Sabre Rattling

[DeletedUser3]

Prior to the U.S. elections, Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, had been rattling his sabre in private council regarding his plans to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Someone within his council leaked it to the press. Surprisingly this leak posed a profound change in mindset, as was expressed by Israeli politicians, military, and the citizenry.

They didn't want it.

The Israelis did not want further conflict, did not want to attack Iran. Some have argued it was due to timing, that the Israeli military had hoped for a Republican to gain office in the U.S. and an early conflict with Iran would have helped the standing U.S. President, but others have argued that it is simply a matter of, "let political pressure have its due turn," that due to economic and political pressures imposed upon Iran, their monetary system has collapsed, oil trades are at a trickle, the government has a tenuous hold, and the overwhelming younger generation is ready to take up arms in protest.

Your thoughts?

 

[DeletedUser1692]

Well I find it interesting that now, instead of just a rattling we're gone through a period of openly exchanged fire between Gaza and Israel. There's a cease-fire now, but not a particularly stable one. It makes me wonder how much religion affects world conflicts.

 

[DeletedUser]

So true... I don't think the cease-fire is going to last, but the U.S. seems intent on turning a blind eye...

 

[DeletedUser]

BiBi was trying to influence the U.S. elections by trying to paint Romney, through his praises and endorsement of him, as stronger for Israel, and implying that Obama wasn't. Bibi tried to work on the 'Dems are weak on foreign policy' and 'Repubs are stronger on FP' mindset...but the American public thankfully wasn't persuaded by the Israeli hard-right wing lunatic, anymore than were by the the all of a sudden 'severe-conservative' candidate running for POTUS.

Cynical ploy failed, and the butt kissing began when Pres. Obama went to Israel for, among many other and more important things, his victory lap in Bibi's backyard.

Attacking Iran is one of the stupidest things that Israel and the U.S. can do, imo. Economic isolation and covert interventions of their nuclear ambitions, to name a couple of things among many things, will achieve the same thing, without turning the Middle East into ground zero for WW3.

 

[DeletedUser]

Given a choice between threatening an attack and stopping those who would harm and actually attacking them to stop them, which would you prefer?? "Sabre rattling" is at the heart of EVERY diplomatic effort. If you don't have some kind of sabre to rattle, then your diplomatic efforts are for naught.

 

[DeletedUser]

Israel is able to rattle those sabres provided by the US year on year at a cost of billions. Obama had an opportunity to change things when he was first elected but made a point of stating he would continue to support Israel which he has reiterated since, presumably due to the influential rich who have bought out the politicians in the US and UK so called democracies and write the policies for them. What's so funny about, peace love and understanding?

 

[DeletedUser3]

It's patently false to think that "money" drives U.S. support of Israel. The great motivator is an effort to prevent use of nuclear weapons. Israel has repeatedly stated that, in a crunch and the threat of annihilation, they will use their nuclear weapons. This is an event best avoided and thus the U.S., along with many other countries, make a concerted effort to deny nuclear weapons from being obtained by others whilst pacifying those countries that already possess nuclear weapons (Pakistan, for example).

 

[DeletedUser]

Excuse me for reminding you that the only country that has used nuclear weapons on another to deliberately harm is the U.S. It's a bit rich using that argument. I still maintain that the US propagates fear as an excuse to interfere with the Middle East etc. for reasons other than nuclear deterrent and has no hesitation in using chemical weapons (agent orange, depleted uranium etc) in its interference.

 

[DeletedUser]

Excuse me for reminding you that the only country that has used nuclear weapons on another to deliberately harm is the U.S. It's a bit rich using that argument. I still maintain that the US propagates fear as an excuse to interfere with the Middle East etc. for reasons other than nuclear deterrent and has no hesitation in using chemical weapons (agent orange, depleted uranium etc) in its interference.

Apples are not oranges.

 

[DeletedUser3]

Excuse me for reminding you that the only country that has used nuclear weapons on another to deliberately harm is the U.S. It's a bit rich using that argument. I still maintain that the US propagates fear as an excuse to interfere with the Middle East etc. for reasons other than nuclear deterrent and has no hesitation in using chemical weapons (agent orange, depleted uranium etc) in its interference.

