WHAT IS MOST LIKELY TO HAPPEN NEXT?

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

One thought for you. Iraq had chemical weapons for years. They never used them against Israel. Iran is a far more rational country than Iraq ever was. Why do you think they would initiate a first strike, either directly or through intermediates?

Too much cat and mouse with the international inspectors makes one wonder why they desire enriched uranium. And, in all four wars Israel had with its Arab neighbors, when did Israel threaten Iran? Iran seems to have joined the Arab dislike for Israel when it is not an Arab state, and far enough away from Israel to ignore Israel's existence if it chose. Could Iran be trying to gain hegemony in the region, by rallying the Arabs around their dislike of Israel? Hmmm? Considering Iran had a sizable Jewish community at one time, could there be an ulterior motive to the Iranian anti-Israel rhetoric? Iran would not be the first country to have grandiose political designs that got impetus from exploiting anti-Semitism.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

makes a whole lot of sense.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Quote:

The NPT, of which Iran is a signatory, does not prohibit the development of a nuclear program for peaceful purposes. We cannot assume that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. More facts must be gathered before we may speculate about "what is most likely to happen next."

Why can't we?

It's not just conservative cowboys who think they are developing nuclear weapons. Obama does, Sarkozy does, and Brown does. Numerous experts agree as well, just do a Google search.

What "facts" do we need to gather? The "fact" that they have exploded one underground? A little too late by then, don't you think?

Rational people can disagree on what should be done in response to their efforts to build nukes, but only the willfully stupid or supporters of the Iranian regime advance the argument that they might just be trying to develop peaceful nuclear energy.

Quote:

The options you placed on the table, e.g., launching pre-emptive strikes against the Iranian facility, are highly premature and are reminiscent of condemnable cowboy tactics used by our former president, G.W. Bush.

This argument is based solely on your desire to disagree and oppose, and as a lawyer you should be able to understand when "i.e." rather than "e.g." should be used. Unless of course you believe further efforts to persuade Iran, and/or their detonating a test nuke are also highly premature and reminiscent of W.

Not really a surprise that you find anything you might associate with W as condemnable, but you might want to acknowledge that W had the opportunity to launch a strike against Iran during his presidency and did not. That he had the opportunity to launch a strike against North Korea and did not and the two strikes he did launch (Afghanistan and Iraq) had the approval of a majority of congress and the US public. Perhaps they were still the acts of a cowboy but if so, the majority of our congress and population consisted of cowboys at the time.

In any case I didn't list "options" for a response to Iran's nuclear program, but three possibilities in connection to their program, and asked which was the most likely.

Personally, I would prefer that military action not be taken (either by us or the Israelis), but I don't believe that sufficiently harsh sanctions will be levied by the all the major powers to drive them to give up their quest, or that once they have their nukes, that we can contain their threat to the point that it is essentially non-existent.

It really doesn't matter whether or not there is support for an American military strike, because the Obama administration is not going to go down that road, but it also doesn't matter if there is opposition to an Israeli strike because one will be launched before Iran can either declare or demonstrate it has nukes.

0 Replies

@engineer,

What recent Iraeli history do you mean?

The 2006 invasion of Lebanon?

I suppose the Iranians would have shown greater reserve and not responded to terrorist attacks from the other side of their border. For that matter, what country with the capacity to deploy military power in a response would not have? The US? China? Venezuala? The UK?

Repressing a minority population or attempting to prevent terrorist attacks from within that population? We can probably debate this one all month. In any case are you suggesting that the Iranian regime's response to the recent protests over the national election, is the equivalent of Israeli's response to the Palestinian intifada?

Yes, they do have nuclear weapons. Your point? Do they provide these or any of their lesser weapons to international terrorist groups and groups that are killing Americans and Israelis?

You seem to share the belief that Israel, alone among all other nations on earth, should be a vassel state of the US. What other nation on earth do you find fault with for taking actions which it believes are within its soveriegn right to national security because they may cause "negative diplomatic issues for the US?"

Every nation spies on every other nation that has important information that can be of benefit to them. It may be unseemly, or ungrateful, but it hardly puts Israel in the same class as Iran.

Please provide examples of Israel screaming invective at us. Even something half as harsh as "Death to The Great Satan!'

Israel is by no means perfect, but to suggest that they are equivalent to Iran is unsupportable.

If their neighbors were not permitting and/or aiding anti-Israeli terrorist attacks there would be no overt hostile actions to defend against. Is Israel invading Eqypt? Jordan? Iraq? Saudi Arabia?

