Netanyahu: It's 1938 and Iran is Germany; Ahmadinejad is preparing another Holocaust

[TexasLawyer]

Last update - 10:11 14/11/2006

Netanyahu: It's 1938 and Iran is Germany; Ahmadinejad is preparing another Holocaust

By Peter Hirschberg, Haaretz Correspondent

LOS ANGELES - Drawing a direct analogy between Iran and Nazi Germany, Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu asserted Monday that the Iranian nuclear program posed a threat not only to Israel, but to the entire western world. There was "still time," however, to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons, he said.

"It's 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs," Netanyahu told delegates to the annual United Jewish Communities General Assembly, repeating the line several times, like a chorus, during his address. "Believe him and stop him," the opposition leader said of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "This is what we must do. Everything else pales before this."

While the Iranian president "denies the Holocaust," Netanyahu said, "he is preparing another Holocaust for the Jewish state."

Speaking on Army Radio on Tuesday, Netanyahu hinted that Israel possesses the military capabilities necessary for curbing by itself the Iranian nuclear threat, declining to specify what these entail.

<snip>

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/787766.html

[sweetheart]

1. Its 1938, the US is germany and israel is italy

..just another facist along for the ride to steal land and resources from your neighbors.

[cali]

2. Olmert's statement is bullshit.

So is yours. See coins: opposite sides of.

[sweetheart]

4. Yep, if the coin is that analogy

to start more mass murder, expect the 2 rogue states to keep on keepin' on,
its not world war 2, but the war crimes are just as sinister, for all
the *I* apologists who carry only 1 sided coins.

[Psephos]

20. As a UK citizen, your country is not exactly free of taint, either

But then whose is?

Every country is an asshole or has been one in the not-so-distant past. That is the nature of countries.

Netanyahu is a saber-rattler who is creating problems with his belligerence. Iran is a provocateur creating problems by its belligerence, too. Both parties are making trouble where none is needed, and where the consequences will be profound.

Peace.

[sweetheart]

67. Are you a UK citizen?

I'm a US citizen, and i can't apologize for the UK, as much as i might pretend.

I might be a UK citizen in future, but as much as i speak the same language, i'm
not a brit, i'm a yank. And yes, there has been imperial dirt all across history,
but i'm only on about the present current asswipes like bush, blair and olmert, who've
really put their foot in it.

It is uncomfortable that so many were murdered in wars of choice under 'our' watch,
and we can sort all this shit out tomorrow if we drop the pretense of nationality and
nationalism taking offense. We're one people on this planet, with one global
culture, where US imperialism is become the sort of tyranny that britain once
was in the 18th century. Alas, empires. I'm the bad guy no matter where i live,
i'm associated with the original sins of my fathers... raped and birthed in to
my soul.

peace,

[bumponalog]

3. Nutty-yahoo Godwins out early.

How will the insane little man from Iran poke the belligerent bear next?

Stay tuned.

[bluestateguy]

5. WWII analogies are a common neoconservative technique of argument

Any leader they dislike is Hilter and anyone who disagrees with their ideas is an appeaser.

[devilgrrl]

6. bugga bugga bugga

:scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared:
:scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared:
:scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared:
:scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared:
:scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared:


:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:

[Tom Joad]

7. What he is saying is "Destroy Iran, Destroy Iran Now!" Kill their millions,

level their homes, burn their schools, let their mothers bleed to death while holding their children... we must win this glorious battle for peace and security....(a translation of Netanyahu's speech)

Another idea:
Instead, lets tell the truth about Iran(currently without nuclear weapons, and promising never to build them), about Israel (currently bristling with hundreds of nuclear weapons). Let's work to disarm all nations of nuclear weapons... not only Israel, not only Pakistan and India, but also the U.S., France, China and all the rest.

Let's reject Netanyahu's overheated militarist rhetoric, with at least the same degree we reject Ahmadinejad's hateful speech.

Anything else is preparation for mass slaughter.

[TexasLawyer]

10. and his audience here is Americans

... Please fight this war for us...

[The Magistrate]

14. Netanyahu, Mr. Joad, Needs To Shut Up And Sit Down

This is purest grade swill, and the worst danger of it is that some who speak it may actually believe it, rather than be speaking for effect.

On the other hand, the Iranian claim they will not build nuclear weapons is swill of a similar order, and there is no reason whatever to credit it.

The Israeli nuclear arsenal, a combination of reality and bluff in undetermined proportion, has been in existence several decades without working to anything but the good of the region and the world. It is a leading reason why there has not been real state v. state conflict there since the '73 war, and we would doubtless, despite our many differences in this matter, both be in agreement that is a good thing.

