However, one route to a solutiuon would be for a leader of one sides to have the strength to say. We were bad people, we're going to stop being bad people, and we want to work with the others to stop this happening again.On the israeli side, it is certainly possibe for them to say that even though the settlements were not the route of the problem in the past (PLO founded 1964, predating the settler movement), they are certainly part of the problem now. Modern Germany is expanding influence and wealth eastward with no more unpleasant behaviour than selling overpriced cars. Agreed. A solution to the problem rests in economics. I lived in a settlement for two years and it was standard mantra there - an Arab without a job is an angry man. If national hope for the Pals means simply gaining territory so they can have a functioning economy, there cannot be much argument against that. Only its not always that clear.But back to the point about Iran Shimon Peres was laughed at when he wrote in his book that one day there would be a highway from Bagdhad to Tel Aviv. Now it's a much less crazy idea. Would arming Iran move us closer or further away from the dream of an economically unified Middle East?

Shimon Peres was laughed at when he wrote in his book that one day there would be a highway from Bagdhad to Tel Aviv."One day" might be a long time, but it might not, I wouldn't have laughed when he wrote it or now. Would arming Iran move us closer or further away from the dream of an economically unified Middle East? If Iran is more secure against attack, it may become less paranoid and more open, or it might get belligerent, hard to call.A nuclear Iran will cause the emerging Iraqi state to be fearful, and ironically this might mean that US protection in some form is rather more welcome.Iran is a very very long way from being able to destroy Israel's nukes. Since Israel knows about them, I assume over the next few years, its warheads wil be be better dispersed and in more hardened storage. I doubt even a good 2nd tier nuclear power like Britain or France could hit Israel so hard it couldn't hit back. Iran gets only patchy help from China, who is not exactly the A team in this game anyway.

"One day" might be a long timeWere you to feel peckish in Basra, you would now be able to pick up some Israeli produced pickles from the local supermarket. Peres is definetly no fool.Interestingly enough he opposed the 1982 attack on Iraq based on the fact it would drive the programme underground.

Peres is definetly no fool.Interestingly enough he opposed the 1982 attack on Iraq based on the fact it would drive the programme underground.Are those statement not contradictory ?Taking out the French built nuclear reactor was a feat of arms for which Israelis have good cause to be proud and grateful.The programme ended. I don't think anyone knows exactly who Saddam was going to nuke, but if I was an Israeli I'd have statues to those airmen built out of my own money. I don't know what you do for unknown Mossad agents, but that operation was as near perfect as any act of pre emptive defence can be.A program of that scale is very hard for a country like Iraq to adequately defend against an enemy like Israel if that enemy is prepared to play hardball.Going underground would have made it worse for Iraq, not Israel. Israel chose to use conventional weapons, and to prosecute the attack before the reactor was fuelled. I don't know if that was for humanitarian reasons, but it spared the lives af many Iraqis. Remember Chenobyl ? One often has the morals one can afford, and if Israel had felt the only way to take out Saddams nukes was to use its own, I would personally not want to bet my survival on their good will.The Isralis might have felt that the only sure way of stopping the program was to stop Saddam personally. This was always quite easy if you didn't care how many Iraqis died with him.Presumably he got that message, which is why he stopped.

from my understanding of his position at the time I believe he felt that the MAD doctrine would suffice in the Middle East - isn't that where you stand?He led Israel's nuke program, but once he had that he felt it was ok for others to get them too. I would be interested in his opinion on the Iran question. I saw a video clip of the bombing taken from inside one of the planes. It was a seriously tough mission, and I don't know if they took casualties or not.

from my understanding of his position at the time I believe he felt that the MAD doctrine would suffice in the Middle East - isn't that where you stand?Pretty much. I don't particularly like MAd, but it has a track record.But I'm not sure I follow his logic on other states getting nukes. Why would the leader of a country want hostile states to have ?I wonder if it was because he feared that those who came after him needed to be restrained ?

