terpfan1980 terpfan1980

Is Israel about to defang Iran? Signs point to yes...

Is Israel about to defang Iran? Signs point to yes...

News today that Isreal is readying for an assault on Iran's secret nuclear facilities.

This is something we all could see coming from miles away. Isreal is not likely to sit back and let Iran become a nuclear power, especially not with Iran making comments suggesting that Isreal needs to be moved to Europe.

The big question is where the left will find themselves when this inevitable confrontation takes place. Will they be waving little white flags, decrying Israel's use of military force in a nearby sovereign nation, or will they cheer the action with righteous indignation over Iran's failure to cooperate with the international community.

I still find it hard to believe that we'd be any where near this point if we hadn't gone through 4 years of Jimmy Carter's ineptitude back in the 1970s that let Iran fall into the hands of radical Islamists. Beyond that though, we also suffered through 8 years of Clinton-Gore during which time military actions were reserved for quagmires like Kosovo and for the occassional distraction away from the Paula Jones/Monica Lewinsky scandals. Had we not gone through at least 8 years worth of letting the U.N.'s resolutions have absolutely no meaning, then perhaps we would now have more respect for that organization from the likes of Iran and other nations that do nothing but thumb their noses at the world's demands.

If Israel really does go after Iran (which seems inevitable at this point), it could truly set off a powder keg and a chain reaction of hostilities that will make the current situation in Iraq seem like a backyard schoolboy fight.

I hope that the flag-wavers in the Democratic party and on the left (as well as it the idiotic RINOs like C.O.L. Gene who keeps demanding that we leave now) slow down and really consider what their demands for an exit strategy in Iraq may lead to. For the clowns (like the C.O.L.) that want an immediate withdrawal of troops are they going to be ready to send them back into the middle of the middle east when there's an even stronger possibility of finding WMDs, and an even stronger possibility of having WMDs used in the battle/war?

Anyway, original article snippet follows. Please see original for complete story. Headline (as usual) linked.






Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran

Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv, and Sarah Baxter, Washington

ISRAEL’S armed forces have been ordered by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran, military sources have revealed.
The order came after Israeli intelligence warned the government that Iran was operating enrichment facilities, believed to be small and concealed in civilian locations.
Iran’s stand-off with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over nuclear inspections and aggressive rhetoric from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, who said last week that Israel should be moved to Europe, are causing mounting concern.
The crisis is set to come to a head in early March, when Mohamed El-Baradei, the head of the IAEA, will present his next report on Iran. El-Baradei, who received the Nobel peace prize yesterday, warned that the world was “losing patience” with Iran.
A senior White House source said the threat of a nuclear Iran was moving to the top of the international agenda and the issue now was: “What next?” That question would have to be answered in the next few months, he said.
Defence sources in Israel believe the end of March to be the “point of no return” after which Iran will have the technical expertise to enrich uranium in sufficient quantities to build a nuclear warhead in two to four years.
“Israel — and not only Israel — cannot accept a nuclear Iran,” Sharon warned recently. “We have the ability to deal with this and we’re making all the necessary preparations to be ready for such a situation.”
The order to prepare for a possible attack went through the Israeli defence ministry to the chief of staff. Sources inside special forces command confirmed that “G” readiness — the highest stage — for an operation was announced last week.
Gholamreza Aghazadeah, head of the Atomic Organisation of Iran, warned yesterday that his country would produce nuclear fuel. “There is no doubt that we have to carry out uranium enrichment,” he said.
{ snip }
If a military operation is approved, Israel will use air and ground forces against several nuclear targets in the hope of stalling Tehran’s nuclear programme for years, according to Israeli military sources.
It is believed Israel would call on its top special forces brigade, Unit 262 — the equivalent of the SAS — and the F-15I strategic 69 Squadron, which can strike Iran and return to Israel without refuelling.


The Sunday Times (U.K.) - Online edition - December 11, 2005

much more at original article
9,154 views 40 replies
Reply #26 Top

in 1953 he was forced into exile until us/brit spooks worked their magic to make mossadeq disappear and lots of money start pouring back into the anglo-iranian oil company once again.


And you wouold argue that helping the legitimate government of a country against a disloyal minister who steals private property constitutes taking over power?

So presumably the moment Mossaddeq broke Iranian law and started stealing, he became the legitimate government and acting against him and for the original government constitutes an illegal coup?

This is sad, Kingbee. The man you claimed took power with CIA help in 1953 was actually made ruler in WW2 because of his anti-Nazi stand.
Reply #27 Top
the legitimate government of a country against a disloyal minister who steals private property constitutes taking over power


disloyal to whom? stealing from whom? if anyone was stealing from the people of iran it would be the shah of shahs in league with the nice folks at anglo-iranian oil.

The man you claimed took power with CIA help in 1953 was actually made ruler in WW2 because of his anti-Nazi stand.


yeah he was a principled young guy who drove his father off the peacock throne. the kinda guy who could never have been bought by the nazis...as long as he was more scared of the ussr and britain (the very powers that made him ruler cuz he was more pliable than his old man)than hitler.

btw, whether i do or don't 'claim' palavi took power in 1953 with the help of the cia/british intelligence isn't gonna change history. read kermit roosevelt's book 'countercoup' in which he unabashedly takes credit for having engineered 'operation ajax'--including stepping in to take over for a craven 'lord of the aryans' who was so valiant a monarch he spent mosta his time ignobly ruining his expensive uniform pants.