I don't know that Iran has chemical weapons, but am happy to assume they do. As terrible as chemical weapons are, they don't even approach nuclear weapons in terms of destructive power. Iran could never hope to wipe Israel off the map with chemical weapons alone, and Iranian chemical weapons cannot be used to bully other countries in the region.

I would like to believe Iran would never initiate a first strike against Israel, and if I had to bet, I would bet that they will not, but I don't live in Israel and I don't have to suffer the price for losing my bet.

You can lay off all the agressively anti-Israel rhetoric in Iran on their kooky little president, but he would not be repeatedly launching these rants if they were not approved by the Supreme Leader.

Since Iran has been only to happy to export their weaponry to groups who kill Americans and Israeli, forgive me if I don't trust them to, should the situation become extreme enough, hold the line at nukes.

I will give you this, Iran is far shrewder and more calculating that Saddam's Iraq ever was, but it is also a far more dangerous enemy than Iraq ever was. Their designs on the region are the same as were Saddam's, but they are far more capable and far more likely of succeeding.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Their is no native right to nukes, and there is every reason to prevent new members of the nuke club. That it is represented as a matter of fairness is insane.

Screw fairness, how about just some common sense?

Precisely my point. It is common sense for those nations who have nukes to prevent those that do not from obtaining them.

There is no right to prevent them from having nukes either, and in many cases simply no acceptable way to prevent it. If Iran really wants nukes they will have them and there's nothing reasonable that anyone can do about it to stop them.

It really doesn't matter whether or not there is a "right" to prevent a nation from obtaining nukes although self-defense is a generally accepted right of nations and could be invoked in any effort to prevent another nation from obtaining them - particularly a bordering nation.

What is an "acceptable" method of preventing Iran from obtaining nukes is a matter of opinion and subject to debate. There is not uniform or overwhelming agreement that a military strike doesn not constitute a reasonable attempt to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes. I appreciate the argument that it is unreasonable, but don't accept it as axiomatic.

If Iranian nukes are inevitable, and unstoppable then so too is nuclear proliferation around the globe, and so why are so many nations, including our own, involved in a pointless effort to prevent both?

Quote:
The world would be a safer place if no one had nukes. It would be a safer place if only the US had them. It would be a safer place if only the US, Russia and China had them. It would be a safer place if Pakistan and North Korea did not have them. It will be a safer place if Iran never gets them.

The world would also be a safer place as long as the powers that be continue to recognize that they can't really do anything about it.

If Iran wants nukes no matter what the cost, the only way to stop them is all out war with them. Such a war represents a greater threat to the world than Iran having nukes. It would likely kill as many people as the nuke boogeyman threat could and it just doesn't make sense to kill that many people just on the mere possibility that such a threat exists.

If Iran wants nukes they will have them, and there's nothing that Israel or the US can do to stop them. Quite frankly I think they'd be foolish not to develop nukes given the history of aggression from the nuclear club that want's to try to keep it exclusive and be the only ones threatening people with them.

The greatest threat to world peace is the US. As the most powerful military in history we have very little to loose when starting wars and not much to cause second thoughts. A nuclear deterrent is a no-brainier for folks like Iran and North Korea. We put nukes on the Korean peninsula first and it is foolish to expect nations to accept being threatened by nukes and not wanting to develop their own. They should and they will. They can't deter our aggression with conventional forces, and would spend a lot more money trying to do so, so it makes sense for them to develop a nuclear deterrent.

Not enough time to respond in full. I will return.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Precisely my point. It is common sense for those nations who have nukes to prevent those that do not from obtaining them.

I disagree. It's common sense for them to try. After all, it's a integral part of nuclear strategy to keep the others from having nukes.

But to say it's common sense to do so ignores that sometimes the costs will be greater than the payoff.

Quote:

It really doesn't matter whether or not there is a "right" to prevent a nation from obtaining nukes although self-defense is a generally accepted right of nations and could be invoked in any effort to prevent another nation from obtaining them - particularly a bordering nation.

This argument makes no sense. If it would be "self defense" for Israel to attack Iran for trying to make nukes, then it is just as much "self defense" for Iran to make nukes to deter Israeli attacks.

Your "self defense" has the constitution of taffy.

Quote:

What is an "acceptable" method of preventing Iran from obtaining nukes is a matter of opinion and subject to debate. There is not uniform or overwhelming agreement that a military strike doesn not constitute a reasonable attempt to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes. I appreciate the argument that it is unreasonable, but don't accept it as axiomatic.

