Israel's government is getting to be pretty repulsive too, having fallen into the hands of paranoid neocons who pander to the ultra-orthodox wingnuts (you know, the ones who harass little girls and call them whores while letting women do all the work) while letting a few ultra-powerful families rape the country.
A lot of Israelis have to be asking themselves "where did my country go"...
There are a lot of military experts who say that no bombs can penetrate deep enough into the ground to inflict enough damage on those installations. What happens when you attack a wasp's nest and don't obliterate the wasps?
This is all going to end in one big disaster.

...and actually SPIT on the little girl!!! She is 8 and they didnt like the way she was dressed (in a long skirt and long sleeves by the way). The Israelis have no leg to stand on until the Israelis deal with their own internal nutbag-fundamentalist-mysogonistic-religious-fanatics and stop them from building more and larger settlements on land that is NOT theirs and stop allowing them to dictate where women sit and how women dress and blacking out pictures of women in the media (their papers actually replaced - cut and pasted- two newly elected women in a picture of the new parliament with a picture of random men instead). Really, my sympathy for the Israeli government is at an all time low, not the Jewish people, but the hardliners and the government. Religious fanatics are exactly the same whether they wear a veil or a yarmukle, carry a bible or the torah, say "praise Allah or "God bless you."

jsteele wrote:First, it is not at all clear that the deaths of the scientists killed so far has fundamentally harmed any Iranian nuclear program that may or may not exist. Maybe the deaths set back the program, maybe they didn't. But, if a program of that importance hangs on the lives of such a small number of individuals, I would be shocked to find those individuals wandering around the streets of Tehran.

All true, but that cuts both ways. If they're inconsequential, then Iran won't care as much.

jsteele wrote:Second, my point is not that killing Iranian scientists would lead Iran to launch either a conventional or nuclear attack. Rather, I envision the sort of tit for tat that is common in that part of the world....If things escalate -- which is the natural tendency of such things, we will be right back to the massive sort of fighting that you think is being prevented by assassinations. You seem to see assassination as a solution to avoid greater violence. I see it as a step that is more likely to lead to greater violence than it is to avoid further violence.

I think my points apply here. I don't believe that Israel's enemies have restrained themselves b/c they don't hate Israel quite enough yet. I think the Iranian leadership wouldn't hesitate to destroy Israel were it in their power to do so without causing themselves too much harm. If full war breaks out, I think it will be simply because the attacker sees more to gain than to lose (or less to lose than through inaction), and not because of increasing tensions. Tension has not been the missing factor.

jsteele wrote:Finally, it is really disappointing to see you resort to the sort of right-wing jingoism that you normally parody.

And people consider me abrasive. Jingoism? I specifically criticized the way we destroy other countries. I’m speaking directly against harming foreign innocents.

jsteele wrote:Please provide one single direct quote from an Iranian leader saying that he would like to eradicate the US.

“Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury.” More on that below.

jsteele wrote:Yes, I know that "everyone knows" such things have been said. Just like "everyone knew" Iraq was producing WMDs. I don't care what "everyone knows". I would like you to provide one direct quote.

I didn't say “everyone knows.” Whether I'm wrong here or not, I don't say that crap when challenged, as you know by now. There’s no call for that pedantic tone with me, and putting those words in my mouth is beneath you.

More on your request for quotes...

Since you didn't ask, I assume you don't question that Ahmadinejad would like to destroy Israel. I assume you also don't question that he takes all kind of crazy and often contradictory positions.

That being the case, I'm not sure why you seem to find my view so offensive. That is, I can understand that if I were advocating for a U.S. invasion you would demand the clearest possible evidence of his hostility to us, but I’m just saying that it’s a good thing if people interfere with his plans.

Below are the best I could find in 30 minutes or so. The first one, which I quoted above, responds to your request pretty well. However, from his more typical statements I’d say that it’s unfair to say that he has expressed a desire to destroy the U.S. I do believe my government’s conclusion that Iran has been sponsoring terrorism for decades, including acts against the U.S., so putting it all together I’d say that he is our enemy and would consider a major terrorist attack against us if empowered to execute one.

“Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury.”

“The establishment of Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world.”

“We don't shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world.”

“Do not doubt, Allah will prevail, and Islam will conquer mountain tops of the entire world.”

I suspect Israel is using the threat of Iran to manipulate the 2012 election.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

jsteele wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:
The taboo against assassination has never made sense. Of course the leadership wants to prohibit it - they'd much rather thousands or millions of innocents die than one of them suffer.

