Israel Dismisses Warnings From US About Attacking Iran
By Jeremy Herb - 02/22/12 12:39 PM ET
Israel’s foreign minister on Wednesday said it's not the business of the United States whether his country decides to attack Iran.
Foreign Minister Avigor Lieberman said that warnings from the United States and Russia about an attack would not affect Israel’s decision-making.
“[It] is not their business,” Lieberman said in an interview with an Israeli TV station Wednesday, according to The Associated Press.
“The security of the citizens of Israel, the future of the state of Israel, this is the Israeli government’s responsibility,” he said.
MORE...
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/212021-israeli-fm-decision-to-attack-iran-not-business-of-us
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
mattvermont
(646 posts)our money? I think we should cease all military aid, as they can take care of it themselves.
truth2power
(8,219 posts)that takes Billions of $$ in aid from us every year.
Hey, Avigor...Why don't you look up 'chutzpa' in your dictionary???
bloomington-lib
(946 posts)
Lars77
(3,032 posts)flexnor
(392 posts)we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)Stuff has come out of his mouth in the last 2 decades that would make Pol Pot blush.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)
Autumn
(45,056 posts)who does he think helps them out? If it's none of our business then why do we give the military aid? I'm all for saying what they do is none of our business as long as we can quit helping them out.
lark
(23,091 posts)We give them all the airplanes & military might they can stand. Fine, you think it's none of our business, then don't use our planes, bombs, etc. Also, he knows very damn well that if Israel get into this war, they will come running to us begging for more weapons and will want us to bail them out of their stupid illbegotten mess.
I wish American pols would be brave enough to say "FU" to the zionists and let them be bear the brunt their own hubris, but NO, that will never happen. We'll get dragged into the melee and end up paying for the entire misadventure. That's why they'll do it.
flexnor
(392 posts)we should cut off military and financial aid, immediately and permanently
flexnor
(392 posts)again, and again, and again
flexnor
(392 posts)boy, when he left the party, he really left the party
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)flexnor
(392 posts)always thought he looked and sounded like snagglepus
wish he would exit stage right, even
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)Jon Stewart does an excellent job of the Droopy Dog rendition. Sounds just fucking like him.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Anybody here write for Wikipedia?
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)'cause it wooshed juuuuust a teensy bit overhead.
flexnor
(392 posts)it was strongsly believed that such a thing could lead to an all out nuclear exchange, world war 3, with life as we knew it changed
while the risk has been lowered, the perception has been lowered far more than the reality
and one of these times.....
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Not only has the risk been lowered exponentially, but the perception is actually far, far, higher than the actual likelihood.
Unfortunately, 90% of the WW3 fearmongering is solely to keep the people afraid, and not just in America, either.
Do people honestly think that Moscow would be foolish enough to gamble with the lives of 160 million people over a nation that doesn't even really respect them?
The neo-cons would love us to believe that WW3 is inevitable, but it isn't. In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. If you may be old enough, btw, do you remember Yom Kippur? Israel was in serious trouble from invasion and even the Soviets under Brezhnev weren't willing to risk WW3.
I don't doubt that a regional war could wreak much geopolitical and economic havoc, and it can also be said that nuclear terrorism is a very real possibility....but WW3? I'm sorry, but no.
flexnor
(392 posts)'Do people honestly think that Moscow would be foolish enough to gamble with the lives of 160 million people over a nation that doesn't even really respect them? '
that's a very simpliistic statement - you're refering to the rationality of 'mutually assuring destruction' or MAD. The devil in the details of that strategy is 'launch on warning', which heads down the slippery slope of 'if you think their missiles are coming, you've got to get your's in the air before they hit - or even if you think THEY think you're going to hit them, then they're going to hit you, and you have to hit them before they do it' and just a couple of minutes to figure this all out, with a primative network of computers and sensors prone to false warnings (which happened in able archer 83, a LT col on the russian side sacrificed his career to override a false warning, not eveyone would do that)
If you're ever in Tucson, AZ, stop in and see this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_Missile_Museum
and come back and tell me that is was just a 9 megaton bogyman
or this one if you're near rapid city, sd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuteman_Missile_National_Historic_Site
(havent seen the latter one)
or watch this movie on google video 'countdown to looking glass'
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8786950669565492785
1984 movie about a nuclear war with Iran, in the straits of hormuz, the setting is like watching it in your home on CNN (a different fricticious network). Has none other than eric severide and newt gingrich in the story AS THEMSELVES
the above is fiction, but able archer 83 was not. it was a nato exercise that the russians, paranoid from reagan's 'evil empire' speech earlier that year thought was cover for the real thing
wikipedia entry able archer 83
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83
2 months before able archer 83, 'the day after' aired on ABC national TV, key part, nuclear war in kansas city - the scene opens with missiles being visible over a lawrence kansas football game
from http://hnn.us/articles/58928.html
"Reagan watched a videotape of ABC’s 1983 television movie, The Day After, and recorded in his diary that the production was “very effective & left me greatly depressed.” The Day After, which depicted a nuclear attack on Lawrence, Kansas, showed the horrible suffering of American victims of radiation. At the time of its release, Reagan worried that the TV film’s popularity might embolden the “anti-nukes,” but in the longer run The Day After seems to have impressed him with the importance of reversing a dangerous course in the cold war. During his second term, Reagan became less attentive to the advice of hawks and more receptive to advisers who recommended arms agreements with the Soviets. The Day After is one among many factors that may have inspired Reagan’s evolution from a cold warrior to a more open-minded negotiator"
that's my arguement that the threat was real. your arguement that is was fake is based on.......what?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Some very interesting stuff here, it can be admitted, but I have to be honest and say that it doesn't really disprove my point.
