Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2   
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 5:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:32 pm
Posts: 293
Location: Chicago IL
John Thomas8 wrote:
TollandRCR wrote:
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
If Hitler was close to developing an atomic bomb in 1938 would it have been justifiable -- morally -- to undertake a military action against him to stop it?

That's the tenor of the question to the Israelis.

We suspected in 1939, if not earlier, that the Nazis were up to just that. The letter to President Roosevelt from Einstein, Szilard, and others was dated August 2, 1939.

There is, however, a big difference: Roosevelt had to mount a project to develop atomic weapons; by all accounts except official ones, Israel already has atomic weapons.


Which isn't much comfort for the potential targets of those weapons. The Israeli government has proven they'll kill anyone, friend or foe, which opposes them.


I fall into that category of individuals whom critics of Israel accuse of being a Zionist, but Israeli apologists condemn as being too pro-Palestinian. I frequently find myself angry at both groups. That said, while I wish no nuclear existed in the Middle East, I would feel far more uneasy were those existing weapons in the hands of Iran or the Arab states rather than under Israeli control. For all its many sins -- and like the US, they are many -- Israel has never deployed those weapons against its neighbors. Do you doubt the Arab states would have shown similar restraint in any of the wars of the past 65 or so years? As for an Iranian state, I would be very concerned if they possessed the bomb. Perhaps it's my anti-religious feelings asserting themselves, but I absolutely distrust people who know they are God's chosen instrument in the world, who believe all who oppose them are so evil as to merit death, and who confuse their self-pride with divine favor.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 6:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm
Posts: 13607
Location: New England
Occupation: Professor of Sociology
The Voice of America February 19, 2010 Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei Says Islam Opposes Nuclear Weapons Quoting analyst Alex Vatanka of Jane's Islamic Affairs,
Quote:
"On the nuclear issue right now, if you look at all the players, there are really two voices that we should pay attention to, one is the president, the other one is the Supreme Leader. Khamenei, realizing how weak the regime under his control has been over the past 8 or 9 months has decided to play a far more public role," he said.

"He comes in and says, there's a fatwa [Islamic ruling] here [that nuclear weapons are not permissible] and he tries to link it to other issues, like with this very harsh statement he made about Secretary Clinton, saying she's a peddler, coming here to make Iran into the big regional bogeyman and sell billions of dollars worth of arms," he added.

"Khamenei's statement of February 22, 2012 from Iran's PressTV"
Quote:
“The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons,” said Ayatollah Khamenei.

“There is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous.”

“If nations are allowed to independently make progress in the fields of nuclear energy, aerospace, science, technology and industry, there will be no room left for the tyrannical dominance of world powers,” said the Leader.

“Sanctions have been in place since the victory of the Islamic Revolution while the nuclear issue is a matter of the past few years; therefore their (the West) real problem is with a nation that has decided to be independent.”

New York Times February 24, 2012 U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb

Voice of America April 13, 2012 "Iran, World Powers Launch Nuclear Talks"

Yet the drumbeat for an Israeli or Israeli/American attack on Iran continues.

_________________
"Someone should tell Mrs. Reagan that young people -- not even young people on drugs -- are not the ones responsible for the major problems besetting the world!" John Irving, A Prayer for Owen Meany: A Novel, p. 370.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 9:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:32 pm
Posts: 293
Location: Chicago IL
TollandRCR wrote:
The Voice of America February 19, 2010 Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei Says Islam Opposes Nuclear Weapons Quoting analyst Alex Vatanka of Jane's Islamic Affairs,
Quote:
"On the nuclear issue right now, if you look at all the players, there are really two voices that we should pay attention to, one is the president, the other one is the Supreme Leader. Khamenei, realizing how weak the regime under his control has been over the past 8 or 9 months has decided to play a far more public role," he said.

"He comes in and says, there's a fatwa [Islamic ruling] here [that nuclear weapons are not permissible] and he tries to link it to other issues, like with this very harsh statement he made about Secretary Clinton, saying she's a peddler, coming here to make Iran into the big regional bogeyman and sell billions of dollars worth of arms," he added.

"Khamenei's statement of February 22, 2012 from Iran's PressTV"
Quote:
“The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons,” said Ayatollah Khamenei.

“There is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous.”

“If nations are allowed to independently make progress in the fields of nuclear energy, aerospace, science, technology and industry, there will be no room left for the tyrannical dominance of world powers,” said the Leader.

“Sanctions have been in place since the victory of the Islamic Revolution while the nuclear issue is a matter of the past few years; therefore their (the West) real problem is with a nation that has decided to be independent.”