The basic question in this matter is whether the introduction of an Iranian nuclear capability into this situation would tend to increase or to decrease its stability. There seems to me legitimate grounds to fear it would tend to increase instability. At the very least, it would force the Israeli government onto a hair-trigger posture that it is not now in in regards to use of its own nuclear deterrent. At worst, particularly given the level of rhetoric routinely employed by the Iranians, it must be considered as a possibility that governmenty would contemplate a first strike, balancing the certainty of total destruction of its enemy against the likelihood some portion of their own people and state would survive. Military intelligence concentrates on assessing enemy capabilities, not intentions, and what an enemy is capable of is the determining factor, for that is physical and measureable, while intentions may be obscure and can certainly change. Israel would be most foolish not to reckon with the possibility of a first strike from a nuclear Iran.

On the other hand, an Israeli strike intending to prevent or postpone Iranian nuclear capability, or a strike by any other power to this purpose, would be absolutely certain to achieve only a tremendous destabilization of the region and the world. For one thing, it would certainly fail to achieve its purpose, and that is about the most damning arguemenmt possible against any military venture. Its only effect would be to enrage, and not only the country enraged, but its allies and cohorts, have a broad panoply of tools with which to effectively express that rage.

The cold fact of the matter is that, whether or not a nuclear Iran is a good or a bad thing, prevention of a nuclear Iran is beyond the power of any country or conceivable combination of countries to prevent in the present circumstances. If Iran is actually resolved on this, it is going to happen.

"Not all problems have solutions."

[bemildred]

16. Very good, Sir.

The matter in a nutshell.

[The Magistrate]

48. Thank You, My Friend

As Mr. Carlin said: "Ancient hatreds, modern weapons: my kind of show!"

[IntiRaymi]

24. I keep searching for the geostrategic importance of Iran in all this.

It is absolutely pointless for Iran to threaten Israel in this manner, outside of the context of Israel's alliance with the USA - given the role that petroleum has in all these things.
I don't consider Iran to be an entity independent of Russia, China, EU, etc, in all this.

[The Magistrate]

31. Of Course It Is Independent, Sir

Iranian policy in regards to Israel is not dictated by Russia or China or the European Union. It derives from the Iranian leadership's own ideological religious commitment to the proposition that the rule of a portion of the Mediterranean littoral by Jews is a standing affront to the requirement Moslems eject infidels from rule over Moslem lands. Beyond this, it is an element in seeking to secure for Iran the position of leadership in the Moslem world, which is part of the long struggle between the Shi-ite and Sunni strands of that faith. The recepie for political success in the Moslem world has for decades been to be the most vocal and powerful and implacable opponent of Israel.

It is true that hostility between the U.S. and Iran may be seen as serving a variety of interests of Russia and China and the European Union, and that accordingly these have no particular interest in assisting the U.S. against Iran in this or any other matter. China's view is the most straightforward of the lot. They are increasingly demanding consumers of imported oil as their economy expands, and look towards the day when greater benefit from the work of their people nust be available to the enjoyment of their people. Anything that estranges an oil exporter from the West in general and the U.S. in particular must be accounted to the good from their viewpoint, as increasing the likelihood that its oil will become available to China. The Eiropean view is similar, though complicated by their being the leading current customers and industrial suppliers of the place, and being near enough that there is a risk of being involved in any disturbance that occurs in its region, and also by the great involvement of Russia in Europe's energy supplies. Russia's attitude is more complex. Domination of Persia has long been a goal of Russian state-craft, and close alliance is as good a means of domination as any when there is a great disparity in power between two states. Russia also has a long-standing rivalry with China in the Far East, over control of Trans-Baikal Siberia and the old Maritime Province on the Pacific coast. Russia would certainly like to co-ordinate export policy with Iran where Europe or China are concerned. Isolation of Iran rather suits all these ends from the Russian point of view. Iran, of course, preserves a particular sensitivity towards any prospect of Russian domination, being quite aware of the historical drive towards same motivating that power.

[IntiRaymi]

32. I disagree with that.

You are injecting religious reasoning into something that is ultimately the most pragmatic of things: Waging war.

[The Magistrate]

40. Are You, Sir, A Believer In Any Confession Of Faith?

Many who are consider consulting its precepts to be the most pragmatic thing possible for a human to do, since to be in accord with the Will of God is to have the best guarantee of success conceivable in any endeavor. People who do not adhere strongly to any religious faith do tend to under-rate this factor considerably, as it is wholly foreign to them.

Even the briefest survey of history will show that people have gone to war for any number of religious reasons, and sometimes in a manner no pragmatic calculation would ever countenance. Attempts in the latter class tend to fail, of course, but this has not seemed to deter fresh practitioners....

[scarletwoman]

25. Respectfully, I disagree with one part of your argument.

At worst, particularly given the level of rhetoric routinely employed by the Iranians, it must be considered as a possibility that (the) government would contemplate a first strike, balancing the certainty of total destruction of its enemy against the likelihood some portion of their own people and state would survive.

Sorry, I think that's utterly absurd on its face. What possible Iranian national interest would be served by a first strike on Israel? Iran is interested in becoming a greater regional power, a counter-balance to Western influence and Western economic colonialism.

These ambitions would in NO way be served by a direct attack on Israel. Ahmedinajad may be a fundamentalist demagogue, but he's neither stupid nor suicidal. And a first strike on Israel would be absolutely suicidal, and patently counter to Iran's ambitions in the region.

