http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL06251958

"If Iran continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective," Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz told the mass-circulation Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.

"Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable," said the former army chief who has also been defence minister.

I find that statement ridiculous, coming from a country with 100+ nuclear weapons.

Mofaz also said in the interview that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, "would disappear before Israel does."

How is this mistranslation still appearing in reputable news sources?

its called demonization.

That's Israel for you.

Israel has always annoyed me, but doesn't one or the other make statements like this weekly these days? Some day I fear it's going to happen though one of them is going to pull the trigger :(

Oh there's lil doubt the next major conflict will be ME centered. I don't count the current wars as major btw.

Question is, will Iran initiate it? If they keep thumbing their noses at the UN and IEA they put themselves in a bad position.

I can also understand Israels ire with Iran considering Iran's stance/actions in regards to Israel. I'd be worried and considering action as well if I was in their shoes.

Still think setting up Israel there was a mistake. Granted I have been informed that there was already a very large Jewish population in the area prior to the designation of Israel as an independent nation in what..48?

There will hardly be peace in that area imho as long as we keep sending funds over to all parties involved.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, while Israel may have (as Sanchek clamied) 100+ nukes, there is not much history available of Israel turning over or selling it's weaponry to terrorist groups; Iran on the other hand has openly claimed it's support of such, which gives rise to fears that if they do develop nuclear weapons they will find their way to terrorists.

Not saying any of the above is factual; only that that is the argument being pressed, basically.

Didn't the Iran-Contra thing somewhat involve Israel selling or shipping weapons to Iran?

the leader of isreal didnt say he wanted iran wiped off the map and all of its people dead publically like iran did.

the leader of isreal didnt say he wanted iran wiped off the map and all of its people dead publically like iran did.

what the shit, is this myth seriously still alive?

Didn't the Iran-Contra thing somewhat involve Israel selling or shipping weapons to Iran?

I think Oliie North may have used Israeli agents as middlemen for America to conduct it's illegal arming of Contra rebels, yes.

what the shit, is this myth seriously still alive?

Myths die hard, Wig.....I actually have a coworker that still believes Obama is Muslim, no matter what I say or show her to refute that rumor.

the leader of isreal didnt say he wanted iran wiped off the map and all of its people dead publically like iran did.

You are being manipulated.

Yeah, we should arm both sides, and let them duke it out. That would be for the best....

Let Iran have nukes, seriously Israel does, why can't Iran. let them all have nukes. I am tired of trying to explain why one country shouldn't have nukes, while another one does. Everyone should have one! We all have to die sooner or later, one thing is for sure...the US will die last on that war front.

As opposed to arming only one side, in an extremely volatile region?

I believe MAD theory is perfectly applicable here, and I think that a state which could counteract Israel's grossly disproportionate power would be good for the entire region.

The obvious problem being that nuclear material coming out of Iran could find itself in the wrong hands. This makes it a less than optimal candidate for this 'balancing' position.

Still, I think the world community needs to find some way to assimilate Israel back into the real world, where their actions have consequences and they are not able to dictate Middle East policy nearly unilaterally.

And as far as ignoring the UN goes... We do it repeatedly when we decide it is in our interests. Israel does the same. We also have used our permanent position on the Security Council dozens of times (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm) to veto anything that isn't 100% pro-Israel. We are usually alone in this position.

60% of Europeans find Israel to be the most dangerous country in the world. Think about that. The most dangerous country in the world. That should really say something.

I find that very strange, but I guess I don't understand why Europeons find Israel so dangerous...to "them". Has Israel attacked Europe? They would get wiped out......They should be more afraid of some Muslim Extremists than Israeli's.

If we're going to be so worried about what might happen if Iran gets one nuke, why can't Europe be worried about what might happen regarding Israel's 100+? They wouldn't use it, for the very same reason you say Israel wouldn't.

I guess then Ainwein's comment on dangerous needs more explaination, are they considered dangerous because people in Europe are actually afraid Israel is going to attack them (much like Israels feeling with Iran/Palestine) or do they consider them dangerous because they think those nukes will just go off in their back yard? Or do they think they are dangerous because the Israeli's may sell them to someone that doesn't like Europe?

60% of Europeans find Israel to be the most dangerous country in the world. Think about that. The most dangerous country in the world. That should really say something.

Without a source, it says you pulled from it where the sun doesn't shine.

Does the other 40% consider the U.S. the most dangerous? Was the question worded "Between the United States, and Isreal, which country do you consider more dangerous?"