New York Times February 24, 2012 U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb

Voice of America April 13, 2012 "Iran, World Powers Launch Nuclear Talks"

Yet the drumbeat for an Israeli or Israeli/American attack on Iran continues.


I agree that there are far too many warmongers sounding the call for war with Iran. It seems as if some people learned nothing from our recent adventures in Iraq.

Still, I would advise caution to those who view Khamenei as a voice of reason. Yes, it is true that he has spoken out against atomic weaponry. But he has, in the past, also spoken out against human rights abuses. Consider how his actions match his rhetoric. Khamenei has encouraged the religious persecution of the Bahá'ís, a religious minority that can only be described as inoffensive. He possesses considerable influence over the Basij, the paramilitary organization responsible for the murder of scores of pro-democracy demonstrators following the disputed 2009 elections. Khamenei's opponents and their families are sometimes subjected to beatings and imprisonment while political opponents abroad are sometimes assassinated. He is a supporter of Ahmadinejad, his fellow Holocaust denier. And, finally, Khamenei himself does the peace process no favors by calling for the destruction of Israel. Why should the Israel trust the works of a man who speaks of peace one day and the elimination of Israel the next?

I am not defending the those who desire war, but I am suggesting that the Iranian government is not as innocent as a kitten with respect to the unease troubling the region today. We rightly and consistently discount the words of peace mouthed by ideologues like G. W. Bush and Netanyahu when their actions prove their utterances to be lies. Why hold Khamenei to a lesser standard?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:06 am
Posts: 2483
Location: Flat earth with the dragons.
I still say this nuclear hyberbole is due to major elections going on in Iran, Israel, and the U.S.
It's pure election hype. They are trying to frighten people into electing them.

_________________
"QUALES ILLIC HOMUNCULI!" - laughed Nostradamus, foretelling the appearance of birthers.

"Your politics have no relation to morals."-
Niccolo Machiavelli to the Tea Party


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 8:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 7:44 am
Posts: 2858
Location: Fuquay Varina, NC
Occupation: The Gawd Of SAN And NAS
Israel’s Minister of Intelligence and Atomic Energy Agrees Ahmadinejad Never Said Israel 'Must Be Wiped Off the Map' (thelede.blogs.nytimes.com)

The "fear" of Iran is a manufactured problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:32 pm
Posts: 293
Location: Chicago IL
John Thomas8 wrote:
Israel’s Minister of Intelligence and Atomic Energy Agrees Ahmadinejad Never Said Israel 'Must Be Wiped Off the Map' (thelede.blogs.nytimes.com)

The "fear" of Iran is a manufactured problem.


True. But he does refer to Israel as an illegal occupying power. What do you think he means by that? What should become of illegal occupying powers? He says Israel "is an artificial state and Jews should return to their 'fatherlands' in Europe"

http://articles.cnn.com/2006-04-24/world/iran.nuclear_1_nuclear-activity-nuclear-issue-iranian-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad?_s=PM:WORLD

And his boss, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has: “The Zionist regime is a true cancer tumor on this region that should be cut off. “And it definitely will be cut off.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iran-says-it-launched-satellite/2012/02/03/gIQARNuDmQ_story.html

And some of that "manufactured" fear of Iran was manufactured by Iran itself. Just ask the pro-democracy demonstrators butchered by para-military forces. Or the peaceful Bahá'í persecuted for their religion. Or the tourists sentenced to inhuman prisons on trumped up charges of spying. Or the gays hanged for failing to hide their lifestyle deep enough. Or those women who are violently forced to accept second class citizenship. Or the innocents murdered by Iran's state sponsored terrorism?

You know the Iranian leaders are murderers. Why do you doubt that they can also be liars?

When Israel threatens the peace or violates human rights, it is rightfully censored. So why do we go out of our way to defend Iran? Would we defend Stalin's Soviet Union of those who accuse it of being dangerous? After all, right up to the invasion of Poland, Hitler's Germany had its defenders. I suspect that the Islamic Republic of Iran will have defenders praising its peaceful nature right up to the point it slaughters its final victim.

When will we learn that dictatorial regimes are always a threat to peace?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 7:44 am
Posts: 2858
Location: Fuquay Varina, NC
Occupation: The Gawd Of SAN And NAS
Quote:
When Israel threatens the peace or violates human rights, it is rightfully censored.


