Halutz: A nuclear Iran is a threat to the free world

[Behind the Aegis]

Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Dan Halutz told Army Radio on Wednesday that a nuclear Iran is a "threat not only to Israel, but to the entire free, democratic world."

Halutz's comments come one day after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that his country has successfully enriched uranium for the first time. In a television broadcast, Ahmadinejad said Iran did not plan to develop nuclear weapons and asked the West not to try to force Iran to abandon uranium enrichment.

"I suggest not going too far, not to look for Israeli responses or to propose them," Halutz said regarding recent reports on the possibility of military action in Iran. "I'm not sure whether Israel will top the list of Iranian targets. Everything in due time. The Iranians are still not there. It will take time until they have a nuclear ability and time is there for dialogue to stop the program," Halutz said.

Israeli security sources described Ahmadinejad's announcement as a "major step forward" for Tehran. Nonetheless, it does not mean Iran is immediately capable of producing enough fuel to run a reactor or develop the material needed for a nuclear warhead. Uranium enrichment can produce either, but it must be carried out on a much larger scale, using thousands of centrifuges. Iran succeeded in enriching uranium to a level needed for fuel on a research scale - using 164 centrifuges, officials said.


more...

[Oversea Visitor]

1. Haha

Who is Isreal trying to con :rofl:

Only a mad country use nuclear to fight war

Iran no threat to anyone
Not even Isreal
Sigh
This Palestine problems aaaargh
Driving world nuts
Gee its is a localised problems
With every country making comments

Maybe Isreal and Palestine should just fight it out until only 1 left
Maybe then world more peaceful.

Anyway what the hell is Iran going to do with a few hundreds nukes :rofl:
US has 10,000 nukes :rofl:
What a waste of money geeee.

[Behind the Aegis]

2. Didn't bother to read the article, did ya?

:rofl:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

5. I did. To what specifically are you referring?

[Behind the Aegis]

34. Did you see me refer to something? I was addressing another poster.

Who claims s/he read the piece. I guess I should have asked if it was understood.

[Oversea Visitor]

6. Yup

:rofl:
So he say Iran a threat to world world
So he say maybe use diplomatic means
So he say still got time to stop programme
So he say many things

BUT IMPORTANT
Isreal fucking scare shit of Iran with nukes

In simple terms Isreal will do a lot to stop Iran having nukes

Poor Isreal but it got big brother US :rofl:

Hell..... some fuckers slove world problems after W2 and chuck all jews there.
Nice solution but no CIGARS
We still suffering from it
How the hell it become a world threatening issue.....

And please anti jews comes from Europe ( Specific Hilter)
Guess all this anti jews feeling never went away
What a can of worms

But Muslim dont like Isreal cause of unfair treatment to Palestine
No blind hate here
If Palestine issue resolve ( Which I think it need another 100 years )
I think muslims wont care after that about the fact they are jews
Being jews got nothing to do about this presence problem.

[Behind the Aegis]

35. Your post is barely coherent.

So he say Iran a threat to world world
So he say maybe use diplomatic means
So he say still got time to stop programme
So he say many things

BUT IMPORTANT
Isreal fucking scare shit of Iran with nukes

In simple terms Isreal will do a lot to stop Iran having nukes

Besides all the grammatical errors and a few typographical ones, this "train of thought" makes little sense. We all make grammar errors and such, but most of your post makes little sense.

Hell..... some fuckers slove world problems after W2 and chuck all jews there.
Nice solution but no CIGARS
We still suffering from it
How the hell it become a world threatening issue.....

First of all, not all Jews were "chucked" into Israel. Second, while much of the world is still suffering from it, why is the blame placed on Israel and not those who created it, namely the UK and the UN? Finally, your last question, if you don't know that, then you really should refrain from commenting on the topic!

And please anti jews comes from Europe ( Specific Hilter)
Guess all this anti jews feeling never went away
What a can of worms

This is one of the most non-sensical parts of your post. Do a search on the Grand Mufti, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini. You will soon discover that "anti-Jews" were not limited to Europe, or even originated there.

But Muslim dont like Isreal cause of unfair treatment to Palestine
No blind hate here
If Palestine issue resolve ( Which I think it need another 100 years )
I think muslims wont care after that about the fact they are jews
Being jews got nothing to do about this presence problem.