Jerusalem postFriday, August 27, 2004 0:25 IST With verbal tensions rising daily between Iran and Israel, Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee head Yuval Steinitz said the West should not expect "little Israel" to take pre-emptive action to save the world from Iranian nuclear weapons. It is the free world, led by the United States, that must stand behind its pledge not to let Iran get the bomb, Steinitz said. He warned that Iran aims at becoming a global nuclear power with long-range Shihab missiles that would put Europe and NATO forces in range. "This is a problem of the leaders of the civilized world. One shouldn't expect little Israel to solve a global problem like this," Steinitz said in an interview with The Jerusalem Post. "The United States itself has said that it won't hesitate to use any means at its disposal to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. If, God forbid, the free world, led by the United States, doesn't stand behind these words, then a dark curtain will descend on the world raising the possibility of nuclear terror against us and Europe and NATO," Steinitz said. "Iran is a totally irresponsible and unpredictable totalitarian regime that is ready to sacrifice millions of its people for its crazy ideology," Steinitz said. His comments came after a week of nearly daily warnings by Iran against Israel for staging a pre-emptive strike against its widespread nuclear infrastructure. The rhetoric came amid reports that the IAF and commandos have completed rehearsals for attacking Iranian nuclear sites such as the reactor in Bushehr. The reports said Israel would under no circumstances allow Iran to "go critical." After taking a back seat in the diplomatic war against Iranian nuclear endeavors, Israel has again become the loudest voice warning that Iran is trying to manufacture nuclear weapons in the guise of peaceful nuclear power industry. Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, who is visiting Paris this week, urged France, Germany, and Britain to intensify their pressure on Iran. The latest International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on its investigation into Iran's nuclear program is due to be released in the coming weeks. The White House is expecting a strong statement from the IAEA board and sanctions or nuclear weapons inspections may ensue. Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, who has issued daily threats against an Israeli strike, said Thursday in Manila that Iran is pushing for a nuclear-free Middle East. Earlier this month, Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani warned that Iran retains the option of pre-emptive strikes to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities. His warning was followed by a test of an improved version of its Shihab-3 missile, which is capable of hitting Israel. But Steinitz said Israelis have nothing to fear from the Shihab rockets... yet. While Israel is within the Shihab's 1,300-kilometer reach, Iran only has an arsenal of about two dozen, and they can only be armed with 700-kilogram conventional warheads. "The missiles are very inaccurate, and are completely ineffective against a military target or the nuclear reactor in Dimona," Steinitz said. "We shall intercept most of them with our Arrow missiles." Steinitz maintained that Iran is developing its Shihabs solely for the purpose of arming them with nuclear warheads. "Conventional wisdom says you don't develop a missile with a range greater than 1,000 km. for conventional warheads. This is one of the signs that they are aiming to achieve nuclear capacity in the future," Steinitz added. According to military intelligence, the Iranians are currently developing the Shihab 4 and 5, with ranges of 3,000 km. and 6,000 km., putting Europe under Iranian missile threat.