Really? They had half a million kids die while under US sanctions like Iraq? Or any number of other violently disgusting "punishments" we're placed on not-Israel Middle Eastern Countries? Or you could count the number UN Security Council votes we've allowed to take action against Israel on nothing, no significant have been put on Israel because we won't allow it.

They' never been called out for this, either:

Image

Or the murder of American naval personnel.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:32 pm
Posts: 293
Location: Chicago IL
Israel has never been "called out?" That's absurd. Just read a newspaper. Yes, the US far too often prevents the UN from taking measure of Israel behavior, but there is no disagreement there, is there?

My comments addressed Iranian behavior. You cannot defend Iran, and then when someone factually describes Iranian behavior, point to Israel and say, "But look at them instead." I described Iran as a threat to peace and a menace to its own citizens. No misconduct by Israel, the United States, or any other nation excuses the crimes of Iran's leaders.

Also, as there are somewhat fewer than four-million Arabs total living within the occupied territories, I would be interested to learn how you arrived at your figure of the Israelis being responsible for the deaths of one-half million children. If your figure is correct, Israel is responsible for the deaths of about 13% of the Arab population -- children all. I would need a source for your claim.

Also, you should realize that Israel is not a monolithic entity. It consists of many groups comprising an unwieldy whole. Many of its citizens oppose their government's behavior. In this respect, they are similar to Iran. Unlike Iran, they are typically free to do so.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:32 pm
Posts: 293
Location: Chicago IL
Quote:
Are Nuclear Weapons Really a "Big Sin" to Iran's Supreme Leader?


http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/907004/are_nuclear_weapons_really_a_%22big_sin%22_to_iran's_supreme_leader/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 12:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 7:44 am
Posts: 2858
Location: Fuquay Varina, NC
Occupation: The Gawd Of SAN And NAS
Israel's intelligence community thinks Israel's political leaders are not up to the job nor are they being truthful:

“I don’t believe in either the prime minister or the defence minister. I don’t believe in a leadership that makes decisions based on messianic feelings. Believe me, I have observed them from up close … They are not people who I, on a personal level, trust to lead Israel to an event on that scale and carry it off.

“They are misleading the public on the Iran issue. They tell the public that if Israel acts, Iran won’t have a nuclear bomb. This is misleading. Actually, many experts say that an Israeli attack would accelerate the Iranian nuclear race.”
(Harriet Sherwood, The Guardian via Raw Story)

Reminds me of georgie and rummy and that idiot cheney.

Gak.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm
Posts: 13607
Location: New England
Occupation: Professor of Sociology
Today is the anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. I am among those who believe, with only some evidence, that this saved both Japanese and Allied lives. Was it worth the cost to the canons of "just war?"

The above discussion concerned Hitler's known atomic program; there is also very likely to have been a Japanese atomic program, as well as a Japanese biowarfare program. AFAIK, we did not try to "take out" any of these programs, perhaps because of very good intelligence that they were not succeeding.

In the years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, have we learned anything that might illuminate U.S. policy towards a potential Israeli or Israeli/U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear facilities? Is it the lesson that Israel must at all costs protect itself against its own Hiroshima? "At all costs" means a lot, including questions not only of strategy but also of morality. Is the lesson that sometimes a militarily sound move is morally questionable or even repugnant? That assumes that an Israeli attack on Iran would be militarily sound, which I think is a laughable assumption.

If all options were not "on the table," would we be seeing a different dynamic playing out between Iran and Israel?

_________________
"Someone should tell Mrs. Reagan that young people -- not even young people on drugs -- are not the ones responsible for the major problems besetting the world!" John Irving, A Prayer for Owen Meany: A Novel, p. 370.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 6:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:32 pm
Posts: 293
Location: Chicago IL
I too feel the dropping of two atomic weapons on Japan saved lives. Looking back on the fanatical and suicidal resistance offered US forces and Japanese mobilization of its population and remaining resources to repel an American invasion suggest the human toll would have been exceptionally high. Furthermore, had the war been allowed to continue, more than US and Japanese lives would have been lost. The bulk of Japan's army was engaged in China. The Japanese military treat China with the same tenderness Poland received from Germany. How many thousands of Chinese would have died had the war been prolonged by two or more months because American policy makers decided not to use atomic weapons.

Even after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese surrender was not a certainty. Two atomic weapons and the implicit threat of more to follow, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria which created fears of a possible Soviet occupation of at least some home islands, and a guarantee to maintain the Japanese monarchy were all required to force the Japanese capitulation. Even then, many military officers wanted to continue fighting, and some actually sought to sabotage Japan's accepting the Allied terms.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2   

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
View new posts | View active topics



Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group