OT: Israel will bomb Iran within 12 months

[Arraya]

[quote=CDMA ENG]

Israel will do what it wants to. In Lebanon, Jordan, Egpyt, or anywhere else it please despite condemnation of the UN or the US.

Look at the case history.

CE[/quote]

Indeed, even sinking the USS Liberty with nary a peep.

Interestingly, In all those cases there were New Hitlers and Holocausts awaiting. With regurgitated memes of “wiping of the map” and “Pushing into the sea”. It must be mentally trying for the average Israeli to fear constant Hitlers under ever rock and Holocausts around every corner. Also, all of Israel’s military moves have been preemptive. Iraq, was the US’s first preemptive war ever. In Israeli fashion, the American public was scared with imminent attack and mushroom cloud warnings.

Of course, the neocon echo-chamber proclaimed Saddam to be the new Hitler. Goldberg, who wrote the Atlantic piece, was part of that echo-chamber tying Iraq to Al Qaeda and stoking the fears of mushroom clouds in Boise. Interestingly, as a recent Salon article pointed out. Goldberg asserted that Israel’s Osirk strike permanently halted Saddam’s nuclear ambitions — except when he wanted to scare Americans into supporting a an Iraqi attack he was singing a different tune.

So Goldberg pretty much says what ever he wants, using whatever rationale and emotional buzz words that works to get people into a war frenzy. With no consistency in his logic. As far as the “Iranian threat”, the deeper you dig down there really is not much to go on as far as evidence is concerned. While at the same time, it sure would be understandable giving the constant threats and being surrounded by an aggressive country that invades countries on dubious claims. If I was them, I would be rushing to get a bomb as a deterrent.

Regarding Osirak

The reactor was inspected by Dr. Richard Wilson, chair of Harvard’s physics department, within weeks of the bombing, and he reported that the reactor was incapable of weapons production.[18] Indeed, it has been suggested that “the attack may have actually increased Saddam’s commitment to acquiring weapons.

We kind of have a self-fulfilling prophecy in motion.

The funny thing is, Iran hasn’t invaded anybody in hundreds of years nor is it in violation of an international laws or UN resolutions. We can’t say the same thing about Israel. By many measures Iran is a better member of the international community than Israel. But we’re led to believe, the Persians, one of the oldest cultures in the world, one that has fought hard for their sovereignty, suddenly has acquired a death wish. Or that we have the third-holiest site in the Muslim world in Jerusalem, and millions of Muslims living within 100 miles of it. And Iran is going to nuke Israel.

Israel may, very well, attack Iran. But the whole thing does not add up to “imminent threat” and the usual echo-chamber, is up to it’s old tricks. Who have NEVER been correct about anything. Including their two greatest hits of Ignoring, intelligence reports that said: Bin Laden determined to strike the US and Iraq was not a threat(which is quite different than, if they have WMDs). Two costly mistakes to say the least. So, I think I will refrain from sipping on their poison kool-aide.

At this point, with the economic fragility of the world and the precarious state of the oil market, attacking Iran is about the stupidest thing Israel could ever do and most likely would push the world into a depression.

[SK in CV]

[quote=patb]won’t happen.

If the bushies with all those crazed neocons
couldn’t do this, it won’t happen now.

http://www.juancole.com/2010/08/an-israeli-attack-on-iran-would-reduce-barack-obama-to-a-one-term-president.html

. His ambivalence, he says, extends to whether Israel should attack Iran unilaterally, though he is convinced by his ‘interviewing’ that it likely will. It reminds me of all the caveats and ambivalences in Ken Pollack’s book ‘Gathering Storm,’ which was used by warmongers nevertheless to help get up the Iraq War.

Goldberg knows that Obama is not actually going to war against Iran. Despite what he says, Bibi Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, is for all his bluster far too personally indecisive to take such a major step (and certainly not without an American green light; Bibi thinks Clinton had him undermined and moved out of office for obstructing the Oslo accords, and does not want to risk the same fate for causing trouble for Obama in Iraq and Afghanistan). How Goldberg could miss this truism in Israeli politics is beyond me.