It is the free world, led by the United States, that must stand behind its pledge not to let Iran get the bomb, Steinitz said. The Russian and Israeli nuclear programs were heavily helped by Americans, accidentally, the idea that America is the best people to stop this is entertaining.He warned that Iran aims at becoming a global nuclear power with long-range Shihab missiles that would put Europe and NATO forces in range. And ?We've had Russian weapons pointing at us for 50 years. It is worth pointing out that Israel can far more easily use nukes against Europe, and its previous plans have included strikes against European Russia."The United States itself has said that it won't hesitate to use any means at its disposal to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.America does a dumb thing, so Israel proposes to base policy upon an error by the USA ?then a dark curtain will descend on the world raising the possibility of nuclear terror against us and Europe and NATO," Steinitz said. Yeah, well then we will have to stop pissing the Iranians around. I can live without that option, can Israel ?"Iran is a totally irresponsible and unpredictable totalitarian regime that is ready to sacrifice millions of its people for its crazy ideology," I'm not exactly a fan of Iran, but this is the soft of garbage that one has sadly come to expect from the crazies who run Israel.The only serious war that Iran has fought was when US backed Iraq attacked it. It has had many opportunities to sacrifice millions of people.It could have helped the Taliban, remember that Iran is close. It would have lost of course, and given the attitude of the USA we can aasume a lot of Iranians would have died. Thus the junk who ran Iran chose to abandon fellow American hating Moslems to the Americans.This speaks to me of rationality, uder fear.His comments came after a week of nearly daily warnings by Iran against Israel for staging a pre-emptive strike against its widespread nuclear infrastructure. If you threaten to bomb a state, it will threaten to bomb you. How hard is that to understand ?I'd really hate to be an Iranian or Israeli airman. Destroying the French reactor in Iraq was really dangerous, but at least their leaders didn't go on TV the day before to say they were coming. Both Israel and Iraq seem quite happy to sacrifice their people in order to look cool on TV.The rhetoric came amid reports that the IAF and commandos have completed rehearsals for attacking Iranian nuclear sites such as the reactor in Bushehr. The reports said Israel would under no circumstances allow Iran to "go critical." This is a bit of a contradiction. The Israeli nutter is saying that he will attack the Iranian madmen, but at the same time saying he can't.After taking a back seat in the diplomatic war against Iranian nuclear endeavors, Israel has again become the loudest voice warning that Iran is trying to manufacture nuclear weapons in the guise of peaceful nuclear power industry. I don't think anyone believes that Iran's nuclear power is "peaceful". I imagine a meeting where some spin doctor suggests "I've a really cool idea, let's pretend that although we have 15% of the world's oil, we need nuclear power. " His mates laugh, "they'll never swallow that".Do Iranians have spin doctors ?Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, who is visiting Paris this week, urged France, Germany, and Britain to intensify their pressure on Iran. Yeah, like Iran really listens to these countries. Again this is simply to make him look good on TV.Politically, no British leader could make any credible threat to anyone, anywhere at the moment.The French aren't going to help the USA, and presumably want to sell nuclear gear to Iran.Germany is one of the most pacifist nations in the world, and doesn't do threats anymore.Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, who has issued daily threats against an Israeli strike, said Thursday in Manila that Iran is pushing for a nuclear-free Middle East. Seems perfectly ration,al to try and scare the Israelis off. If I was a Moslem leader I'd either want everyone to have nukes, or no one.Won't happen of course.Earlier this month, Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani warned that Iran retains the option of pre-emptive strikes to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities.His warning was followed by a test of an improved version of its Shihab-3 missile, which is capable of hitting Israel. With what ?I don't think anyone thinks Iran has warheads, so dumping a few tons of high explosive randomly in Israeli is not really going to take it out.But Steinitz said Israelis have nothing to fear from the Shihab rockets... yet. The only reason I think Israelis have something to fear is this fuckwit says they're safe. "The missiles are very inaccurate, and are completely ineffective against a military target or the nuclear reactor in Dimona," Steinitz said. "We shall intercept most of them with our Arrow missiles." Yeah, that's bollocks. I don't doubt that most will miss, and I'm certain these will be called interceptions, but hitting missiles, even crap ones is really hard.Steinitz maintained that Iran is developing its Shihabs solely for the purpose of arming them with nuclear warheads. So, you have a nuclear power that you believe can hit you with missiles. So you threaten them with pre-emptive strikes.Smart move.I've said before that I'm pessimistic about the survival of Israel, this adds to my sadness."Conventional wisdom says you don't develop a missile with a range greater than 1,000 km. for conventional warheads. This is one of the signs that they are aiming to achieve nuclear capacity in the future," Steinitz added.This is a strange mistake for an Isralie leader to make. They seem to actively emulate the 3rd Reich, yet have missed this one.German V weapons were useful even when armed with conventional warheads. By 1944, the attrition rate of German bombers was so high that it became rational to switch from "use many" delivery vehicles, to "use once". Simple economics.The V2 was almost unstoppable, rather like ballistic missiles today.Iran has the same issues. A strike by its airforce against Israel would suffer very heavy losses, whether against the land of Israel, or agaisnt Israeli forces operating outside its borders. Thus there is a sound operational doctrine for conventional long range weapons.I would add that being close to Iraq, where the USA and Britain made heavy use of long range conventional warheads, makes them even more attractive to Iran.It's scary that the Israeli defence minister doesn't know all this shit.According to military intelligence, the Iranians are currently developing the Shihab 4 and 5, with ranges of 3,000 km. and 6,000 km., putting Europe under Iranian missile threat.They've been able to kill Europeans for 20 years. Ballistic missiles leave no doubt as to their source, any such use would mean there was no Iran the next day.