However much the Arab regimes in the Middle East would be glad to be rid of Israel, they have no great love of the Persions either. Iran would find itself utterly isolated and friendless -- not to mention destroyed by the Western military reprisal to such an act.

To assert the possibiity of an Iranian first strike on Israel is to assert a paranoid fantasy. It's pure Orientalist rubbish to believe that the Iranian government is so irrational as to be capable of such a counter-productive and self-destructive act.

sw

[msmcghee]

28. You said,

"Ahmedinajad may be a fundamentalist demagogue, but he's neither stupid nor suicidal."

That sentence contradicts itself. You obviously don't know what it means to be a fundamentalist demagogue. Then again, maybe you do.

[scarletwoman]

42. I suppose you believe you have made some sort of point, but I fail to see it.

I describe Ahmedinajad as a "fundamentalist" because he is a proponent of a conservative version of Islam -- as are the ruling Mullahs of Iran -- although certainly not in the same league of "fundamentalist" as the Taliban or the Saudis.

The definition of "demagogue" is: A leader who appeals to popular emotions and prejudices. (c.f. Webster's II New Riverside Pocket Dictionary -- which happens to be the dictionary I keep next to my computer)

While I personally consider ALL religion to be problematical at best, I do not believe that all followers of religion are by definition "stupid". Isaac Newton was religious, yet his intelligence is unquestioned.

And demagoguery in political leaders is hardly an unusual nor necessarily absolutely destructive trait. Huey P. Long, for example, who is almost universally described as a "demogogue", was neither stupid nor suicidal. While the ratio of good to bad in his career is open to debate, there is little question that he was both smart and possessed of a well-developed survival instinct.

There is no contradiction in what I wrote, there is only your own prejudice coloring your reading of it.

sw

[msmcghee]

43. I just wrote a clumsy response. However . .

. . if Mr. Magistrate doesn't object I'll just attach his recent post from above which, as usual, does a much better job than mine and hits the nail squarely.

Many who are (a believer in any confession of faith) consider consulting its precepts to be the most pragmatic thing possible for a human to do, since to be in accord with the Will of God is to have the best guarantee of success conceivable in any endeavor. People who do not adhere strongly to any religious faith do tend to under-rate this factor considerably, as it is wholly foreign to them.

Even the briefest survey of history will show that people have gone to war for any number of religious reasons, and sometimes in a manner no pragmatic calculation would ever countenance. Attempts in the latter class tend to fail, of course, but this has not seemed to deter fresh practitioners....

I see this as reinforcing my own contention that emotional forces from strong beliefs can easily outweigh reason - in behavior choice. Your use of the term "stupid" - is apt. I adopted your wording and would just say that in this case - stupid means an inability to use reason - due to the strong emotions of belief mentioned above.

[The Magistrate]

39. We Will Probably Continue To Disagree About That, My Friend

It does not seem to me absurd on its face to acknowledge it as a possibility, and it is the sort thing that, by its very nature, requires even a very slim possibilty it could occur be treated seriously.

It has always seemed to me a mistake to under-rate the irrational component of human beings in assessing and understanding world affairs and conflicts. People do not always behave rationally, and do not always calculate their own best interests well, or in the same way, or by the same standards, that another might employ.

A hard fanatic in a postition of leadership in Iran might view the matter in some manner that made the destruction of "the Zionist entity" seem worth the costs. He might feel that being the agent of the great deed would suffice to make the Shia confession dominant, as it would have done what the Sunni could not. He might feel that the martyr's translation to Paradise would be a blessing to the casualties, and that even if his land was destroyed materially it would be no loss but a great gain. He might even feel there would be no retaliation, but that the world would instead heave a great sigh of relief at the destruction of so many Jews. It is not my expectation this will occur, but it does not seem something that could be called impossible with any great degree of conviction.

[scarletwoman]

45. But none of that speculation is based on any actual analysis of Ahmedinajan as a person or a

leader. Where is the evidence that he is so unhinged from rational thinking that such speculation is warranted?

It should not be forgotten that he is merely a front man for the real ruling powers in Iran, the Mullahs. He is not an absolute dictator with unitary powers; he was, in fact, elected president on a platform of economic reform.

What evidence is there that the Iranian people -- or even the ruling Mullahs -- are clamoring for the destruction of Israel as a state-sanctioned enterprise? While rhetorical broadsides against the Zionist state are popular throughout the Middle East, what evidence is there that such rhetoric is pecularily dangerous in Iran?

Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the "fanaticism" of the ruling powers in Iran have been largely concerned with maintaining domestic Islamic purity and national defense. There is a coherence and rationality to their actions, whether we agree with their underlying premises or not.

When Ahmedinajan quotes an earlier statement by some Iranian Imam that "the Zionist entity will be erased from the pages of history" in a widely mistranslated speech, he is merely expressing his belief that Israel as it is now constituted will not remain viable. He is not declaring an intent to be the causal agent of that "erasure".