[/quote]

Juan Cole is right I suspect. I don’t always agree with him, but he is probably the most keen observer of the middle east today. Bibi is about his own legacy. Moreso than any of our last 3 presidents for sure. He’s also well aware of the impending demographic end game that threatens to destroy Israel. It is not a risk he can take. So he will continue to carefully balance his current domestic support with his legacy. War with Iran will not ensure the legacy he desires. Only peace will.

[SK in CV]

[quote=patb]won’t happen.

If the bushies with all those crazed neocons
couldn’t do this, it won’t happen now.

http://www.juancole.com/2010/08/an-israeli-attack-on-iran-would-reduce-barack-obama-to-a-one-term-president.html

. His ambivalence, he says, extends to whether Israel should attack Iran unilaterally, though he is convinced by his ‘interviewing’ that it likely will. It reminds me of all the caveats and ambivalences in Ken Pollack’s book ‘Gathering Storm,’ which was used by warmongers nevertheless to help get up the Iraq War.

Goldberg knows that Obama is not actually going to war against Iran. Despite what he says, Bibi Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, is for all his bluster far too personally indecisive to take such a major step (and certainly not without an American green light; Bibi thinks Clinton had him undermined and moved out of office for obstructing the Oslo accords, and does not want to risk the same fate for causing trouble for Obama in Iraq and Afghanistan). How Goldberg could miss this truism in Israeli politics is beyond me.

[/quote]

Juan Cole is right I suspect. I don’t always agree with him, but he is probably the most keen observer of the middle east today. Bibi is about his own legacy. Moreso than any of our last 3 presidents for sure. He’s also well aware of the impending demographic end game that threatens to destroy Israel. It is not a risk he can take. So he will continue to carefully balance his current domestic support with his legacy. War with Iran will not ensure the legacy he desires. Only peace will.

[SK in CV]

[quote=patb]won’t happen.

If the bushies with all those crazed neocons
couldn’t do this, it won’t happen now.

http://www.juancole.com/2010/08/an-israeli-attack-on-iran-would-reduce-barack-obama-to-a-one-term-president.html

. His ambivalence, he says, extends to whether Israel should attack Iran unilaterally, though he is convinced by his ‘interviewing’ that it likely will. It reminds me of all the caveats and ambivalences in Ken Pollack’s book ‘Gathering Storm,’ which was used by warmongers nevertheless to help get up the Iraq War.

Goldberg knows that Obama is not actually going to war against Iran. Despite what he says, Bibi Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, is for all his bluster far too personally indecisive to take such a major step (and certainly not without an American green light; Bibi thinks Clinton had him undermined and moved out of office for obstructing the Oslo accords, and does not want to risk the same fate for causing trouble for Obama in Iraq and Afghanistan). How Goldberg could miss this truism in Israeli politics is beyond me.

[/quote]

Juan Cole is right I suspect. I don’t always agree with him, but he is probably the most keen observer of the middle east today. Bibi is about his own legacy. Moreso than any of our last 3 presidents for sure. He’s also well aware of the impending demographic end game that threatens to destroy Israel. It is not a risk he can take. So he will continue to carefully balance his current domestic support with his legacy. War with Iran will not ensure the legacy he desires. Only peace will.

[SK in CV]

[quote=patb]won’t happen.

If the bushies with all those crazed neocons
couldn’t do this, it won’t happen now.

http://www.juancole.com/2010/08/an-israeli-attack-on-iran-would-reduce-barack-obama-to-a-one-term-president.html

. His ambivalence, he says, extends to whether Israel should attack Iran unilaterally, though he is convinced by his ‘interviewing’ that it likely will. It reminds me of all the caveats and ambivalences in Ken Pollack’s book ‘Gathering Storm,’ which was used by warmongers nevertheless to help get up the Iraq War.

Goldberg knows that Obama is not actually going to war against Iran. Despite what he says, Bibi Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, is for all his bluster far too personally indecisive to take such a major step (and certainly not without an American green light; Bibi thinks Clinton had him undermined and moved out of office for obstructing the Oslo accords, and does not want to risk the same fate for causing trouble for Obama in Iraq and Afghanistan). How Goldberg could miss this truism in Israeli politics is beyond me.