There was indeed a very real possibility of atomic war in 1983 and '84; tensions were at the highest they'd ever been since the Cuban Missile Crisis and Europe was at the very center, with NATO on one side and the Warsaw Pact on the other, all with thousands of nukes ready to launch perhaps literally at a moment's notice. The Cold War, however, came to a close in 1991, and other than perhaps the Black Brant incident in Jan. 1995, we haven't even come remotely close to nuclear war since. And I should also mention that CtoLG largely revolved around Saudi Arabia and Oman for a flashpoint, not Iran, and Central Europe for The Day After(granted, though, the BBC's Threads did use the bombing of Mashhad as one of the several flashpoints).
So, you certainly are right on one thing: atomic war between Russia and the U.S. was a very real thing just over 20 years ago, and particularly in the '80s and during the Cuban Crisis, and thankfully Reagan came to his senses after watching TDA(which, IMO, is one of the most important films of the late 20th Century). However, though, we haven't had to really worry about it since then, apart from the occasional fearmongering(particularly from neo-cons).
If there is one thing we can be legitimately concerned about, it would be nuclear terrorism, since many bombs have gone missing since 1991. And the threat might not just come from foreign terrorists, either.........
(P.S., frankly, I doubt Iran would be able to attack the U.S. directly anyway. They simply don't have the tech to build any ICBMs yet, and I think there'll be a revolution before they can get to that stage.)
flexnor
(392 posts)and that we are far better off with containment, as they are already contained by overwhelming odds no matter what they aquire, israel has about 200 nukes
but i think we get too complacent about the cold war being over, russia still has a lot of nukes, and has alliances in the middle east - i think it's as dangerous to assume that they could never return to cold war status, as it was to assume back then they could never return to being a semi-ally like they were in wwii
world wars tend to be about the alliances that get sucked in, not the primary parties
wwi being the stupidest thing, an assasination of the archduke of austria, something nobody should have cared about, but a powderkeg was already in place
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)1.)The Archduke was a relatively important character and not hated by many like Ahmadinejad is(in fact, probably the opposite)!
2.)World War I definitely was about the alliances, mostly, that is true. But I beg to differ re: WWII, as many recognized Hitler as a completely out-of-control madman who desired to eventually bring all of Europe under the heel of Nazi Germany, and only those nations who really sympathized with them dared even support the alliance(Finland may be an exception to that rule, however, as not many fascists existed there at that tim but many non-socialist Finns feared Stalin).
3.)There may eventually be a semi-Cold War of sorts, but it will likely be against China and will be more economic than military.
4.)Obama has already shown serious reluctance to get dragged into yet another war. What makes people assume that Moscow will get involved to protect a country which not only doesn't respect them(Iran, of course) but has assisted terrorists in Russia's southwest?
We can both agree that Iran poses no direct threat to the U.S.; it does not mean, however, that Iran isn't a threat period.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)we got it. Thirty million died.
Those who don't learn from history multiply the body-count.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)We've all learned from MAD, particularly us and the Russians. Again, who really believes that Moscow would be willing to sacrifice 160 million Russians? Not I. You have to realize that WWI, and the hypothetical WW3 are an entirely different ball game no matter what the neo-cons say otherwise. They're trying to convince us that the Russians will do anything for Iran even though that country has been caught fomenting terrorism in that country's southwest over and over again. It not only reminds of Bush's 'Axis of Evil' speech but also some of the Cold War propaganda of old(although MAD was a very real possibility up until the end of the '80s).