Flights of paranoid fancy that Ahmedinajan *might* be so "irrational" that he would sacrifice his entire nation in order to destroy Israel do not consititute a convincing argument to me. I'd like to see some evidence first that he is actually tempermentally disposed to delusional actions, and would be given the go-ahead to pursue such a course of action by those who hold the actual reins of power in Iran.

sw

[The Magistrate]

46. The Analysis Is, Ma'am, In Some Degree Abstract

Not all potential dangers are immediate, and the present cast of characters is not the only possible set of actors. If Iran possesses nuclear weapons, it will possess them down the years of the future. Its government is of a sort that could, under the pressure of its own people's aspirations, come into a crisis of legitimacy which might as easily produce a more radical adherence to the fundamentalist religiousity, operating in a clamp-down to hold power, as it could collapse into something on more liberal and modernist lines. Worries in this regard are not matters of the next few years only.

Ahmedinajan is a figure of little importance anyway. The office of President in Iran holds little real power, and he certainly does not have say over peace or war. His rhetoric is of consequence only in so far as it indicates a line that is agreeable to the ruling clerics, and popular among the people of his country. But it is hardly news that the ruling clerics hate Israel, and the people of the country regard it as an enemy.

Rhetoric in the broader sense may be regarded as dangerous or not in proportion to the capabilities of the persons employing it to match deeds to words. A small child shrieking "I'll kill you!" is a very different matter than a grown man holding a pistol who says the same words in a similar tone. My inclination has been to treat as not too serious various rhetorical excess aimed at Israel in the Near East because the persons indulging in them manifestly lack the ability to carry them out. With nuclear weapons, Iran would have that capability, and statements by its leadership to that effect at that time would be in a different category. Statements by, or sanctioned by, its leaders at a time when it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, must raise at least some question regarding whether carrying out such threats is part of their motive for acquiring the devices. The various weaselings concerning Ahmenidajan's statements do not impress me much: it is a matter of cold fact that the ruling clerics of Iran hate Israel, and that its destruction has been an object of their state policy so long as they have had a state to direct. Whether this has been stated directly or indirectly with some wiggle room recently does not make much difference to me.

[scarletwoman]

52. Rhetoric is dangerous in proportion to the capability to match words to deeds.

(Paraphrasing you) This being the case, then it is Iran which is under the greater threat at this time. Therefore, acquiring a nuclear deterrent certainly appears to be a rational act -- especially in the face of the "Bush Doctrine" of regime change and pre-emptive war.

sw

[The Magistrate]

53. Iran Is Certainly In Some Danger, Ma'am

And indeed has a rational reason to acquire nuclear weapons as a self-defense measure against the adventurism lately afflicting the U.S. under its current regime. Absent the heated rhetoric from the place on the subject of Israel, this would not be a matter of much dispute anywhere: the same pious noises concerning non-proliferation would be made as were made towards Pakistan and India, and are occassionally aimed towards Brazil, but no one would really care too much.

[scarletwoman]

56. It's the Chinese curse -- we live in "interesting" times...

As a child of the 50s; growing up through the Cold War, duck and cover drills in grade school, etc.; I always hoped that a day might come when the world would tire of war. And as a "peace and love" hippie girl of the 60s, I really thought it was possible.

Silly me...

*sigh*
sw

[msmcghee]

47. I would add that no-one is suggesting . .

. . that Iran should be attacked and Almedinijad and the mullahs thrown in prison at this point. Not even Bibbi Netenyahu.

What most are saying is that Iran represents a realistic threat based on judicious assessments of probability - that any nation he has threatened should take seriously. If it is just bluster, then some tax money will have been spent preparing for something that never happened.

But if it is not bluster, then those nations may have a better chance to save the lives of some of their citizens when that attack occurs.

Try to put yourself in the place of any leader in Israel who is responsible for the lives of Israeli citizens. Israel's enemies have seldom shown any rationality in their dealings with Israel. That's one of the main problems there. Israel's enemies say they will not stop until the last Jew is gone from the ME - either displaced or dead, it makes no difference to them. All their actions for 60 years affirm that they mean just that.

Do you know of any sane rational society / culture that swears year after year that they will not rest until they have destroyed every last Jew in the ME? Who says that it's good that Jews are moving to Israel because it will be easier to kill them all in one place?

But then you say, "It is utterly absurd on its face that Iran would consider a first strike."

What strong emotional beliefs in your mind could possibly prevent you from seeing why Israel is being judiciously cautious and taking those threats seriously?

[scarletwoman]

50. It's one thing to take a threat seriously and prepare defenses.

It's quite another to advocate a first strike and setting off a region-wide shitstorm because that other country *might* eventually achieve weapons parity with you. That's just insane.