Indeed, apples vs oranges. The use of nuclear weapons at the onset, 70+ years ago when the extent of what it represented was not known and there was a world war going on the likes of which had never previously been experienced, is a poor argument against the notion of that same nation attempting to curb nuclear proliferation. Your great grandfather is not the person making decisions now, nor are we in the same circumstances. The cold war, the realization of potential catastrophic harm to all life on Earth, has made it abundantly clear that nuclear bombs are not a viable option.

As to your other assertions, please present evidence in support. Agent orange wasn't used as a weapon, it was used as a means to remove jungle cover, to change the battlefield obstacles that provided an advantage to the NLF. As to depleted uranium use, it is because of the density of such material, which makes it heavier and thus more useful for projectiles than lead (also a nasty little metal). Aggregate comparisons of toxicity for depleted uranium vs lead indicate neither is a very good choice. However, your assertions are largely along the route of conspiracy theories and, if I may be so bold, somewhat disingenuous.

 

[DeletedUser2785]

As to depleted uranium use, it is because of the density of such material, which makes it heavier and thus more useful for projectiles than lead (also a nasty little metal). Aggregate comparisons of toxicity for depleted uranium vs lead indicate neither is a very good choice.

Possibly we should use Gold for projectile material. The remaining population would then have a resource to purchase material to rebuild.

I too wish we all could live in peace and harmony. However, I know of no plans of the U.S and Israel to eliminate any other Nation from the face of the Earth.

Hellstromm, I am going to miss you thoughtful input in these forums. Goodluck

 

[DeletedUser]

Indeed, apples vs oranges. The use of nuclear weapons at the onset, 70+ years ago when the extent of what it represented was not known and there was a world war going on the likes of which had never previously been experienced, is a poor argument against the notion of that same nation attempting to curb nuclear proliferation. Your great grandfather is not the person making decisions now, nor are we in the same circumstances. The cold war, the realization of potential catastrophic harm to all life on Earth, has made it abundantly clear that nuclear bombs are not a viable option.

As to your other assertions, please present evidence in support. Agent orange wasn't used as a weapon, it was used as a means to remove jungle cover, to change the battlefield obstacles that provided an advantage to the NLF. As to depleted uranium use, it is because of the density of such material, which makes it heavier and thus more useful for projectiles than lead (also a nasty little metal). Aggregate comparisons of toxicity for depleted uranium vs lead indicate neither is a very good choice. However, your assertions are largely along the route of conspiracy theories and, if I may be so bold, somewhat disingenuous.

I enjoy apples and oranges. I don't know why the US has continued to arm and support Israel when they have been the violent expansionist protagonists for decades now, since I am not privy to their dialogue. I don't know why some nuclear countries are singled out for economic oppression, sanctions, whatever, and not others. Culture? Religion? Vested interests? I do know that we are lied to by the powers that be and that is proven after Iraq. If the US are trying to be the diplomats in preventing Israel messing with Iran then all I can ask is too little too late? They have underpinned all the violence to date there.

 

[DeletedUser3]

That Bush and his cronies lied doesn't make "the powers that be" extend to every administration. As well, what's this "violent expansionist protagonists" claim about Israel? I mean, seriously, do you even know the history there? As to the U.S. or Israel "underpinning all the violence" in the Middle East, again I must ask, do you even know the history there? Are you even watching the news now?

Your claims are such a stretch of the imagination, I'm really not sure whether you're participating in this debate, or working as a propagandist...

 

[DeletedUser2785]

Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons'

By WILLIAM LOWTHER, Daily Mail

US Defence Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons, it was revealed last night.
As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war with Iran.
The CIA had already warned that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily. But Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.
They included viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague, according to the Washington Post.
The extraordinary details have come to light because thousands of State Department documents dealing with the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war have just been declassified and released under the Freedom of Information Act.
At the very least, it is highly embarrassing for 70-year-old Mr Rumsfeld, who is the most powerful and vocal of all the hawks surrounding President Bush.
He bitterly condemns Saddam as a ruthless and brutal monster and frequently backs up his words by citing the use of the very weapons which it now appears he helped to supply.
The question is: Why has he never said anything about his role in the negotiations?
'Donald Rumsfeld has some explaining to do,' a senior Pentagon official said last night, while Congressional sources said that a Senate Committee was considering opening hearings to investigate exactly what happened.
The documents could hardly have been released at a worse time for Mr Rumsfeld, who is building up troops in the Gulf in preparation for a war with Iraq that is generally expected to start in about a month.
They will also embarrass Tony Blair as he attempts to build international support for military action.
And they will cause a headache for the Foreign Office, because the news will be seen by Islamic countries as a prime example of American hypocrisy over the issue.

