
Suzanne Maloney
Michael E. O’Hanlon
Bruce Riedel
#52. To: Pericles, SOSO (#11)
The Arabs already have nukes, Pakistan is storing them for them.
#53. To: SOSO, Pericles (#14)
If you say so, Sparky. The last I checked no-one in the Mideast is threatening to wipe Iran off the map a la Iran's stated goal for Israel.
August 28, 2006
Lost in translation
The Guardian (UK)
14 June 2006 07.49 EDT Israeli Minister Agrees Ahmadinejad Never Said Israel ‘Must Be Wiped Off the Map’
April 17, 2012 7:11 pm
New York TimesLost in Translation
FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting)
June 1, 2012 Did Ahmadinejad really say Israel should be ‘wiped off the map’?
Washington Post
at 06:00 AM ET, 10/05/2011
#54. To: Pericles (#49)
Like tricking us with false intel into taking out Saddam?
#55. To: nolu chan, Pericles (#53)
The propaganda that Iran or Ahmedinejad threatened "to wipe Iran off the map" has been thoroughly debunked.
#56. To: nolu chan (#53)
Israeli Minister Agrees Ahmadinejad Never Said Israel ‘Must Be Wiped Off the Map’
#57. To: TooConservative, nolu chan (#56)
But then, about half the public still thinks Saddam attacked us on 9/11. Dumbasses.
#58. To: TooConservative (#56)
(Edited)
Even at the time, it was thoroughly debunked by Farsi speakers who explained it rather thoroughly. The original remark was that Israel would fade from time. Of course, the subtext for Ahmadinejad's Iranian listeners was likely that Iran would love to do anything to hasten that day when Israel fades from time's tableaux.
#59. To: SOSO (#55)
That is true, he never used those exact words.
#60. To: redleghunter, TooConservative (#58)
Given the context of the speech, the use of "wipe Israel from the map" is a fair use of idiom in interpretation.
August 28, 2006
#61. To: nolu chan (#60)
#62. To: redleghunter, TooConservative (#58)
Given the context of the speech, the use of "wipe Israel from the map" is a fair use of idiom in interpretation.
'Wiped off the Map' – The Rumor of the Century
May 26, 2007
#63. To: SOSO, nolu chan, TooConservative, misterwhite (#54)
Like tricking us with false intel into taking out Saddam?
#64. To: SOSO, nolu chan, TooConservative, misterwhite, A Pole (#55)
(Edited)
The propaganda that Iran or Ahmedinejad threatened "to wipe Iran off the map" has been thoroughly debunked.
#65. To: Pericles, SOSO, TooConservative, misterwhite (#63)
Following his first term as Isrel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu testified to Congress on Sept. 12, 2002 as a private citizen, and advised Congress that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would be "a good choice."
Yet Another Estimate of When Iran Will Have the Bomb
1984: West German intelligence sources claim that Iran’s production of a bomb “is entering its final stages.” US Senator Alan Cranston claims Iran is seven years away from making a weapon.
#66. To: SOSO (#57)
[Dumbasses]...The good news is that they vote. The better news is that they breed. Both bode very well for the future.
#67. To: redleghunter (#58)
(Edited)
And I'll note...this misunderstanding business and taking out of context meme reminds me of the papal apologists for Francis.
That's some pretty funny stuff.
In an interview on Iran's Arabic channel 'Al-Alam', Ahmadinejad said that if Germany and Austria feel responsible for the massacre of Jews during World War II, they should host a state of Israel on their own soil. Speaking at a news conference on the summit sidelines, Ahmadinejad said most Jews in Israel "have no roots in Palestine, but they are holding the destiny of Palestine in their hands and allow themselves to kill the Palestinian people." “Some European countries insist on saying that during World War II, Hitler burned millions of Jews and put them in concentration camps. Any historian, commentator or scientist who doubts that is taken to prison or gets condemned. Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true... If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe – like in Germany, Austria or other countries – to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it."
#68. To: nolu chan (#65)
The McClatchy articles quotes an Israeli intelligence officer as asking “Did we cry wolf too early?” That’s amusing: Israel (and the West) have been crying wolf over Iran’s nuclear capability for nearly three decades.
#69. To: Pericles (#64)
Iran has not started any offensive wars in living or historical memory
#70. To: A K A Stone (#69)
You're a fool.
#71. To: Pericles, A K A Stone (#70)
The Hezbollah war a few years ago when Israel had to send them back to the stone age.
#72. To: SOSO (#46)
"If sh*t truly hit the fan in the ME ..."
#73. To: TooConservative, A K A Stone (#71)
(Edited)
#74. To: misterwhite, SOSO (#72)
#75. To: TooConservative (#67)
If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe – like in Germany, Austria or other countries – to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it."
#76. To: TooConservative (#71)
(Edited)
"It is widely estimated that they have at least 30,000 missiles in stock ... A lot of these are small dumb missiles ..."