It is an illegal aggression, of the type that justifies their pursuit of the deterrent. But morality and law aside, it's stupid because short of all-out war they can't prevent Iran from acquiring nukes. It can only strongly discourage them, but at the same time it can also strongly encourage them.

Quote:

If Iranian nukes are inevitable, and unstoppable then so too is nuclear proliferation around the globe, and so why are so many nations, including our own, involved in a pointless effort to prevent both?

Iranian nukes are only inevitable if they are determined to acquire them at all costs. It makes sense for the world to try to increase the costs but at the same time, it doesn't make sense to try to deter them at all costs.

And what I was arguing, is that the only way to completely guarantee that they don't build a nuke is to sign up to a cost that is not advisable, and recognition of our limitations in this regard is advisable.

Like engineer has already stated, we'll likely need carrots in addition to the stick.

1 Reply

What would it take to convince Israel to give up her nuclear weapons?

This would go a long way towards making the argument that there should be no nuclear weapons in the region.

1 Reply

Far safer for good guys to have nukes, bad guys - no way. That distinction seems to be unmentioned here, so thought it should be mentioned. You don't want madmen and despots with nukes. Israel is only defending itself, so having nukes are okay and very necessary to maintain peace in the region, thats my opinion.

2 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
Everybody should care anytime a madman has access to the button, especially when that madman has said that Israel should be wiped off the map.

Quote:
Engineer:
That statement about "wiping them off the face of the earth" is a mistranslation that has taken up a life of its own. What Amadinijhad said was that Israel would fade into the sands of time. The NY Times mistranslated that and Amadinijhad enjoyed the ensusing outrage so much that he didn't bother to correct them.

I've checked it carefully, Okie, and it was a mistranslation - the Iranian Jews (tens of thousands living there, nobody bothers them) wish the West would learn to hire competent interpreters with no personal agenda.

Another mistranslation, Nikita Kruchev said to have threatened us with "We will bury you" during a speech at the UN, had in fact said "We will attend your funeral", an expression in Russian. But I don't know if the New York Times was responsible for either of those.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Another mistranslation, Nikita Kruchev said to have threatened us with "We will bury you" during a speech at the UN, had in fact said "We will attend your funeral", an expression in Russian. But I don't know if the New York Times was responsible for either of those.

I actually recall it being "we will dig you in" for the "we will bury" you line.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Sorry, no fluency in Russian here - translation I quoted was from a German translation of the original phrase.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Quote:

"About the capitalist states, it doesn't depend on you whether or not we exist. If you don't like us. don't accept our invitations, and don't invite us to come to see you. Whether you like it or not. history is on our side. We will bury you!"

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,867329,00.html
Actually the translation "We will come to your funeral" sounds more logical than the standard one we've been seeing - and consistent with the whole tone of that speech. Any Russian-speakers here?

0 Replies

@okie,

Yes...only who the good guys are varies from mind to mind.

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

@okie,

British officials before the Balfour Declaration offered Jews to settle in Tanzania or Masdagascar instead of Palestine. They rejected it in favor of locating in a hostile Arab environment. They chose willingly to go to Palestine. It is like someone going into a burning building and complaining about being burnt.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

Talk, if the Jews were in Tanzania or Madagascar today, I don't think all would be peachy there either, there would be people trying to kill them and push them out, or eliminate them altogether.

1 Reply

@okie,

Africa has a history of tribal warfare that is how slavery got its supply. The captives were made slaves or killed. But the Arabs bought them so it was even better for the dominant African tribes to be paid for defeating their enemies. However, the Jews could more easily handle the African tribes than the Arabs. There were a lot of Jews in South Africa too. The South African DeBeers who owned the diamond mines are Jewish so they have the money to help the Jews there. With the Arab petro dollars rise of Islamic fundamentalism makes even tough for Palestinian Jews. However, there is a problem with the Jewish religion as it is an excluding religion. Even those Jews in America are at the risk of losing their Jewishness if the more radical rabbis in Israel had their way. They find every excuse to put down other Jews on the pretext you have suffered as we did. This exclusiveness is at the heart of the problem. By excluding everyone they end up being a pariah where they are not welcome anywhere except maybe in China where the Jews in Kaifang were absorbed into the Chinese culture.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

What would it take to convince Israel to give up her nuclear weapons?

This would go a long way towards making the argument that there should be no nuclear weapons in the region.