As an earlier poster on this thread pointed out, should we have bombed Russia when Krushchev said "We will bury you!"? Russia actually could "bury" us if they wanted to match their actions to their rhetoric. Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, but Israel does. Who is really the most under threat here?

sw

[msmcghee]

51. Again, I must wonder what vantage you see this from.

If a nation says they are going to kill all your people and goes to extraordinary expense to violate the will of peaceful nations to develop nuclear weapons capability, denies they are doing that, refuses to let the IAEA verify their claims - then, if Mossad determines that Iran is getting close to having that capability - I'd say that yes, a first strike would be prudent - just as it was against Iraq's Osirik reactor in 1981.

It probably won't be as successful, but it could muck up the mullah's plans enough to stave off a nuclear attack on Israel until Israel's more conventional weapons could destroy enough of the Iranian regime to prevent a successful nuclear attack.

That's just reality.

To say that Israel should just sit there and trust that Iran is bluffing is hardly a realistic view of what any sane nation would do to protect its citizens.

The reality is that there are trillion of dollars at stake over which Islamist regime assumes a controlling position in the ME. IMO there are actors in every one of those states who would not hesitate to use nuclear or any other weapons to assure their ascendency to that position if that's what it takes.

If you think that's wrong then show me one Islamist ME nation who is calling for calm and cooperation with the West in order to find a peaceful path to coexistence with Israel.

Added on edit: Granted, such a scenario would probably lead to a conflagration in the ME - with Hisballah, Hamas and other actors doing their best to attack Isreal while she is engaged with Iran. There will be lots of dead Arab babies for DU posters to bemoan.

But, it is my belief that Israel is not going to trust to the good intentions of bad people this time. This time the Jews won't be getting on the trains.

If that means that the ME and some of the rest of the world becomes cinders and millions die - well, that won't be so different from the rest of world history, will it? I guess the best any of us can hope for is to die defending our familes and not giving in to the assholes and bullies of the world - if that's where we're headed.

To prevent that, I would be for the US assisting Israel if a pre-emptive attack on Iran ever becomes necessary. Just because the neo-cons are incompetent ideologues and fools - does not mean that Iran's mullah's are not out to destroy the infidels as they say (that's us).

[The Magistrate]

54. To Engage Your Edit, Ma'am

A course that results millions dead and great quantities of rubble and cinder can hardly be called a success, and is very difficult to consider necessary. Some blows must be awaited: you cannot shoot a man because you are pretty sure he is going to get a gun and shoot you after his next pay day.

You would be wise, also, to abandon any notion of the U.S. acting in any material concert with Israel in attack on Iran any time in the near future. It is not going to happen.

[msmcghee]

57. I don't think I was calling it a success.

Instead, the opposite would be the case. War (and schoolyard fights) is what happens when bullies decide that the benefits from trying to harm their enemies - are more likely to accrue to them than whatever punishment their enemy could cause in return.

War itself, IMO is failure on many levels. It is caused by the failure of bad people to abandon such notions of hegemony - no matter who wins in the end.

Yes, some blows must be awaited. And that's what is happening now. Israel is telling Iran that if Iran persists in the development of nuclear weapons that there will be a time - before those weapons become available for use against Israel - when Israel will no longer sit and wait.

The more seriously Israel makes those threats, and the more seriously Iran takes them - the better chance there will be for peace in the future. Failing to lay out such a stake in the desert at this time would be seen as weakness by Israel's enemies.

You add, "You would be wise, also, to abandon any notion of the U.S. acting in any material concert with Israel in attack on Iran any time in the near future. It is not going to happen."

I don't know how one abandons a notion once one has it. If you are suggesting that I'm hoping for that outcome - I am not. I hope that Iran is persuaded to abandon their nuclear intentions.

When you say "It is not going to happen." - I'd suggest that predicting the future in the ME has never been a very good bet.

[scarletwoman]

55. Well, basically what I'm saying is to give "MAD" a chance.

I believe that Iran wants nukes first and foremost to protect themselves from the depradations of the U.S. -- what sane country wouldn't?

I also don't believe that the rulers of Iran are suicidal, they want power in the ME, not martyrdom. To argue that the Iranians are so blinded by their hatred of Israel that they would pursue actions guaranteed to lead to their certain destruction is absurd, imho. It is a species of racism to assert that a particular ethnic group is incapable of rational self-preservation.

sw

[msmcghee]

58. Racism?

You said, "It is a species of racism to assert that a particular ethnic group is incapable of rational self-preservation."

I would never say that. I believe that all ethnic groups can be incapable of rational self-preservation.

[scarletwoman]

60. Do you therefore believe that the US should have bombed the USSR when Krushchev threatened us?

Should India pre-emptively strike Pakistan? Should Pakistan pre-emptively strike India? They are enemies with a longer history of animosity and heated rhetoric than Iran and Israel, and they've been sabre rattling at each other for decades.

Somehow, they maintain enough sense of rational self-preservation not to go all the way. But you apparently believe this won't work in the case of Iran. Why is that?

sw

[msmcghee]

61. Should we have bombed the USSR?

In hindsight, we didn't - and they didn't. Therefore it was good decision.

I can assure you that the US spent billions of our tax dollars constantly reassessing the options and probabilities. My father was associated with the Strategic Air Command at the time and I know how much of his energy and time was consumed in those efforts - and how seriously our government took the threat.