The belief is that if you have an issue with Israel, Israel will use nukes in defense, or possibly in an offensive to counteract a supposed threat to gods chosen people.

It's not as if Israel would ever jump the gun and attack someone unprovoked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident).

im assuming dangerous country as in danger to regional and world stability/peace.

Sixee - This poll is pretty widespread knowledge, and has been out for a number of years. Use google.

As for why they feel this way...

The poll identified Israel as 'the greatest threat to world peace'. As in the entity Israel. Not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not any other Middle Eastern countries. They singled out Israel.

I personally believe it's because Europeans seem to be overall much more level-headed than we are. America is the only major country that supports Israel unconditionally. Our education system and the media continually bolster the notion that Israel is morally superior to its foes, and that we must support them 100%. They can engage in questionable activities, all the while knowing that the average American has no idea what's going on, and that we're going to support them in public opinion and if need be at the UN security council.

I think this type of unchecked unilateralism scares Europeans, and I think that their fear is well-founded. It's to the point now where questioning Israel's actions as a state is considered morally reprehensible by many Americans. If you do not agree with Zionism, you will be called an anti-Semite. This is not good.

Sixee - This poll is pretty widespread knowledge, and has been out for a number of years. Use google.

As for why they feel this way...

The poll identified Israel as 'the greatest threat to world peace'. As in the entity Israel. Not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not any other Middle Eastern countries. They singled out Israel.

I personally believe it's because Europeans seem to be overall much more level-headed than we are. America is the only major country that supports Israel unconditionally. Our education system and the media continually bolster the notion that Israel is morally superior to its foes, and that we must support them 100%. They can engage in questionable activities, all the while knowing that the average American has no idea what's going on, and that we're going to support them in public opinion and if need be at the UN security council.

I think this type of unchecked unilateralism scares Europeans, and I think that their fear is well-founded. It's to the point now where questioning Israel's actions as a state is considered morally reprehensible by many Americans. If you do not agree with Zionism, you will be called an anti-Semite. This is not good.

After all, it's not like a appreciable % of Europe has spent quite a bit of time prosecuting Jews or anything. I'd certainly call them level headed about the situation and certainly understand why they see them as dangerous!!

All joking aside we need to end any funds to anyother govt, including Israel.

All joking aside we need to end any funds to anyother govt, including Israel.

Definitely.

We're not doing them any favors with the money anyway. I've seen a lot of research showing that long-term foreign aid money like that usually worsens the situation in the long run.

How many Europeans that are alive do you think actually were alive during World War II?

If anything, the constant warfare that has taken place historically in Europe makes them more aware of the dangers involved with unabated power. When you have a world power, whose sole claim to existence is based on a religion that about 13 million people in the world subscribe to, it tends to make people a little nervous.

When you have the unquestioning support of the greatest power in the history of the World... Well, I think the poll speaks for itself.

Haven't been to Europe have ya Ain? Have you ever dealt with racism or such that you know it's handed down generation to generation?

The poll is what it is, and I have as much contempt for it as I do any poll. All of them lack reliability and are twisted to suit their own purposes.

How many Europeans that are alive do you think actually were alive during World War II?


Do you think the only racist people in the US are the people that were around prior to the civil rights movement?

Yes all Euro's I have met are so much more versed than the average american about the Israeli conflicts and current ME situation. Like hell they are, they know nothing more than any other american that I know. When I was going to school we had a fair amount of Euro's in class, I have many friends here at work that house F.E. students for the year from Europe, none of them strike me to know anything more than the rest of the people I talk to about current world afairs. In fact most Euro's I met are much more concerned about whats for them to buy at the shopping mall than anything else.

I've been to Europe numerous times, and am actually heading to Belgium in 2 weeks. So yeah.

And predictably, we've fallen into the anti-Israel = anti-semite. People change. My dad used to think that MLK was a 'troublemaker'. He now has adopted 3 African-American children. As an Asian with a diverse family living in rural Missouri, I can assure you that I have seen firsthand the many faces of racism.

If your personal experiences show you that Americans and Europeans hold the same average knowledge of world events, then I respect that.

As someone who is knee-deep in academia, and who has to debate 'politics' to my retarded Missourian friends who just regurgitate stupid shit they hear on Fox News, I'd have to say that I believe it's completely wrong.