Now this is where I can say: :rofl:!!!! If that is what you really think, then you know very little of the conflict in the Middle East!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

3. "Only a mad country use nuclear to fight war"

Have you ever actually heard Ahmadinejad speak?

[Oversea Visitor]

4. Haha

What is so surprising
All muslims hate Isreal
There are more palestinian killed by Isrealies than Isrealies kill by palestinains
And yet after all that .......

Even peace activities get kill there for no good reason

After all what is the problems about
LAND
HOMELAND
........... so who is the rightful owner
Does it means a bunch of powerful people has the right to come into your house and say its their and assign you to a ten feet space in your backyard.

Next question?
When would you stop trying to take back your home?

OK this one messy problem.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

9. Don't try to turn this into an I/P thread.

This is an extremely interesting article about Israel taking a moderate line on Iran. Don't get this thrown into the dungeon.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

7. Have you ever heard Herr Busch speak? Which one is more....

...of a threat to use nuclear weapons, Herr Busch or Ahmadinejad, and already has them?

What other countries in the Middle East have nuclear weapons, and could use them at the drop of a hat? Hmmm. Let's see...Israel, right?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

8. They're both equally fucking nuts.

And furthermore Israel isn't threatening to wipe Iran from the face of the earth.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

29. Sounds like you've swallowed the NeoCon Koolaid...

...doesn't it strike you as more than a bit odd that the NeoCons try to demonize every foreign leader of every country they want to attack?

I know Herr Busch is way past nuts, but I have no personal observations of the Iranian leader other than what we're being told my the MSM. Somehow, I'm no longer convinced by anything they report.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

37. Koolaid?

Suggesting that Bush is a religiously insane whack-job is neoconservative propoganda? Geez, I go on vacation for one week and everything goes to hell...

I have no personal observations of the Iranian leader other than what we're being told my the MSM.

You should try listening to him, watching him, and reading the statements his government puts out. It ain't a pretty picture.

[Behind the Aegis]

38. You like Red or Orange?

The reason you are accused of being a "Kool-Aid" drinker is because you don't march in lock-step with the "correct truth." :eyes:

I honestly think some think the only real nut-jobs are American or friendly to Americans. They fail to see that nuttiness knows no boundaries, much like bigotry.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

39. Yeah, here's the thing.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for reasonable people to disagree about the correct course of action in Iran. Especially when one takes into consideration that the course of action will be implemented with abject incompetence by the current US administration. But what drives me nuts is progressives who believe that it's just dandy for Iran to have nuclear weapons. There's just no reading of Iran's history that could possibly make me feel warm and fuzzy about this development. Yes, yes, it's hypocritical to pick and choose which states get to have nukes. It isn't a great situation. But nature is messy, and a nuclear armed Iran is a much worse problem than a hypocritical foreign policy.

[Behind the Aegis]

42. I would say I discovered your issue, but you know what it is.

You said: "But what drives me nuts is progressives who believe that it's just dandy for Iran to have nuclear weapons. In your statement, you italicized "progressives." You understand that the world is complex. You understand that the world is not "black and white, but several shades of gray," as well. See, that thought process doesn't 'jive' with many who proclaim to be "progressive." See, they are just as guilty as the "other" side of seeing only "right or wrong." They are just as guilty of saying "you are with us or against us,' and not seeing the irony in their actions and statements.

Don't sweat it.

What I always find amazing is that the "left" and self-proclaimed "progressives" also believe that bigotry doesn't exist on our side and anyone who points it out, well, they must be a "troll, bigot, disruptor," or in special cases, "an agent for the Mossad."

I would be thrilled to hear that all nukes were no longer in existence, but that isn't going to happen. While we have countries that currently have nukes, there is nothing to say that further down the line that a despotic ruler won't come to power who is willing to use them. We have so many now, why continue to take the risk? If the US had no nukes, would people really accept the current administration trying to pursue creating them? I am guessing not. So, why are some so willing to let a government, not too different from our own, from doing the same thing?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

23. I don't think so...

I don't think Israel would use nukes at the drop of a hat. I don't think they're that stupid OR insane. Now Bush, on the other hand... I'm starting to worry. That last speech he gave at Johns Hopkins makes me wonder exactly what's going on inside the man's head.

[StrafingMoose]

16. I did

And let me tell you that the guy always says the exact thing the US-UK axis and Israel need to be said to justify their warmongering.