I suspect that if at any time we had believed that an attack from the USSR was imminent, that we would have launched first, assuming that we also believed that would result in a better final position than other alternatives.

I also believe we would have attacked the USSR earlier with conventional weapons if we thought that would prevent the USSR from developing their capability. The USSR was successful in keeping their nuclear efforts hidden well enough that we could not do that. If they hadn't - the calculations could have made a pre-emptive attack a reasonable option.

Gary Powers was shot down in his U2 trying to discover their capabilities and locations.

All nations, when their survival is at stake, will do whatever is necessary to preserve themselves. The problems are caused by those nations who belligerently confront and threaten their neighbors - believing that their parochial interests are more important than world peace.

That takes some humility and a belief that peace as better than thousands of dead babies and parents. Like accepting the UN partition plan and not attacking the surrounding Arab states to get a bigger Israel - as was Israel's response.

[scarletwoman]

63. Of course not. Nor do I believe we should have bombed them to prevent them from getting nukes.

And one very good reason not to have done that was to prevent a regional conflagration. It was far better for the USSR to have the bomb than for us to have set off another round of war that might have engulfed not just Europe but Asia as well.

But you seem to be all for setting off a wider round of war in the Middle East.

sw

[msmcghee]

66. Actually, the only reason that the ME hasn't erupted into WWIII . .

. . so far, is that Israel has maintained the power to destroy any nation who tries to take her out.

I assure you that if Iran had obtained nukes 20 years ago - and Israel did not have them at the time, Israel would not exist today. But it happened the other way around. And Iran seems to be doing fine. Doesn't that tell you anything?

There is a difference between states who want war to spread their "ism" and see it as their primary duty in life - and those who want to live in peace. Radical Islamic regimes have an "ism" that is centered around the notion that the ME must be free of Jews.

I hope the left realizes this some day before too many more babies have to die.

[msmcghee]

59. Give MADD a chance? (Ooops, MAD, thanks)

I don't think you are channeling Lennon here.

The US and USSR in the fifties and sixties were nothing like Iran and Israel, today.

Both the US and USSR had secular governments for one. Neither had wing-nut fundie theists participating in major decisions.

I'm not really sure how much religion affects Israel's decisions. Perhaps Mr. pelsar could clarify that for us. I know that Iran's decisions are fully controlled by their religious wack-jobs.

I also suspect that if either the US or USSR had been in a similar situation a few decades ago - with relious fundamentalists calling the shots on either side - that the world might well look quite different today than it does.

[scarletwoman]

62. It's MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction, not MADD - Mothers Against Drunk Driving, btw.

The Cold War not religious, you say? Did you grow up during that time? I did, I was born 1949, and raised with the propaganda of "Godless Communists" vs. the "Christian West" as a constant drumbeat.

The USSR was constantly painted as existential threat -- they might invade at any time, they might drop nuclear bombs on our cities at any time, they wanted to destroy us. You don't think the threat felt real to people back then?

We were told that the Russians weren't like us, that they didn't care about what happened to their own people, they just wanted to take over the world and kill us.

In any case, calling the Iranian Mullahs "religious whack-jobs" is not an argument. They are the ruling powers of a nation-state. The fundamental business of the rulers of a nation-state is power and self-preservation. It makes no difference whether the state is a theocracy or a secular republic, power and self-preservation are the defining characteristics of ALL nation-state regimes.

sw

[msmcghee]

64. Actually, I was born in 1942.

I might even have a better memory of it than you. I was 8 years old in 1950. You were one. Certainly, we were told that the Godless communists were our arch enemies - but I went to Catholic school in some years and also attended a few Protestant "Bible Schools" during the summer - which were popular in Texas I guess.

I don't remember the commies being a big deal at church. We colored pictures of Jonah in the whale at bible school and memorized our catechism like all Catholic kids do.

You said, "The USSR was constantly painted as existential threat -- they might invade at any time, they might drop nuclear bombs on our cities at any time, they wanted to destroy us. You don't think the threat felt real to people back then?"

I think that was true. I beleive they would have attacked us if they thought they could succeed. Just because they didn't have a state religion - doesn't mean they didn't have religious-like beliefs that were strong enough to make them do stupid things. They had their communism - which to their leaders at the time was just as strong as any messianic religion. It was a real threat.

Our enormous and expensive effort to stay ahead of them is what prevented a nuclear holocaust IMO. We had no desire to destroy them but they wanted to destroy capitalism and we exemplified the success of capitalism in the world. Krushev desparately wanted to bury us - as he threatened to do.

We were that far from it when he sent missiles to Cuba.

[msmcghee]

65. You say,

"It makes no difference whether the state is a theocracy or a secular republic, power and self-preservation are the defining characteristics of ALL nation-state regimes."

I must take exception to this. Strong belief systems, like Communism in the fifties or radical Islam today, are not the same as secular societies based on enlightenment values.