<click link below to read the entire article>

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html#ixzz2VG3Wdkt7
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
​

While I am sure this is an older article, the 19 years after Regan does give a bit of a time reference, it is a documented and confirmed fact that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. Having lived through that time period, I seem to recall that it was suspected that much of the stockpile that UN inspectors were not able to locate were believed to have been moved to Syria. A country that is now suspected of using said weapons on it own population. I do not understand how you folks continue on your diatribe of "Bush Lied".

I do applaud you all for your efforts to be aware of the issues facing all of us on the planet, and the effects of an uncontrolled police state that you feel the U.S has become. However, You all do need to do a bit more research into the FACTS surrounding your positions. All of the past administrations have been guilty of intrigue and deceptions from the start of this nation. One of the reasons why the founding Fathers desired this nation to be free of foreign entanglements.

There is good and bad in any form of government, or the lack thereof. Total and complete Anarchy would allow each of you to lead the life you wish without constraint. However it would allow those around you the same benefits, and may lead to a rather shortlived "benefit period". Until this planet is able to adopt "True Communism" , we are going to be saddled with haves and havenots. The haves will continue to protect what they have, and the havenots will continue to complain and rebel. I will not say the system of government we have is perfect. However I will stand and say it is the best system this planet has seen. I know that if I disagree with it I can do my best to see it changed. Very few folks in this world have that option.

Please take a bit of your time to explore both sides of an issue. Look at it at the converse. You want me to be forced to accept your viewpoint, how would you feel being forced to accept it from mine? Much of what you do, believe and feel is what you have been "TRAINED" to do feel and believe. Learn how to learn, not just to accept what you are fed.

That Bush and his cronies lied doesn't make "the powers that be" extend to every administration. As well, what's this "violent expansionist protagonists" claim about Israel? I mean, seriously, do you even know the history there? As to the U.S. or Israel "underpinning all the violence" in the Middle East, again I must ask, do you even know the history there? Are you even watching the news now?

Your claims are such a stretch of the imagination, I'm really not sure whether you're participating in this debate, or working as a propagandist...

I only replied to this in this thread, a recurrent theme in others that seems to be repeated.

Thanks for the timelines above, I am looking them over. Much more complicated than what I remember from classes in school. One thing I will say is that the issue is very complicated and will take all sides to resolve, leaving all parties unhappy.

 

[DeletedUser3]

(( this post was initially posed by SLange and I erroneously merged it with a post from a different debate participant. Sorry about the confusion. ))

I found this site which will be of interest to anyone who is not aware of the history www.mideastweb.org/timeline.htm yes I am aware of the history. What it doesn't reference much is the constant Israeli incursion to the West Bank and the treatment of Palestinians there to date which has been appalling. I will not sit by and idly say poor Israel due to the problems it has had in the past. If you think I am a propagandist then maybe I am just trying to even the balance. News coverage always covers Palestinian aggression before Israeli, especially just before the ceasefire and you have to go along way to see through it. Even timelines of aggression are distorted. I didn't mean underpinning all the violence in the Middle East although picking and choosing which factions to arm and support according to the US own prejudices does tend to fan the flames, I meant that the extent of financial and armament support to Israel at the expense of dismayed and underprivileged Palestinians hasn't helped.

www.amnesty.org/en/region/israel-occupied-palestinian-territories/report-2012

and since DadnKing opened the debate to include past falsehoods, this kind of thing does not help those with over active imaginations and too many questions www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/04/us-officials-secret-email-accounts?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 

[DeletedUser]

I do not understand how you folks continue on your diatribe of "Bush Lied".

CIA and MI6 were aware via intelligence that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to war and it is on record all facilities for making such were destroyed in 1991. Bush would have known this as president. Therefore he lied.

Until this planet is able to adopt "True Communism" , we are going to be saddled with haves and havenots. The haves will continue to protect what they have, and the havenots will continue to complain and rebel.

A somewhat simplistic view of crony capitalism versus socialism in my view.

Please take a bit of your time to explore both sides of an issue. Look at it at the converse. You want me to be forced to accept your viewpoint, how would you feel being forced to accept it from mine? Much of what you do, believe and feel is what you have been "TRAINED" to do feel and believe. Learn how to learn, not just to accept what you are fed.

I would agree with this.