You make a good argument but just because assassination is not as bad -- at least in the short term -- as alternatives doesn't mean that it is good. Just how long do you expect Iran to sit around doing nothing while its scientists are killed? There have already been a couple of Israeli scientists killed in mysterious circumstances (one in the US). Tit for tat only lasts so long before one side escalates. Iran is not the pushover that some of Israel's enemies have proven to be.

I don't expect it to change their behavior at all.

From their (i.e., his) words, they couldn't be any more opposed to the U.S. and Israel. I take them at their word that they would gleefully eradicate us if they could, so angering them isn't an issue.

I understand that certain actions could push them into a corner such that they feel that they have to act despite whatever is currently restraining them, but I don't think killing any number of scientists will create that reaction. I don't think the Iranian government will be inclined to do something desperate unless they're directly threatened with death or removal.

I have about as much basis for predicting their reactions as does my 5-year-old, but I'd rather gamble with the prospect of them starting a conventional war with our allies than gamble on what they'd do with a nuclear weapon, possibly directly to us.

I'm not sure that you understood my post. So, let's sort this out.

First, it is not at all clear that the deaths of the scientists killed so far has fundamentally harmed any Iranian nuclear program that may or may not exist. Maybe the deaths set back the program, maybe they didn't. But, if a program of that importance hangs on the lives of such a small number of individuals, I would be shocked to find those individuals wandering around the streets of Tehran.

Second, my point is not that killing Iranian scientists would lead Iran to launch either a conventional or nuclear attack. Rather, I envision the sort of tit for tat that is common in that part of the world. As I said, Israeli scientists have been killed recently in unusual circumstances. Was Iran behind those deaths? I have no way of knowing. But, if Iran is behind them, how will Israel react? How will Iran react to that reaction? If things escalate -- which is the natural tendency of such things, we will be right back to the massive sort of fighting that you think is being prevented by assassinations. You seem to see assassination as a solution to avoid greater violence. I see it as a step that is more likely to lead to greater violence than it is to avoid further violence.
Finally, it is really disappointing to see you resort to the sort of right-wing jingoism that you normally parody. Please provide one single direct quote from an Iranian leader saying that he would like to eradicate the US. Yes, I know that "everyone knows" such things have been said. Just like "everyone knew" Iraq was producing WMDs. I don't care what "everyone knows". I would like you to provide one direct quote.

jsteele wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:
The taboo against assassination has never made sense. Of course the leadership wants to prohibit it - they'd much rather thousands or millions of innocents die than one of them suffer.

You make a good argument but just because assassination is not as bad -- at least in the short term -- as alternatives doesn't mean that it is good. Just how long do you expect Iran to sit around doing nothing while its scientists are killed? There have already been a couple of Israeli scientists killed in mysterious circumstances (one in the US). Tit for tat only lasts so long before one side escalates. Iran is not the pushover that some of Israel's enemies have proven to be.

I don't expect it to change their behavior at all.

From their (i.e., his) words, they couldn't be any more opposed to the U.S. and Israel. I take them at their word that they would gleefully eradicate us if they could, so angering them isn't an issue.

I understand that certain actions could push them into a corner such that they feel that they have to act despite whatever is currently restraining them, but I don't think killing any number of scientists will create that reaction. I don't think the Iranian government will be inclined to do something desperate unless they're directly threatened with death or removal.

I have about as much basis for predicting their reactions as does my 5-year-old, but I'd rather gamble with the prospect of them starting a conventional war with our allies than gamble on what they'd do with a nuclear weapon, possibly directly to us.

sounds good, we should assist with our own bomb runs that are nuclear. At the very least a confidential air strike should be easy since we have Iraqi air space.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mitt Romney and his arsenal of neocon advisors are just jumping at the bit to attack Iran. Thank goodness Obama is telling Bibi we won't get involved WHEN Israel strikes. I desperately hope this is one promise Obama keeps.

Is this what he said? I hope so, but I have not read that anywhere.

Mainstream news never seems to cover this stuff.

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=106621

Anonymous wrote:Mitt Romney and his arsenal of neocon advisors are just jumping at the bit to attack Iran. Thank goodness Obama is telling Bibi we won't get involved WHEN Israel strikes. I desperately hope this is one promise Obama keeps.

Is this what he said? I hope so, but I have not read that anywhere.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:
The taboo against assassination has never made sense. Of course the leadership wants to prohibit it - they'd much rather thousands or millions of innocents die than one of them suffer.

You make a good argument but just because assassination is not as bad -- at least in the short term -- as alternatives doesn't mean that it is good. Just how long do you expect Iran to sit around doing nothing while its scientists are killed? There have already been a couple of Israeli scientists killed in mysterious circumstances (one in the US). Tit for tat only lasts so long before one side escalates. Iran is not the pushover that some of Israel's enemies have proven to be.