#77. To: misterwhite, TooConservative (#76)
#78. To: Pericles (#73)
#79. To: Pericles (#77)
the missiles launched back then were upgraded bottle rockets
#80. To: Pericles (#74)
"I am still waiting for SOSO to comment on the learned wisdom of Bibi's that invading Iraq would be a good idea when he was before congress."
#81. To: Pericles (#75)
That is a good comeback, I must say.
#82. To: A K A Stone (#78)
That's mostly true - the missiles launched back then were upgraded bottle rockets for the most part - more an annoyance than a threat - though I am sure the Hezies now may have deadlier stock.
#83. To: Pericles, nolu chan, TooConservative, misterwhite, A Pole (#64)
Iran has not started any offensive wars in living or historical memory - despite claims Iran is looking to initiate the end times by crazed American end-timers.
#84. To: Pericles (#74)
#85. To: misterwhite (#72)
Intelligence that we can't get from Saudi Arabia or other friendly Arab countries.
#86. To: SOSO, misterwhite (#84)
First, where is the tirck here, Fool? Second, so did John Kerry and every one of his DIMWIT party memeber that voted for it, including Billary. As usual you are short on the facts so this link should help you learn them. Did Kerry and Clinton also "trick" the U.S.?
#87. To: SOSO, nolu chan, TooConservative, misterwhite, A Pole (#83)
Iran has not started any offensive wars in living or historical memory - despite claims Iran is looking to initiate the end times by crazed American end-timers.
#88. To: SOSO (#85)
"That ally?"
#89. To: Pericles, nolu chan, TooConservative, misterwhite, A Pole (#87)
This idea Persians are the leaders of Arabs is nonsense. They have a mutual enemy in the Sunnis and the American/Israelis while being independent of each other.
#90. To: misterwhite (#88)
Not to be confused with our "strategic partner in the Middle East", our "friend", our "ally" -- Israel -- which provided 0 troops, 0 tanks, and 0 airplanes.
#91. To: SOSO (#90)
Are you dense?
#92. To: SOSO (#90)
"The U.S. told Israel to not get overtly involved in the military actions."
#93. To: misterwhite, TooConservative (#88)
(Edited)
#94. To: Fred Mertz (#91)
#95. To: misterwhite (#92)
That's my point.
#96. To: Fred Mertz (#91)
Are you dense?
#97. To: SOSO (#89)
I didn't say Iran was the leader of the Arab world. I said it is the prime mover of many aggresive hostilities towards other governments in the region. And it is.
#98. To: A K A Stone, Pericles (#69)
The Hezbollah war a few years ago when Israel had to send them back to the stone age.
The 2006 Lebanon War, also called the 2006 Israel–Hezbollah War and known in Lebanon as the July War and in Israel as the Second Lebanon War was a 34-day military conflict in Lebanon, northern Israel and the Golan Heights. The principal parties were Hezbollah paramilitary forces and the Israeli military. The conflict started on 12 July 2006, and continued until a United Nations-brokered ceasefire went into effect in the morning on 14 August 2006, though it formally ended on 8 September 2006 when Israel lifted its naval blockade of Lebanon. Due to unprecedented Iranian military support to Hezbollah before and during the war, some consider it the first round of the Iran–Israel proxy conflict, rather than a continuation of the Arab–Israeli conflict.
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs
September 2003, page 20
Special Report Israel’s Water Wars
by Jason Godesky Permanent occupation of southern Lebanon and continued access to the Litani could augment the annual water supply of Israel by up to 800 million cubic meters, or approximately 40 percent of its current annual water consumption. ...
The Lebanese government is under increasing pressure to assert its sovereignty over the entire country, and it may ultimately have to concede to Israeli demands of water in exchange for territory. But that would precipitate a new Lebanese crisis. Diverting the Litani would stunt the economic development of the country, frustrate the postwar nation-building process, and strengthen the hands of groups calling for the cantonization or Islamization of the country.
When President Anwar Sadat signed the peace treaty with Israel in 1979, he said Egypt will never go to war again, except to protect its water resources. King Hussein of Jordan has said he will never go to war with Israel again except over water and the Untied Nation Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali has warned bluntly that the next war in the area will be over water.
#99. To: nolu chan (#98)
(Edited)
#100. To: TooConservative (#97)
Maybe my reading comprehension is on the fritz but it seems to me you are both saying the same exact thing about the role Iran plays around the oil patch.
#101. To: TooConservative (#99)
The San Diego County Water Authority, the utility for 95 percent of the county’s 3.2 million residents, will pay Poseidon Resources about $2,000 per acre-foot (about 326,000 gallons) for water produced by the Carlsbad desalination plant, compared with about $1,000 per acre-foot for water it currently imports from other sources, said Ken Weinberg, the agency’s water-resources director. Desalinated water will provide about 10 percent of the county’s supply, he said by telephone, and add $5 to $7 a month to the average $80 residential water bill.
#102. To: nolu chan, (#101)
California might just as well fear the drought. As water for irrigation, desalinized water is too expensive.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]