American college students are absolutely horrid compared to our European counterparts. I have plenty of classmates who have absolutely no business being in a college-level setting. They are lazy, uninformed, and are simply there because their parents will bankroll them only if they go to class once a week. I have never seen that kind of garbage from a European student. The things that I struggle constantly to learn, they seem to know in an almost encyclopedic fashion. It's really fascinating. (And yes, I am aware that we have the 'best' colleges in the world. Whatever that means)

Again, we're the only legitimate country that has a populace that supports Israel. Do you really believe it is because we are so much more informed than the rest of the world? The same population of people who voted for George W. Bush twice in a row?

American exceptionalism is a really, really big problem.

Back the freight train up, call me mis-informed, stupid (it won't be the first time), but didn't the Iranian Pres say this:

Our dear Imam ordered that the occupying regime in Al-Qods be wiped off the face of the earth. This was a very wise statement. The issue of Palestine is not one on which we could make a piecemeal compromise… This would mean our defeat. Anyone who would recognize this state [Israel"> has put his signature under the defeat of the Islamic world.

I am hopeful that just as the Palestinian nation continued its struggle for the past ten years, it will continue to maintain its awareness and vigilance. This phase is going to be short-lived. If we put it behind us successfully, God willing, it will pave the way for the annihilation of the Zionist regime and it will be a downhill route.

I warn all the leaders in the Islamic world to beware of this conspiracy. If any of them takes a step towards the recognition of this regime [Israel">, then he will burn in the fire of the Islamic umma (nation) and will have eternal shame stamped on his forehead, regardless of whether he did this under pressure by the dominant powers, or lack of understanding or naiveté or selfishness or worldly incentives.

The issue of Palestine is the issue of the Islamic world. Those who are closeted behind closed doors cannot make decisions on this issue and the Islamic nation does not allow this historical enemy to exist at the heart of the Islamic world.

http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4164

What myth? he didn't exactly say "wiped off the map" but his intent is pretty damn clear isn't it?

....and on the other side , correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it fairly easy to trace where a nuclear device was manufactured if it is detonated or have I watched the Sum of all fears too many times? Point being the whole Iran giving nukes to terrorists fear....everyone would know where the nuke came from and punish Iran accordingly.

As for the Europeans fearing Israel the most...I have heard this over and over, but can't seem to ever locate a poll that says this...anyone have a link?

Hell you can tell where the radioactive material was mined and how long ago it was processed.

We're splitting hairs on the comments by the pres of Iran. He's made his point very clear more than a few times.

I'll have to agree with Ainwein on the scholastic focus difference between here and Europe. Our education system isn't what it should be by a loooooonnggg stretch.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3237277.stm)

"We are not practicing in an international context what we preach … -- which is democratic decision-making. We are not omniscient. We say that we believe that better decisions result from a process that [involve s]… all the affected parties, but [we are] hypocritical. Often we proceed without seeking, or listening to, advice from those with common values and common objectives. If we cannot convince them of the merit of our proposed action, we should question the wisdom of our decision." - Robert McNamara

The "wiped off the face of the earth" was an opportunistic mistranslation (at best) of what he said.

This is a decent breakdown of it: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=5866

Again, we're the only legitimate country that has a populace that supports Israel. Do you really believe it is because we are so much more informed than the rest of the world? The same population of people who voted for George W. Bush twice in a row?

I think it's more because we have the largest Jewish population outside of Israel.

I'm sure someone will spin it as anti-semitic to say, but our Jewish population also has a dramatically disproportionate control of the media we use to inform ourselves.

And our banks, and our lawyers, ...

Dangerous point San, I'll go one further and say that same population generally votes liberal.

Dangerous point San, I'll go one further and say that same population generally votes liberal.

I don't agree with this. Our current administration, who would hate to be called liberal, are very much strong Israeli supporters. Look how many members of the New American Century are Jewish.

I think he meant the Hollywood types that you might associate with the media. I'd agree that Hollywood is obviously very liberal.

I don't know that I'd agree Hollywood is equivalent to the people who actually control news media though. Those sorts of things are usually the province of more conservative business types.

Nice read thanks Sanchek...but from that and everything else I've read, though "wipe off the map" my be a gross generalization, it's pretty spot on regarding his (and his Imam's) disposition toward Israel.

IMO, Israel has every bit as much right to exist as any country in that region. Do I agree with everything that country does, of course not, but I'm not, and the US isn't, in a region where every country in that region hates them and would love to wipe from the map (sorry had to use it:').

Do I think the current administration has overly demonized Iran, yes...but that doesn't make them saints. I do think way too much is being made over their progress toward nukes, but they are making it a problem as much as anyone else.

I think he meant the Hollywood types that you might associate with the media. I'd agree that Hollywood is obviously very liberal.