It is sad to me that such simplistic ideas permeate the left in the US these days.

Strong belief systems are strong memes that infect their carriers and cause them to see those who don't share those memes as enemies - and eventually attack them. It's a psychological thing. Those memes become the unifying beliefs of their cultures. Their institutions and religions will form around those beliefs and cause them to see others as enemies to be destroyed.

We just had a vivid example of that in the US with the rise of Christian fundamentalism after the Gingrich revolution. Newt harnessed the power of strong beliefs to kidnap our secular liberal government. Thank Koresh that we have it back (tenuously IMO) for now.

I'd say that (offensive) power, self-preservation and militaristic expansion are the defining characteristics of ALL nation-state regimes - formed around strong political and/or religious belief systems.

I'd say that (defensive) power, self-preservation and living in peace with one's neighbors are the defining characteristics of ALL nation-state regimes - formed around the fragile secular values of the enlightenment.

Note that no nation-state is all one or the other - and the mix changes with time and circumstance. But, such stark differences are vividly displayed every day in the words and actions of Israel and her ME enemies.

[UndertheOcean]

49. Thank you Sir..

:)

[underpants]

8. Wow that is exactly what I just heard Glenn Beck say

verbatim

[SOS]

44. Same script:

"For Evangelicals, Supporting Israel Is ‘God’s Foreign Policy’"

"Now, in tandem with the Israeli government, many evangelical Christians have focused on a new villain, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The same name, with many pronunciations, comes up repeatedly on Christian talk radio shows, said Gary Bauer, a Christian conservative political organizer."

From today's NYT :
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/washington/14israel.html?hp&ex=1163566800&en=fba77299178204a6&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[scarletwoman]

9. It's 2006, and Netanyahu is a dangerous, delusional hysteric.

Iran is NOT going to attack Israel. It is simply not in their national interest to do so. What IS in Iran's national interest is to develop their DEFENSIVE capabilities so that they cannot be subjected to the neocon "democracy" project.

While I deplore nuclear proliferation, if ever a region needed the Mexican standoff of MAD ("mutually assured destruction"), it is the Middle East.

sw

[The Magistrate]

15. Indeed, Ma'am

Nuclear weapons are the modern equivalent of the old Gadsen Flag: they say "Don't tread on me!" loud and clear to all comers. Any regional power with a clear eye towards its own continued sovereignty will want a few of them about its arsenals....

[Doctor_J]

11. Is he still alive?

He's using Smirk's speechwriters:

"It's 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs," Netanyahu told delegates to the annual United Jewish Communities General Assembly, repeating the line several times,

Hopefully the Israeli commonfolk are not as dumb as the Limbeciles.

[LeftCoast]

12. It's strange how Israelis always seem to paint themselves in the role of

victim. Netanyahu compares the situation to that of the Jews in nazi Germany, but makes no mention of the fact that this time "the Jews" have nukes and the strongest army on the block.

Not saying that Iran is an innocent bystander in all this, but the victim imagery is interesting.

[Lurking Dem]

18. "Israelis" seems a little broad.

Netanyahu is kind of a force unto himself in the whackjob department.

[The Stranger]

21. "Likud" then would fit.

[Donnachaidh]

13. oh BULLSHIT!

Wonder when the German War Crimes commission is going to start filing charges AGAINST Israel?

[IntiRaymi]

22. That is needlessly inflammatory.

The last country to try Israel for war crimes should be Germany.

[IntiRaymi]

17. A frightened people are more easily governed.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Peace Patriot]

23. We heard the same bombastic rhetoric back when the Soviets got "the Bomb"

--I particularly remember "We will bury you!" (Nikita Kruschev). Should that have been answered with a "first strike" by the U.S.?

Rhetoric is rhetoric--on both sides. Nothing--absolutely NOTHING--not even invasion, justifies nuclear warfare. (Read Carl Sagan's "The Cold and the Dark" for a description of what will happen to our planet's atmosphere with even a limited nuclear exchange. Hint: Dead planet. Gone. Fini. Kaput. The entire human enterprise, lo these many millennnia.)

The Bushites (and who knows about our Democats?) have been intent on destroying the current Islamic Republic of Iran, at whatever cost to its people, as the U.S./England/Israel were intent on destroying Iran's new democracy back in 1954 and inflicting the Iranian people with 25 years of torture and oppression under the horrible Shah of Iran. The latest destruction of a stable government in Iran has been in the works for at least a decade. Instability = opportunity to loot, on a grand scale --as we've seen in Iraq.

And I hope with all my heart that Israel abandons this BUSHITE policy of destabilizing the Middle East before it's too late, and begins to think in terms of REGIONAL stability and the welfare and prosperity of ALL Middle Eastern peoples. Look to the greater good. De-fund the war profiteers on both sides. And evict the Bush Junta from the Middle East. They have no good intentions there, toward Israel or anyone else.

[msmcghee]

26. It's true that Bush's ME policy was (and is) a total disaster.

But it would very wrong and self-destructive to assume that APM (Arab/Persian/Muslim) regimes in the ME really would be our friend if we weren't such assholes.