Sadly, enougth as an Israeli I tend to agree with Dominic that strong statements done by Israeili politicians have the only goal to look "cool" on TV. In any case these idiots are not the ones that will do the real job, algthougth it is not the best motivation for the soldjer who risks his life to see such shitheads on TV. Despites these idiots Israel has much more chances to survive than Europe. Consider it "active evolution". The situation in Israel is turbulent, and people who know about real fight (not from movies) can come to power and to take risks of non-standard actions. In Europe the pussiest liberal politician is the hero of the day. Europe (excluding Britain) simply spread its legs during second world war. They were spared from Stalin's invasion only by luck. Most likely scenario in a 50 years from now there are will be no traditional Europe, the cities will remain where they are but population will be mostly muslim. There is no point for Iran to have its missles directed toward western Europe. Most likely it will have missles directed from Paris for example towards Russia.

Europe (excluding Britain) simply spread its legs during second world war. They were spared from Stalin's invasion only by luck. Most likely scenario in a 50 years from now there are will be no traditional Europe, the cities will remain where they are but population will be mostly muslim. There is no point If you're gonna Troll - at least keep it believable.

but population will be mostly muslimIs that because everyone will have converted?

QuoteOriginally posted by: linuxuser99Europe (excluding Britain) simply spread its legs during second world war. They were spared from Stalin's invasion only by luck. Most likely scenario in a 50 years from now there are will be no traditional Europe, the cities will remain where they are but population will be mostly muslim. There is no point If you're gonna Troll - at least keep it believable.Ok there is poetic exxageration in what I am saying, but the point is clear.

QuoteOriginally posted by: brontosaurusbut population will be mostly muslimIs that because everyone will have converted?I am too tired for today to do real math, just try to estimate the birth rate in muslims families and compare it with corresponding birth rate in average european family, add to this flux of immigrants to Europe.

I had to rewrite this post twice because it was so hard not to sound tragically anti semitic when an Israeli says things so amazingly dumb.My test for the bigotry of a statement is to change the nouns, and see if it sounds bad.If I were to say that I feared rising Jewish birthrates causing Jews to take over Europe, would you call that anti semitism ?I might well think that mysel .So why isn't it bigotry for you to say that about Moslems, since it is equally unlikely ?There are lots of actors to make your statement silly Fact :Islam is not a genetic condition, just because you have N Moslems today, their children may not be.Many Moslem leaders are deeply unhappy about the number of their people who drift off.Some Moslems convert to Christianity.Few people convert to Islam, this may change, but lots of factors push this way.Mortality rates of Moslems are notably higher than the general population, and in Britain the shorter life expectancy pf people with this type of background actually has specific government health funding to try and fix.European Moslems are poorer than the average where they live, and often come from places with crap education systems. It is well documented that such people have more kids and are more religious. My parents came to England and had 6 kids. The idea that we're taking over Britain would be treated by laughter, same applies to Moslems. This pattern is observed across many races and religions.A ghastly combination of political correctness and racism has meant that some Moslem groups have taken longer to mean revert in terms of wealth and education than the average for newcomers. However it is happening, just not as fast as we would like.As Moslems become richer and their kids do well at school they will become more European, and thus their faith will become less of an issue. Many will marry non Moslems. Again this is a standard pattern, first generation immigrants often marry "their own kind", but their kids find such a prospect gruesome. MY parents, aided by some relatives tried to get me paired off with one of my own kind. No one enjoyed that process, one day I'll write it up as a book, will be a black comedy Most immigrant groups try to "own" their daughters. Never works. First, the sexual oppression makes the boys seek out more pliable girls from outside their group, and after a while the girls rebel or escape. Islam is no different from primitive Christian communities, the more it tries to impose its morality, the faster people will try to escape it. Catholic Irish poeple in America had high birth rates, and suffered oppression of kinds that often caused them to band together. Lasted a while, but now the "Irish Americans" are little more than a laughable parody of my race.Actually when I said "never works", I lied.It works, like for the Amish in the USA. They retained their identity at the price of remaining so small people don't even bother to persecute them, and think they're "cute". I imagine that some Moslem clerics would be deeply horrified if they saw a future like the American Amish communities.Even then, there are a lot of compromises.

Most of the ancient nations dissappeared without a trace not because they were wiped out by stronger enemies. What happened is that their culture dissappeared because more primitive, and therefore tougther and stable roomates settled to live in the same place. QuoteOriginally posted by: DCFCI had to rewrite this post twice because it was so hard not to sound tragically anti semitic when an Israeli says things so amazingly dumb. You do sound stupidly anti semitic, but I personally don't care, as soon as it continues to be entertaining enougth.