I agree with this too. But the entire media doesn't have a liberal bias. Look at Fox News, and they tend to have a hard on for Israel too. I know you didn't say the media was Hollywood, I was carrying on my second sentence into a response to Fandros.

I don't know that I'd agree Hollywood is equivalent to the people who actually control news media though. Those sorts of things are usually the province of more conservative business types.

And those more conservative business types are in many cases Jewish (again, I know this you aren't saying anything opposite of this).

America is the only major country that supports Israel unconditionally. Our education system and the media continually bolster the notion that Israel is morally superior to its foes, and that we must support them 100%.



I am not sure that Israel is morally superior in all aspects, but treating women as equals with the same basic rights as males stands out; not publicly stoning a female for being in the company of a male not related to her stands out; not publicly executing a drug user stands out; not publicly executing homosexuals stands out (and this one I have never figured out, how it is homosexual if you are catching but not if you are pitching?); that the Rabbis do not call for the death of anyone speaking publicly against their God and his teachings stands out; and I could go on, but this gives a bit of a viewpoint that supports our education system.

Granted, Israel has acted in a very immoral fashion at times in it's approach to the Gaza Strip and the entire Palestinian question, but overall I would take the Israeli concept of morality over the morality of "it's foes" any day of the week.

I am not sure that Israel is morally superior in all aspects, but treating women as equals with the same basic rights as males stands out; not publicly stoning a female for being in the company of a male not related to her stands out; not publicly executing a drug user stands out; not publicly executing homosexuals stands out (and this one I have never figured out, how it is homosexual if you are catching but not if you are pitching?); that the Rabbis do not call for the death of anyone speaking publicly against their God and his teachings stands out; and I could go on, but this gives a bit of a viewpoint that supports our education system.

Granted, Israel has acted in a very immoral fashion at times in it's approach to the Gaza Strip and the entire Palestinian question, but overall I would take the Israeli concept of morality over the morality of "it's foes" any day of the week.

You do not have to approve of a peoples culture for it to be valid. Iran is by far lightyears ahead of other Muslim states which consider their religion the law.

So if Israel does this, takes out the nuk stuff, can our troops come home? I'm for that then..........

By the way, is there any truth to the Dr Ruth rumor? That she was a sniper ?

I think ultimately we're going to have to accept most countries having nuclear technology, with all the good and bad that comes with it. We can slow down individual countries' scientific progress, but eventually it's going to be basic scientific knowledge. Imagine trying to keep, say, calculus out of an entire country...

So if Israel does this, takes out the nuk stuff, can our troops come home? I'm for that then..........

By the way, is there any truth to the Dr Ruth rumor? That she was a sniper ?


http://www.snopes.com/medical/doctor/drruth.asp

Yes she was.

My respect for this woman has grown ten-fold. Thanks for the link, Tal.

I am not sure that Israel is morally superior in all aspects, but treating women as equals with the same basic rights as males stands out; not publicly stoning a female for being in the company of a male not related to her stands out; not publicly executing a drug user stands out; not publicly executing homosexuals stands out (and this one I have never figured out, how it is homosexual if you are catching but not if you are pitching?); that the Rabbis do not call for the death of anyone speaking publicly against their God and his teachings stands out; and I could go on, but this gives a bit of a viewpoint that supports our education system.

I hope this doesn't derail things, but look at Communist China. When it comes to human rights, they're far worse on some counts than Iran. However, instead of embargoing them, we pour the majority of our trade deficit into their country.

I don't think anyone here is pointing to Iran as a shining example of human rights best practices. At the same time, who are we to tell them how their culture should be?

We should get back to our roots of leading by example, instead of trying to force others to be like us. We've trashed our Constitution, dramatically increasing our own human rights violations, and are teetering on the precipice of economic collapse. I can see why no one would particularly want to copy our culture right now.

I think ultimately we're going to have to accept most countries having nuclear technology, with all the good and bad that comes with it. We can slow down individual countries' scientific progress, but eventually it's going to be basic scientific knowledge. Imagine trying to keep, say, calculus out of an entire country...

This is something a lot of people don't understand. Literally everyone knows how to make a nuclear reactor. The material sciences behind refining the fuel and getting the reactors right is difficult industry, but you essentially can't stop it. The current anti-proliferation policies we have are hugely counterproductive. We should be helping every nation on earth build safe, reliable, multi-cycle reactors. You have to take explicit steps to make the sort of uranium and plutonium cores that will be usable weapons -- help people build reactors systems that don't do that, and you solve the energy crisis and the proliferation problem at the same time.