Find one APM ME regime that has made even the most basic attempt to establish a free / liberal society with human rights for its citizens. Such a thing does not exist. It is not over-reaching to suggest that appeasing them in the face of their constant militaristic threats and posturing would change anything.

In fact, any leaders who value the lives of their nation's citizens more than finding their own harem of 72 virgins - would be wise to take Almedinijad's threats very seriously - and prepare to meet them.

The left (well represented here) condemns the US for putting the Shah in power. That was as close as Iranian people have ever come to having some form of freedom in their lives and they loved it. The Shah was indeed ruthless to the Islamists who hated him. Have you noticed that the only stable Arab governments are those where the current leadership deals ruthlessly with their opposition. Do you think that's a coincidence? That's why Saddam's was one of the longest lived ME Arab regimes.

It's very easy for us to sit here behind our overwhelming nuclear arsenal and (still) powerful military and suggest that Netenyahu is a hot-head for saying that Iran means what it says. Easy and arrogant.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[msmcghee]

29. If you're going to call me a racist . .

. . then you'll need better evidence than that.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[msmcghee]

34. C'mon now I'm trying not to insult you.

My reference to 72 virgins is within the context of the religious beliefs of those who's desire to wage jihad is greater than their desire to live in peace. That's the whole subtext of the neverending ME conflicts that erupt whenever one totalitarian APM ruler momentarily loses his iron grip on power.

There are Muslim states who live in peace. It is the APM culture of dominant ruthless strongmen who are admired and followed blindly - that is the problem. Not anybody's race. An Arab or Persian child brought up in a western society would turn out no different than any non-Arab child under those same circumstances.

It is insulting for you to suggest that I am a racist.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Psephos]

33. You're not a racist

Your detractor seems not to have noted that fundamentalist Islam is not a race, but a religion, and also seems not to realize Iranians are not Arabs.

It's arguably racist of your detractor to sweep adherents of fundamental Islam into the same racial category when they have separate histories, genetics, and nationalities. At the least, it shows ignorance of the region and its peoples.

You made some good points, msmcghee. Those who disagree with you should attack your arguments rather than your person if they wish to persuade others.

Peace.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[msmcghee]

37. Pot, kettle, black. n/t

[IntiRaymi]

38. neener neener?

[msmcghee]

41. Plutonium found in Iran waste facility

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer 58 minutes ago

VIENNA, Austria - International Atomic Energy experts have found unexplained plutonium and highly enriched uranium traces in a nuclear waste facility in Iran and have asked Tehran for an explanation, an IAEA report said Tuesday.
ADVERTISEMENT

The report, prepared for next week's meeting of the 35-nation IAEA, also faulted Tehran for not cooperating with the agency's attempts to investigate suspicious aspects of Iran's nuclear program that have lead to fears it might be interested in developing nuclear arms.

And it said it could not confirm Iranian claims that its nuclear activities were exclusively nonmilitary unless Tehran increased its openness.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear

[Scurrilous]

68. A Netanyahu Fan Speaks

Pamela Geller Oshry aka Atlas Shrugs comments on the State Departments willingness to accept Hamas members in a Palestinian government:

"While those have been the Israeli and American demands of the Palestinian Arabs since Hamas won legislative elections in January, two diplomatic sources yesterday who requested anonymity said the State Department would be willing to accept a government that included some Hamas members if a majority of the cabinet agreed to the terms laid out in the 2003 road map document signed by both sides as well as America, Europe, Russia and the United Nations."

Accepting Hamas? Perhaps Hamas will blow up State. Someone has to.


"We are looking at creative ways to get around this," one diplomat said. "I would not call this ‘Hamas lite,’ but if we could get a government of negotiators instead of terrorists we’d take it."

First, kill all the diplomats (before they get us killed.)

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/


Pamela and Bibi:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2006/11/lunch_with_neta.html#comments


More on Pamela:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/blogs/wolcott/2006/11/the_democratic_.html

:scared:

[Englander]

69. Lol!1!!1

'Pamela,

I write as one of your biggest fans, but I think you should take a little break in the post-election. You're obviously working very hard and it shows, but there have been some slips lately...

forgetting your laptop...
denouncing halloween as antisemitic...
that anti-arab racism in the chafee post...
and now, calling for the destruction of germany?!?!?!?!

didn't alqueda call for that reecently too?

please, we care about you. you deserve some rest.'

[Scurrilous]

70. Prominent right-wing Bolton blogger calls for murder of State Department officials

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/11/prominent-right-wing-bolton-blogger.html

[Disturbed]

71. Possibiity does not equal probabilty.

"To assert the possibiity of an Iranian first strike on Israel is to assert a paranoid fantasy. It's pure Orientalist rubbish to believe that the Iranian government is so irrational as to be capable of such a counter-productive and self-destructive act."

I agree with the above statement.

It is possible that Iran will have nukes in about five years. Is it likely?

Israel is not suicidal is it? It's possible but not likely.