I believe a first step is to eliminate the anti-Semitism amongst the Arab countries. It might not be a bad idea to eliminate it from the popular culture (of the masses) of a few western nations, also. In my opinion, any weapons that Israel has, or does not have, is based on the historical reality that Jews have been quite dispensable in the eyes of the Gentile masses. So, asking Israel to give up any weapon they have, or do not have (or might want in the future), is really ignoring Israel's perceived need to protect itself in a world that has occasionally found Jews expendable.

Me entiende?

0 Replies

@talk72000,

talk72000 wrote:

Africa has a history of tribal warfare that is how slavery got its supply. The captives were made slaves or killed. But the Arabs bought them so it was even better for the dominant African tribes to be paid for defeating their enemies. However, the Jews could more easily handle the African tribes than the Arabs. There were a lot of Jews in South Africa too. The South African DeBeers who owned the diamond mines are Jewish so they have the money to help the Jews there. With the Arab petro dollars rise of Islamic fundamentalism makes even tough for Palestinian Jews. However, there is a problem with the Jewish religion as it is an excluding religion. Even those Jews in America are at the risk of losing their Jewishness if the more radical rabbis in Israel had their way. They find every excuse to put down other Jews on the pretext you have suffered as we did. This exclusiveness is at the heart of the problem. By excluding everyone they end up being a pariah where they are not welcome anywhere except maybe in China where the Jews in Kaifang were absorbed into the Chinese culture.

Usually when a company is owned by Jews, there is a reference to the family's religion. No such reference here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeBeers

Rhodes is not a Jewish family I thought. The mining is not Jewish owned; the distribution channels do have a Jewish presence, as it did going back to the early 20th century. It was Belgium Jews that were known to be in the diamond trade, until the Holocaust.

The thought that Judaism is "an excluding" religion is not correct, in my opinion, since it just does not proselytize, since there is no need to save souls as Christianity has the need. In effect, Judaism does not require anyone to be anything, other than a decent person, to have salvation whatever that may be. And apparently people have a problem with that. And, Christianity and Islam are then "excluding" religions, since one must be of those respective faiths to have salvation as each religion sees salvation.

If you meant Judaism is socially exclusive, that is also true with many other faiths, except for the occasional ecumenical luncheon/supper/dinner, I believe.

By the way, Jews also assimilated in India, not just China. And the reason was in both cultures there was no anti-Semitism, so Jews did not feel they needed to "circle the wagons," so to speak, to survive, in my opinion, and of what I read on the subject.

The "problem" you speak of might be that in the Jewish culture, I believe, there may be "standards" of who one should associate with. So, Jews tending towards valuing education might not give the impression that they want to socialize with every Gentile that may have a higher opinion of his/her intellect than what actual credentials would reflect. Or, it could be a class thing. I do believe the Jewish secular culture emphasizes class consciousness. Yes, I do believe many Jews are picky as to which Gentiles one should socialize with, or perhaps none; no different than upscale Gentiles.

Or, some Jews are quite exclusive, socializing only with other Jews. I have found similar ethnocentricity in many groups. Jews being of such small numbers really do not deserve such scrutiny. I think Gentiles might just be better at subscribing to a mass popular culture, so any differences are down played, as long as they enjoy the same things in the popular culture.

I am truly sorry if you might have observed a perceived snub. You are not expected to buddy up to every Jew you meet also.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Quote:

Sir Ernest Oppenheimer (22 May 1880 " 25 November 1957) was a diamond and gold mining entrepreneur financier and philanthropist, who controlled De Beers and founded the Anglo American Corporation of South Africa.

He was born in Friedberg, Germany, the son of Edward Oppenheimer, a cigar merchant. Oppenheimer began his working life at 17, when he entered Dunkelsbuhler & Company, a diamond brokerage in London. His efforts impressed his employer and in 1902, at the age of 22, he was sent to South Africa to represent the company as a buyer in Kimberley.

He died in Johannesburg in 1957. He was born Jewish but as an adult converted to Christianity and was buried at St George's Church, Parktown. He was succeeded in the business by his son Harry Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer's brother, Sir Bernard Oppenheimer, was also heavily involved in the diamond industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Oppenheimer

Quote:

De Beers Investments is the privately held, ownership company of De Beers Societe Anonyme (DBSA), and is registered in Luxembourg. It is made up of three shareholdings: Anglo American plc has a 45% shareholding, Central Holdings (the ]Oppenheimer family) has a 40% shareholding, and the Government of the Republic of Botswana owns 15% directly. De Beers Societe Anonyme (DBSA) is the management company of the De Beers group