If only there was an international nuclear monitoring agency .. oh wait, there is, we just keep undercutting it.

I hope this doesn't derail things, but look at Communist China. When it comes to human rights, they're far worse on some counts than Iran. However, instead of embargoing them, we pour the majority of our trade deficit into their country.



lets be fair here, Chinas current regime has absolutely nothing to do with communism, their line has been ultra-capitalistic for a few decades.

Well..

China is actually developing a new political system before our eyes. The term the Chinese are currently calling it is "Harmonious Society", and are angling it as a alternative style to the Washington democratic model.
It is interesting in that it gives very wide individual rights, but no political rights and total control over media.
Is it Communist? At its core, yes. The current focus of China has been to increase GDP to maximum levels. Similarly China went through a similar, but far more primitive, version of this during the "Great Leap Forward".
The current leaders of China were alive during this and saw first hand how disasterous the consequences of state run forced moderinzation could be as some 40 Million Chinese died from starvation due to ham fisted "reforms".

Most of the new style of Chinese reform stems from the reforms of Deng Ziopeng, the man whom China owes most of its current success to.

Basically.. China allows competition now.
China owns most the large companies, but it will own several of the same tye, allowing them to compete against each other and rewarding success, changing leadership of failing companies. At the end of the day, these CEOs are paid a performance wage from the government, and a pretty hefty one at that, and the Government pockets the profit. This has evolved as several Chinese industries have been allowed to go public with the Government as a primary share holder.

They are still Communist, but they have completely overhauled the Marxist model. They are Competitive Communist. They have shed the cult of personality, and the totalitiarianist command style in favor of low key, laissez faire top down control.

LL....there is much much more to communism than the state owning the corporations, and china has none of it. naming yourself something has nothing to do with reality (see: NSDAP, DDR, etc)

Communism is a goal. No state has ever been actually Communist.

You are confusing Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism with Communism. All of which are different means to an end, that end being a classless society.

The path to this end stage of history, which Marx dubbed communism is through socialism.

Well our ability to attack Iran is diminishing more every day...

"Baghdad would not allow its soil to be used as a base to damage the security of the neighboring countries, including Iran," al-Maliki said, according to a report on Iran's state-run news agency IRNA.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/08/iraq.iran/index.html

We should be helping every nation on earth build safe, reliable, multi-cycle reactors. You have to take explicit steps to make the sort of uranium and plutonium cores that will be usable weapons -- help people build reactors systems that don't do that, and you solve the energy crisis and the proliferation problem at the same time. US commercial reactor designs were intended to produce lots of plutonium. As a result, commerical reactors need uranium refined/enriched (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium) to about 5% fissile material (usually called "low enriched uranium" or "reactor grade"). Natural uranium is about .3% fissile, and weapons need about 90% fissile (usually called "highly enriched uranium" or "weapons grade"). The IAEA has been taking samples out of the (centrifuge) refinery at Nantz and none of the samples were over 5% fissile. Furthermore, Iranian uranium deposits are contaminated with molybdenum (http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/945/iran-focus-part-1-how-close-is-iran-to-the-bomb) which makes a weapon project of theirs very difficult to not possible without having to develop a large scale chemical industry.

The Canadian CANDU reactor designs are intended to use unrefined uranium as well as produce no plutonium. However, CANDU reactors are not built by US companies, therefore the US will never have any inside our borders. Nor will we ever help another country build them because we'd rather subsidise General Electric and Bechtel. All of the fuel cycles in the US produce plutonium, and there are about 1700 tons of plutonium in the US, most of it in private ownership (the US military owns about 200 tons of plu, about half of which are in warheads). While much of it are even-numbered isotopes (and thus useless for weapons), that much privately owned plu is scary. I am amazed that some new Tim McVeigh hasn't used some of it already.

Fuel reprocessing was stopped in the US by PL 95-242 (lots of urban legends like to claim Carter did it by executive order, or that reagan overturned it or something) to comply with the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. And it looks like the most effective administration at keeping Iran from making the stuff needed to make the stuff needed to make nuclear weapons was the Clinton administration.

Here are some links for reading material:
http://www.nti.org/db/china/engdocs/nnpa1978.htm
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=189253 (sample of the urban legends and some rebuttals)
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12058.html (executive orders required by PL 95-242)
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/724/got-gas-iran-stinks-at-making-uf6
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/ (some of the blogposts can be very technical).
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html (comparison of Clinton and bush administration policies on NK nukes)