Mitt Romney and his arsenal of neocon advisors are just jumping at the bit to attack Iran. Thank goodness Obama is telling Bibi we won't get involved WHEN Israel strikes. I desperately hope this is one promise Obama keeps.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a tough one. You would find a scarce few people who objected when they bombed the nuclear reactor that Syria was building back in 2007. Not a thing.

The concern seems to be more about the negative consequences of antagonizing Iran rather than the justice of it. Everyone agrees that Iran destabilizes the ME. It's a matter of how best to contain or reduce the threat, which everyone but apparently the above poster agrees is real.

Iran is definitely a repulsive regime, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that Israel destabilizes the region a great deal more having carried out assassinations since the 1950s or 60s, seized land (including the land inside and/or outside its borders, which Israel has yet to define), bombed or invaded a significant number of the countries around it.

+1.

Israel's government is getting to be pretty repulsive too, having fallen into the hands of paranoid neocons who pander to the ultra-orthodox wingnuts (you know, the ones who harass little girls and call them whores while letting women do all the work) while letting a few ultra-powerful families rape the country.
A lot of Israelis have to be asking themselves "where did my country go"...
There are a lot of military experts who say that no bombs can penetrate deep enough into the ground to inflict enough damage on those installations. What happens when you attack a wasp's nest and don't obliterate the wasps?
This is all going to end in one big disaster.

If any country disrupts Iranian nuclear weapon research and development through means short of open combat, I'm delighted.

Compare Israel's assassinations and surgical strikes with what we do. To achieve important ends, they murder a small number of arguably innocent people. We devastate entire countries.

If we don't do it through invasion, we do it with sanctions. Economic isolation from the West ruins incomparably more lives than does a few assassinations or even bombings.

The taboo against assassination has never made sense. Of course the leadership wants to prohibit it - they'd much rather thousands or millions of innocents die than one of them suffer.

Anonymous wrote:It's a tough one. You would find a scarce few people who objected when they bombed the nuclear reactor that Syria was building back in 2007. Not a thing.

The concern seems to be more about the negative consequences of antagonizing Iran rather than the justice of it. Everyone agrees that Iran destabilizes the ME. It's a matter of how best to contain or reduce the threat, which everyone but apparently the above poster agrees is real.

Iran is definitely a repulsive regime, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that Israel destabilizes the region a great deal more having carried out assassinations since the 1950s or 60s, seized land (including the land inside and/or outside its borders, which Israel has yet to define), bombed or invaded a significant number of the countries around it.

It's a tough one. You would find a scarce few people who objected when they bombed the nuclear reactor that Syria was building back in 2007. Not a thing.

The concern seems to be more about the negative consequences of antagonizing Iran rather than the justice of it. Everyone agrees that Iran destabilizes the ME. It's a matter of how best to contain or reduce the threat, which everyone but apparently the above poster agrees is real.

War hysteria continues to grip the Middle East, as heightened anxieties over Iran's surreptitious nuclear program have the U.S. Defense Secretary on edge.

Leon Panetta said Thursday that Israel could launch attacks against Iran as early as April or May in effort to stop Tehran from building a nuclear bomb.

Panetta made the initial remarks to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, who said Israelis are worried the Iranians have enough enriched uranium and only the U.S. could stop them militarily.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/israel-attack-iran-sanctions-fail-defense-minister-ehud-barak-article-1.1016489#ixzz1lKJhpEXu

Bear in mind, Panetta indicated in Meet the Press last month that Iran is not yet building nuclear weapons:

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says Iran is laying the groundwork for making nuclear weapons someday, but is not yet building a bomb and called for continued diplomatic and economic pressure to persuade Tehran not to take that step.

As he has previously, Panetta cautioned against a unilateral strike by Israel against Iran's nuclear facilities, saying the action could trigger Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces in the region.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-iran-not-yet-decided-build-nuclear-bomb-140132073.html

Also bear in mind there is already a country in the Middle East that has them:

Israel has not confirmed that it has nuclear weapons and officially maintains that it will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East. Yet the existence of Israeli nuclear weapons is a "public secret" by now due to the declassification of large numbers of formerly highly classified US government documents which show that the United States by 1975 was convinced that Israel had nuclear weapons.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

And that this country is suspected of assassinating Iran's nuclear scientists:

Israel has emerged as a key suspect in the assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist in Tehran yesterday, thought to be the latest strike in a covert war that has targeted technicians, military plants, and computer systems at the heart of Islamic Republic’s uranium enrichment program.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0112/Was-Israel-behind-Iran-nuclear-scientist-s-assassination