Oppenheimer Family owns Anglo American and Central Holdings thus controlling 85% of deBeers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers

Judaism has two daughter religions Christianity and Islam. These two control two thirds of the world. Christianity controls the Americas, Europe and northern Asia (Russia) while Islam controls North Africa, Middle East, most of South East Asia - Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei. These are the areas Jews have trouble all of their own making. You would think the offspring would be part of the family but not in this case. Something is wrong with this religion. It borrowed heavily from the Zoroastrian religion such as cleanliness as evidenced in Leviticus, monotheism, good vs evil. Zoroastrianism was driven out of Iran. Judaism could suffer the same fate as it is a local variation of Zoroastrianism during Cyrus the Great time.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

talk72000 wrote:

Quote:
Sir Ernest Oppenheimer (22 May 1880 " 25 November 1957) was a diamond and gold mining entrepreneur financier and philanthropist, who controlled De Beers and founded the Anglo American Corporation of South Africa.

He was born in Friedberg, Germany, the son of Edward Oppenheimer, a cigar merchant. Oppenheimer began his working life at 17, when he entered Dunkelsbuhler & Company, a diamond brokerage in London. His efforts impressed his employer and in 1902, at the age of 22, he was sent to South Africa to represent the company as a buyer in Kimberley.

He died in Johannesburg in 1957. He was born Jewish but as an adult converted to Christianity and was buried at St George's Church, Parktown. He was succeeded in the business by his son Harry Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer's brother, Sir Bernard Oppenheimer, was also heavily involved in the diamond industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Oppenheimer

Quote:
De Beers Investments is the privately held, ownership company of De Beers Societe Anonyme (DBSA), and is registered in Luxembourg. It is made up of three shareholdings: Anglo American plc has a 45% shareholding, Central Holdings (the ]Oppenheimer family) has a 40% shareholding, and the Government of the Republic of Botswana owns 15% directly. De Beers Societe Anonyme (DBSA) is the management company of the De Beers group

Oppenheimer Family owns Anglo American and Central Holdings thus controlling 85% of deBeers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers

Judaism has two daughter religions Christianity and Islam. These two control two thirds of the world. Christianity controls the Americas, Europe and northern Asia (Russia) while Islam controls North Africa, Middle East, most of South East Asia - Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei. These are the areas Jews have trouble all of their own making. You would think the offspring would be part of the family but not in this case. Something is wrong with this religion. It borrowed heavily from the Zoroastrian religion such as cleanliness as evidenced in Leviticus, monotheism, good vs evil. Zoroastrianism was driven out of Iran. Judaism could suffer the same fate as it is a local variation of Zoroastrianism during Cyrus the Great time.

So Oppenheimer converted to Christianity, as you noted above, yet he is still part of that group that seems to be scrutinized in your analysis? So, what is Jewish, a religion or a people, in your mind? Either way, unless I am incorrect, you may have issues with Jews, Judaism and Jewishness. Sorry you have these concerns, since the small population of Jews in the world should be on anyone's back burner, so to speak, in my opinion. Enjoy your great insights. In my opinion, you neatly disregard all the hubris of the other two religions, in that they both believe they have the correct path to Salvation. Jews do not say they have the correct path to Salvation. Yet, you find fault with Jews? Also, Judaism does not criticize Christianity, nor Islam. Christianity and Islam both had/have comments on Jews and Judaim. I guess some do not consider it a virtue to mind one's own business, as Judaism does?

Needless to say, what I am saying is of no consequence, since majorities can say whatever they like, criticize whoever they choose, and who can prove them wrong? In a world of bullies, I think Jews played a minor role.

P.S. One should not claim that Christianity and Islam are "daughter" religions, since Judaism did not conceive them. Jews may have been involved in those early faiths, but Judaism does not claim them as one claims one's children. In my opinion, the phraseology implies a familial relationship between the three faiths; however, Judaism was really developed as a reaction to paganism, and was fully developed when along came Christianity and Islam. They are three separate faiths, and the relationship is where Christianity and Islam might have borrowed from Judaism, but without first asking. Like the Ten Commandments were just for the Hebrews, not the world, as Christianity says. Just go ask Moses. But, Jews do not mind that Christianity "borrowed" the Ten Commandments. But, please do not claim it was why Moses went up Mount Sinai. He had only concerns for the Hebrews, the world being much smaller in those days. As an analogy to what Jimmy Durante said in the 1950's, "Everyone wants to get into the act."

1 Reply

WHAT IS MOST LIKELY TO HAPPEN NEXT?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know