[/quote]

Juan Cole is right I suspect. I don’t always agree with him, but he is probably the most keen observer of the middle east today. Bibi is about his own legacy. Moreso than any of our last 3 presidents for sure. He’s also well aware of the impending demographic end game that threatens to destroy Israel. It is not a risk he can take. So he will continue to carefully balance his current domestic support with his legacy. War with Iran will not ensure the legacy he desires. Only peace will.

[SK in CV]

[quote=patb]won’t happen.

If the bushies with all those crazed neocons
couldn’t do this, it won’t happen now.

http://www.juancole.com/2010/08/an-israeli-attack-on-iran-would-reduce-barack-obama-to-a-one-term-president.html

. His ambivalence, he says, extends to whether Israel should attack Iran unilaterally, though he is convinced by his ‘interviewing’ that it likely will. It reminds me of all the caveats and ambivalences in Ken Pollack’s book ‘Gathering Storm,’ which was used by warmongers nevertheless to help get up the Iraq War.

Goldberg knows that Obama is not actually going to war against Iran. Despite what he says, Bibi Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, is for all his bluster far too personally indecisive to take such a major step (and certainly not without an American green light; Bibi thinks Clinton had him undermined and moved out of office for obstructing the Oslo accords, and does not want to risk the same fate for causing trouble for Obama in Iraq and Afghanistan). How Goldberg could miss this truism in Israeli politics is beyond me.

[/quote]

Juan Cole is right I suspect. I don’t always agree with him, but he is probably the most keen observer of the middle east today. Bibi is about his own legacy. Moreso than any of our last 3 presidents for sure. He’s also well aware of the impending demographic end game that threatens to destroy Israel. It is not a risk he can take. So he will continue to carefully balance his current domestic support with his legacy. War with Iran will not ensure the legacy he desires. Only peace will.

[Aecetia]

Rise of the Neo-Authoritarian Intelligentsia

“Will the existence of a vast and menacing Iraqi nuclear program help my cause (getting Americans to attack Iraq)? Fine, then I’ll trumpet that. Now, however, it will help my cause (mainstreaming an attack on Iran) to claim that the Israelis permanently ended Iraq’s nuclear efforts in 1981, thus showing how well these attacks can work. No problem: I’ll go with that. How can anyone take seriously — as a Middle East expert and especially as a journalist — someone with this blatant and thorough of an estrangement from any concern for truth?”

http://www.thedailybell.com/index.asp

[Aecetia]

Rise of the Neo-Authoritarian Intelligentsia

“Will the existence of a vast and menacing Iraqi nuclear program help my cause (getting Americans to attack Iraq)? Fine, then I’ll trumpet that. Now, however, it will help my cause (mainstreaming an attack on Iran) to claim that the Israelis permanently ended Iraq’s nuclear efforts in 1981, thus showing how well these attacks can work. No problem: I’ll go with that. How can anyone take seriously — as a Middle East expert and especially as a journalist — someone with this blatant and thorough of an estrangement from any concern for truth?”

http://www.thedailybell.com/index.asp

[Aecetia]

Rise of the Neo-Authoritarian Intelligentsia

“Will the existence of a vast and menacing Iraqi nuclear program help my cause (getting Americans to attack Iraq)? Fine, then I’ll trumpet that. Now, however, it will help my cause (mainstreaming an attack on Iran) to claim that the Israelis permanently ended Iraq’s nuclear efforts in 1981, thus showing how well these attacks can work. No problem: I’ll go with that. How can anyone take seriously — as a Middle East expert and especially as a journalist — someone with this blatant and thorough of an estrangement from any concern for truth?”

http://www.thedailybell.com/index.asp

[Aecetia]