That said, Iran sells so much oil to the West that it wouldn't surprise me one bit that they had a hand in getting this nutjob in power.

[bdamomma]

17. bush is not a well man either

who is to say that the president of Iran is lying, why is it that everyone else can have nuclear power but not Iran, these people have not come close to making a nuclear bomb. Again, bush is obsessed with oil, again.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

22. I don't trust the religiously insane.

Believe me, the though of that Jesus freak Bush's finger on the button makes me shudder.

Everyone else can have nuclear power except Iran because Iran hid its nuclear program from the IAEA and then destroyed or hid a bunch of it before letting the inspectors in. And because it's run by a religiously insane cabal of hateful lunatics. No rational person should trust Bush OR Iran.

[daleo]

28. India hid its program too

As did Pakistan. I don't recall Israel trumpeting their nuclear development either. Or the Soviet Union. Or China.

"Everyone else can have nuclear power except Iran because Iran hid its nuclear program from the IAEA and then destroyed or hid a bunch of it before letting the inspectors in."

Change the letter "n" to the letter "q" in one strategic place, and you have exactly what was said about Saddam.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

36. The difference being...

...that with Iran it's actually true, and the IAEA confirms it.

[Odin2005]

10. WTF? Who still used the term "Free World"?

That term became irrelavent when the USSR collapsed.

[Behind the Aegis]

33. Yet, oddly, it is still applicable.

[daleo]

11. Nuclear Soviet Union was a threat to the free world

A nuclear Red China was a threat to the free world.
A nuclear North Korea is a threat to the free world.
I suppose a nuclear Pakistan could be a threat to the free world.
Same for a nuclear India.

I guess we just have to hope MAD keeps working. The alternative (bombing and invading every country that the west doesn't like or trust) won't work for long.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

12. OK, but there's a difference here.

Do you really think Israel would tolerate a nuke-armed Iran? I can't see any reality in which they would. They'd do everything in their power to stop it. And if Israel attacks Iran we may very well have WWIII on our hands, MAD or no. Hell, we may get it anyway if the US attacks. But face it, one way or another Iran is going to be prevented from acquiring nukes. I just hope the cooler heads prevail, but I have seen little evidence of that happening, regardless of the tone of this article.

[magellan]

13. In that case, why does Israel tolerate a nuclear-armed Pakistan?

Seems to me the same ideology in both Iran and Pakistan are threats to Israel, and the "threat level" is a matter of very small degrees.

If Israel attacks Iran it would be just as insane Bush** doing it, but it would be on Israel's head. I don't want my country involved in instigating WWIII.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

20. Because Pakistan isn't gunning for the destruction of Israel.

And it isn't just the ideology either, though I contest your assertion that the ideology of the islamists in pakistan is the same as those in Iran. It's the ability to implement their vision.

[magellan]

24. It isn't right now

Would you argue there's an element in Pakistan that is as hostile to Israel as the element in Iran, and is seeking to take control of that country?

How is the ideology different there to Iran? All radical Islamists share the same essential view of Israel.

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. According to your description, it is Israel that's a threat to the world

? :shrug:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

19. It takes two to tango.

But I could hardly blame Israel for being a bit worried about the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a country that holds the destruction of Israel as one of its most cherished goals

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. It does indeed take two to tango...

...

[Phx_Dem]

27. Yea, and western Europe also

People don't seem to realize that the issue is not just whether Iran should have nukes, but that a country like Iran would be in possession of highly refined uranium (U-235). Anybody want to make odds on whether Iran would keep their store of U-235 safe?

[daleo]

26. I think they will eventually tolerate a nuclear armed Iran

I don't think they will have much choice.

I can't seem them doing a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran. There is an excellent chance Pakistan would retaliate, since it too is an Islamic nation. I have read Pakistan has enough nukes to do grievous harm to Israel, although Israel has enough nukes to do grievous harm in retaliation. Short of a nuclear strike, I don't think Israel can project enough power to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons technology.

So, I think MAD would prevail in the middle east, as it has in the past on a global scale.

I simply don't believe Iran would commit nuclear murder/suicide against Israel if it developed the weaponry. Nobody is that fanatical. Hitler was different - he had nothing to fear from Jews, as they were stateless and powerless in the 1940's. That is no longer the case, so I just don't think the Holocaust is a good historical analogy (I know you haven't used it, but it is often brought into the the debate).