"Stephen Kinzer, in his book All the Shah's Men, aserts: "It is not far-fetched to draw a line from Operation Ajax through the Shah's repressive regime and the Islamic Revolution to the fireballs that engulfed the World Trade Center in New York." Link
Reply #28 Top

disloyal to whom? stealing from whom?


Disloyal to the Shah, the government of Iran.

Stealing from oil companies.

I see you still haven't bothered to check your facts.

You simply repeat something you read somewhere, don't bother to check the facts (even though that is easy), and then get upset when others point out the errors. What's the point?
Reply #29 Top
Disloyal to the Shah, the government of Iran.


if you truly feel contempt towards those who celebrate disloyalty to monarchs and shahs, you may wanna save yourself the expense of coming to the us.

Stealing from oil companies


the very oil companies who went to such efforts to corrupt the governments of every oil producing nation in the mideast and have--for the past 100 years--conspired to steal as much as possible from the citizens of those nations in collusion with the puppets they installed or enabled?

You simply repeat something you read somewhere, don't bother to check the facts (even though that is easy), and then get upset when others point out the errors. What's the point?


i didn't get upset when you pointed out my confusing one reza palavi with another. it didn't detract from nor invalidate my argument. the turning point in iran's history was not 1941 but 1953.
Reply #30 Top
I didn't say "feel contempt". You made that up. I merely pointed out that the Shah was NOT put in power by the CIA but was already in power since 1941. That was something you simply didn't know.

And not only did you get upset when it was pointed out that you confused the Shah with his father, you even accused me of denying historical facts. When you were first told that you were wrong, you should have checked with an encyclopedia or history book. Instead you decided to insult the messenger. That's when you lost the "I didn't get upset" argument.

Your argument was invalid because the incident you referred to didn't happen as you claim it did. The Shah was within his rights to fire a prime minister who broke the law by nationalising private property. A British prime minister or German chancellor could be "overthrown" for the same act, even when condoned by parliament. And yes, a legitimate government (and that's what the Shah was) can accept help from other countries.

There is nothing sinister about it.

What exactly did the oil companies steal from the citizens of middle-eastern countries? The oil they happened to be born on and could never use because they didn't invent petrol and diesel engines? The desert land used by the oil companies which could not be used for anything else? Their pride because western oil companies can do what locals cannot do?

Tell me, what exactly was stolen?
Reply #31 Top
What was stolen from these people and why did they "own" it?
Reply #32 Top
Your argument was invalid because the incident you referred to didn't happen as you claim it did. The Shah was within his rights to fire a prime minister who broke the law by nationalising private property


mossadeq didn't break any lranian law. prior to his appointment as prime minister, the iranian parliament approved nationalizing the anglo-iranian oil company. the prime minister mossadeq would shortly suceed, opposed nationalization and was assassinated shortly thereafter. mossadeq was elected to replace him by more than a 6-1 majority.

the shah had no choice but to accept it. no he didn't try to fire him.
Reply #33 Top
What exactly did the oil companies steal from the citizens of middle-eastern countries? The oil they happened to be born on and could never use because they didn't invent petrol and diesel engines? The desert land used by the oil companies which could not be used for anything else? Their pride because western oil companies can do what locals cannot do?


and yet the native peoples of alaska seem to have a right to oil they happened to be born above...despite not having invented petrol or engines that use it as fuel. the tundra isn't much good for anything else. it's still their land as are the resources beneath it.

and to think only last week you were lauding the noble shia...this week they're just desert losers. mighty fickle arent ya?
Reply #34 Top

and yet the native peoples of alaska seem to have a right to oil they happened to be born above...despite not having invented petrol or engines that use it as fuel. the tundra isn't much good for anything else. it's still their land as are the resources beneath it.


When did I say that I believed that the native peoples of Alaska own the oil under Alaska?

I doubt you will ever hear me say that I believe that anybody owns natural resources just because he happens to be there.

I dare you, find the evidence for your claim.


and to think only last week you were lauding the noble shia...this week they're just desert losers. mighty fickle arent ya?


I didn't call any religious community "desert losers". I don't use that term. You must have heard it from the left.


mossadeq didn't break any lranian law.


Of course he did. The Shah certainly didn't approve of Mossaddeq's actions. And the Shah was the law. And yes, I'd rather support the Shah than a thief or those that came after the Shah.
Reply #35 Top
Note that you didn't answer my question of why these people "own" the oil.
Reply #36 Top

*note to dr guy: believe it or not some people actually admit to making mistakes...and this is how it's done. you should try it some time

Congratulations, but I was not wrong.  In this case you were.

Reply #37 Top
Wasn't Mossaddegh tried for and convicted of treason later?

I suppose treason wasn't illegal in Persia at the time?
Reply #38 Top

i didn't get upset when you pointed out my confusing one reza palavi with another. it didn't detract from nor invalidate my argument. the turning point in iran's history was not 1941 but 1953.

Uh, yes it did.  It blew your argument out of the water.  The US and Brits did not INSTALL him.  They recognized him as the legitimate ruler and came to his assistance when asked.  Something you rail about on the opposite side!  Again, you need to check your facts closer.  Your argument is in error.  Yet you are still arguing it, and you CLAIM you admitted you were wrong?  How can you CLAIM you admitted you were wrong when you are still arguing the same wrong point?

Reply #39 Top
The left have always used 1953 as an "argument". It's their holy grail (pardon) when it comes to Iran.

They believe they just have to connect an incident to the CIA to prove that evil has been done. Unfortunately the right don't believe in CIA == evil and the "argument" doesn't work.
Reply #40 Top
I believe I have to add "CIA", "Shah", and "Nicaragua" to my liberal dictionary.