Nobody wants another Middle East war, but don't you see? This WW3 fearmongering some of us seem to have bought into not only doesn't help our cause but actually harms it because it makes us look like a bunch of paranoid crazies.
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
Post removed
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)flexnor
(392 posts)i want to use that, i almost crushed it with my finger, untill i realied it scrolled
flexnor
(392 posts)and it doesnt need to, when they can just pull strings via AIPAC
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
mainer
(12,022 posts)Let them deal with the consequences of their own actions. As Israel says, it's not our business.
flexnor
(392 posts)
jpak
(41,757 posts)n/t
Centrik
(26 posts)Popcorn, and Nachos! Who'll bring the beer?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Will you be celebrating the deaths of the Jews or the Muslims?
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)We asked them to appear to be acting on their own, against our "disapproval"
Probably they'll be dropping US-designed bunker buster bombs
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,338 posts)When they drop the U.S. made bombs, it'll be on targets identified (in part) by U.S. satellite surveillance.
edit to remove a smartass (and factually wrong) comment about FDR and neutrality.
Gringostan
(127 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)NOBODY in that region wants Iran to get nukes. They'll be lining up to let the Israeli's use their air space. Why do you think you haven't heard boo from any of the countrys in the region?
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Last edited Thu Feb 23, 2012, 04:20 PM - Edit history (1)
the IAF to use their airspace to attack Iran. No doubt some prominent officials within regional governments might privately think it to themselves, But since neither Israel or the United States have non-nuclear weapons capable of penetrating Iran's more advanced undeground bunkers - the point is almost moot.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Just turn their backs (which they will do). I think you meant moot.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)That'll be the easiest thing to navigate. As I already stated, nobody in the region wants Iran to have nukes and they'll be thrilled if Israel takes care of it for them.
Gringostan
(127 posts)I think you have to look at the logistics; in order to attach Iran you will need to send multiple fighter/bomber sorties as there are more then one target. Targets in Iran are going to be outside of fighter range, so you will need KC tankers for refueling. The tankers would need fighter cover as they would be in potentially hostile airspace. Finally, there is the Iranian missile defense systems going in country and going out. No Arab country could give consent on the sly or claim ignorance after the fact.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)On the contrary - there is a very good reason you don't hear any other Arab country taking up for Iran and they most certainly will turn the other way while the US or Israel goes after Iran (which I think would be a bad idea for different reasons) - I'm not sure if it's only the Sunni/Shia thing but that is certainly a part of it.
I'm a weapons moron so I have to ask - does it have to come from the air? Don't we have ICBM's that can be shot from ships?
Gringostan
(127 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)
NickB79
(19,233 posts)And the US is under no obligation to defend Iraqi airspace.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)
Haaretz: The futility of attacking Iran By Reuven Pedatzur
Published 03:42 09.02.12
Senior American defense officials told The Wall Street Journal that even the largest bomb in the hands of the American military, the one known as the "bunker buster", is not able to penetrate and destroy those of the Iranian nuclear installations that are buried deep underground. Panetta admitted that the Americans do not possess the means of penetrating facilities like the underground uranium enrichment plant at Fordow, near Qum. This is where the problem lies. Some of the nuclear facilities in Iran, especially those that are critical for the continuation of its nuclear program activities, are located deep below the surface and protected by reinforced concrete fortifications. This makes the task of destroying them almost completely impossible. In Israel, those involved have ignored the limitations of these bombs that are supposed to annihilate the nuclear sites; but ignoring this will not solve the operational problem that those planning the attack will have to deal with.
If Israeli Air Force planes succeed in reaching the targets and in dropping bombs on them with great accuracy, but they are nevertheless not destroyed, this would pose questions about the justification of a military operation. If those critical sites are not annihilated, the Iranian nuclear program will be postponed only for a relatively short period.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-futility-of-attacking-iran-1.411840
.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Still they can cause some real damage. Their ability to hit the Gulf States especially Kuwait is very strong and their ability to inflict damage is very real. But whoever they hit - it will almost certainly drag the U.S. into the conflict - What happens next is unpredictable and extremely dangerous
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Any nuclear bombs going off in the Middle East, might just crash the world's economy all over again, and not only that, but we could see terrorism on a scale not seen since the Cold War era......and perhaps one or a few of these attacks might just be atomic in nature.....very dangerous indeed. =(
Democrat18
(28 posts)It is none of our business. But it's also none of our business to give his regime a penny of American money.