Rise of the Neo-Authoritarian Intelligentsia

“Will the existence of a vast and menacing Iraqi nuclear program help my cause (getting Americans to attack Iraq)? Fine, then I’ll trumpet that. Now, however, it will help my cause (mainstreaming an attack on Iran) to claim that the Israelis permanently ended Iraq’s nuclear efforts in 1981, thus showing how well these attacks can work. No problem: I’ll go with that. How can anyone take seriously — as a Middle East expert and especially as a journalist — someone with this blatant and thorough of an estrangement from any concern for truth?”

http://www.thedailybell.com/index.asp

[Aecetia]

Rise of the Neo-Authoritarian Intelligentsia

“Will the existence of a vast and menacing Iraqi nuclear program help my cause (getting Americans to attack Iraq)? Fine, then I’ll trumpet that. Now, however, it will help my cause (mainstreaming an attack on Iran) to claim that the Israelis permanently ended Iraq’s nuclear efforts in 1981, thus showing how well these attacks can work. No problem: I’ll go with that. How can anyone take seriously — as a Middle East expert and especially as a journalist — someone with this blatant and thorough of an estrangement from any concern for truth?”

http://www.thedailybell.com/index.asp

[blahblahblah]

They’re gonna do what they’re gonna do regardless of what any journalist writes or what any crummy citizens think. War sells big here in the homeland as well as over there in the holy land. It’ll get the Bubbas riled up in Alabama and the Uris riled up over in the settlements. Good re-election stuff — gettin’ tough on terror and all that. We need some fresh war, the two we have now are getting boring and stale. Nothing much happens, just some crummy IEDs and guys driving around in 130 degree heat trying not to get shot. They’re a lot more fun in the beginning, with stuff blowing up on TV, fighters zooming around, Wolf Blitzer standing in front of a big animated graphic map with arrows moving around in HD. Yellow ribbons, patriotic songs on “American Idol”, Toby Keith playing the Super Bowl, we love it. Bring it on.

[blahblahblah]

They’re gonna do what they’re gonna do regardless of what any journalist writes or what any crummy citizens think. War sells big here in the homeland as well as over there in the holy land. It’ll get the Bubbas riled up in Alabama and the Uris riled up over in the settlements. Good re-election stuff — gettin’ tough on terror and all that. We need some fresh war, the two we have now are getting boring and stale. Nothing much happens, just some crummy IEDs and guys driving around in 130 degree heat trying not to get shot. They’re a lot more fun in the beginning, with stuff blowing up on TV, fighters zooming around, Wolf Blitzer standing in front of a big animated graphic map with arrows moving around in HD. Yellow ribbons, patriotic songs on “American Idol”, Toby Keith playing the Super Bowl, we love it. Bring it on.

[blahblahblah]

They’re gonna do what they’re gonna do regardless of what any journalist writes or what any crummy citizens think. War sells big here in the homeland as well as over there in the holy land. It’ll get the Bubbas riled up in Alabama and the Uris riled up over in the settlements. Good re-election stuff — gettin’ tough on terror and all that. We need some fresh war, the two we have now are getting boring and stale. Nothing much happens, just some crummy IEDs and guys driving around in 130 degree heat trying not to get shot. They’re a lot more fun in the beginning, with stuff blowing up on TV, fighters zooming around, Wolf Blitzer standing in front of a big animated graphic map with arrows moving around in HD. Yellow ribbons, patriotic songs on “American Idol”, Toby Keith playing the Super Bowl, we love it. Bring it on.

[blahblahblah]

They’re gonna do what they’re gonna do regardless of what any journalist writes or what any crummy citizens think. War sells big here in the homeland as well as over there in the holy land. It’ll get the Bubbas riled up in Alabama and the Uris riled up over in the settlements. Good re-election stuff — gettin’ tough on terror and all that. We need some fresh war, the two we have now are getting boring and stale. Nothing much happens, just some crummy IEDs and guys driving around in 130 degree heat trying not to get shot. They’re a lot more fun in the beginning, with stuff blowing up on TV, fighters zooming around, Wolf Blitzer standing in front of a big animated graphic map with arrows moving around in HD. Yellow ribbons, patriotic songs on “American Idol”, Toby Keith playing the Super Bowl, we love it. Bring it on.

[Author]

Posts