A U.S. strike against Iran is more likely, but even that seems problematical now. The U.S. military is stretched pretty thin, and the other great powers (e.g. Russia and China) may not be willing to appease the U.S. much longer. They want access to Iranian oil too.

So I see a stalemate, although there is always the possibility of a WWI type diplomatic/military miscalculation on somebody's part. That would be an all around disaster.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

41. Like I said, WWIII.

If Israel hits Iran it very well could start World War III. If your Pakistan scenario plays out, India will most likely attack Pakistan. Ka-blammo.

Short of a nuclear strike, I don't think Israel can project enough power to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons technology.

I wasn't suggesting that Israel would use nukes against Iran. If they did, then we can really kiss the world goodbye. But the IDF has shown itself to be one of the most creative military outfits in the world. They might not be able to obliterate all of Iran's nuclear facilities, but I'd wager they could do enough damage to make rebuilding the program prohibitively time-consuming and expensive.

[daleo]

43. Yes, that is what I meant by a WWI type scenario

Israel (and/or U.S.) hits Iran
Pakistan hits Israel
India hits Pakistan
China hits India
U.S. hits China
Russia hits U.S.
etc.

That's just one possibility, if the balance of power becomes de-stabilized. The IDF may be able to do some damage, with non-nuclear strikes, but I don't know that it would be much more than symbolic.

Everyone is playing with fire, and I hope we don't all get burned.

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. There's a "free world"???

Address, please?

:rofl:

[ramapo]

18. Why shouldn't Iran have nukes?

Turn the argument around. The assumption that a country develops nukes for offensive purposes is logically faulty.

What would be the result if Iraq had, or Iran does, or North Kores does, launch a nuclear offensive against another country? If the U.S. had the remotest of interests in the country under attack, then you can be assured that the country that launched the attack would suffer a grevious retailiation.

In short, there is nothing to gain and everything to lose for any country launching a nuclear attack.

Now look what happened to Iraq. They had no nukes. They couldn't respond to the U.S. invasion.

If Iraq had a nuclear force, it is extremely unlikely that the U.S. would've risked the real possibility that these weapons would've been launched either defensively or as a last ditch infliction of pain.

This is why we don't mess with North Korea.

Iran is justifiably nervous about possible U.S. invasion plans. The chance of preemptive invasion would be far less if they actually had a nuclear arsenal.

It should not be forgotten that Russia retains a sizable nuclear offensive capability. It is not beyond the realm that they would be drawn into a situation where the U.S. has launched nuclear missiles against another country (e.g. Iran).

[Spinoza]

25. Of course it is while Ahmadinejad

has any influence on Iranian policy. The guy is a Holocaust Denier which means, be definition, he is a whacked out nut-job, loony as a tune. (Now we will hear how the U.S., or Israel, is just as bad or worse---as if, even if true, (which it isn't) that makes any difference to the fact that a fanatical, Holocaust Denying government, possessing nuclear weapons, is a genuine danger to the peace of the world.)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

30. So, you think Ahmadinejad is a greater threat to world peace....

...than Herr Busch and his fellow NeoCons?

On what factual evidence do you base that on, other than what we're told to believe by the MSM?

How many countries has Iran invaded?

How many countries has Iran bombed?

How many countries have publicly stated that they have the right to preemptively bomb any other country with nuclear weapons?

[Oversea Visitor]

31. The only country that ever be a threat

is a country that has the ability of posing such a threat.

Iran is a pushover dont fit in classification

Only country that fit is US.

With power come great responsibility
This is the responsibility of the US people to chose good sane leaders

Sorry US people fail badly this time......why?how?when? geee hard question that need answering.

Maybe after all this mess
Maybe US people awake to this enormous responsibilty to humanity that they hold cause they live in a once great nation and the most powerful nation in this world.

The power to do right or wrong with such responsibilty ultimately rest with the US people
Bush can only do so much without the consent of the people
Silence in this case means consent, inaction means consent, dont matter what the poll say
SILENCE is one sure way to bring nightmare to reality.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

40. Why is that even relevant?

The fact that Bush is a threat to world peace does not automatically mean that we ignore every other threat to world peace. Bush is a fucking disaster, but "Bush is a fucking disaster" is not a good basis for foreign policy decision making.

[IndianaGreen]

32. Unfortunately, Bush wants war now and he doesn't want to talk

with Iran when the GOP is trailing in the polls. War must begin before the November elections!