Israel asked US for green light to bomb nuclear sites in Iran

[unozero]

SOURCE

Israel gave serious thought this spring to launching a military strike on Iran's nuclear sites but was told by President George W Bush that he would not support it and did not expect to revise that view for the rest of his presidency, senior European diplomatic sources have told the Guardian.

The then prime minister, Ehud Olmert, used the occasion of Bush's trip to Israel for the 60th anniversary of the state's founding to raise the issue in a one-on-one meeting on May 14, the sources said. "He took it [the refusal of a US green light] as where they were at the moment, and that the US position was unlikely to change as long as Bush was in office", they added.

 

[Krynn72]

Good job Bush! Now we just have to make sure McCain doesnt become president and lend our support to them.



I cant believe I just said "good job Bush." Leaves a sour taste on my tongue.

 

[Kadayi]

Even a broken watch is right twice a day Krynn.

 

[Krynn72]

Well in Bush's case, it must be a 24hour watch.

 

[delusional]

Aww that sucks Israel won't be able to use the bunker busting bombs we sold them. ;(

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1221142470441&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

The US Department of Defense has notified Congress of a potential sale to Israel of 1,000 smart bombs capable of penetrating underground bunkers, which would likely be used in the event of a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Bunker-buster missiles would be a fundamental component of an air strike against Iran, since many of the nuclear facilities, such as the Natanz uranium enrichment complex, have been built in underground, heavily fortified bunkers.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Why is Israel asking America's permission, everyone knows Israel secretly runs America

 

[nurizeko]

More importantly, why is Isreal entrusting its own safety and the safety of regional and world peace to what some dithering moron of a US president says?.

Oh thats right, lets defeat Islamic fundamental fanaticism full of lots of angry hateful rhetoric thats about destroying everything we hold dear with soft words and wagged fingers.





I hate sounding like a warmonger, I was against Iraq from the start, you know, before it became cool and popular to be, but lets face it, Iran cannot have nukes. That is unacceptable.

The day Iran has nukes is a day some western city somewheres risk of going up in a mushroom cloud increases greatly, and I'de rather Iran gets bombed a bit, and relations are soured further then risk Israel or some other city and every human life within it getting vaporized by a nuclear blossom.


Not to mention having an untouchable base of fundamental Islam right slap bang in the middle of the middle-east is only going to set back any hope for social, cultural and religious progression for decades to come at best.

 

[Tyguy]

they just have to wait for the weekend when bush is at his ranch and too lazy to be bothered by politics

 

[Kase]

bad bush bad should of gave them them go ahead

 

[CptStern]

ya it's not like Bush is a stranger to breaking international law ..under UN charters iran has every right to retaliate if israel made an unprovoked strike

 

[Kase]

iran has every right to retaliate if israel made an unprovoked strike

yeah but hopfully they would be ready for it along with support from US/UK forces

 

[CptStern]

yeah but hopfully they would be ready for it along with support from US/UK forces

they cant be directly involved as they're all members of the UN ..and it's not like they're not aiding israel ..and if you think this would be a simple war won in a few days you;re mistaken ..it would make iraq look like a skirmish in comparison and most likely drag us all in ...for waht exactly? so that israel can retain their nuclear weapon superiority in the region? this would inflame an already volatile situation

 

[nurizeko]

...for waht exactly?

To make sure a state that is fundamentally hostile to the west and what we stand for never gets its hands on nuclear weaponry with which it can attack Israel with, hold the region hostage with, or give out like candy to its terrorist group buddies to blow away a western city.



If the world takes its cue from some of the people on these forums, history will be lamenting the mistake of invading Iraq while letting Iran act with impunity.

And spouting this international law dross is pointless. Hitler didn't give a shit about international law, and thanks to Nevile Chamberlain and the other allies fear of another war causing inaction, the second world war took more lives then the first could hope to, entire swathes of Europe were occupied for years by a fascist ethnic cleansing regime of hate that took years of warfare and sacrifice and bloodshed and allot of bombed out destroyed cities and towns to put an end to.

The only solution was going to be military, but because of the inaction and the dithering, Hitler got to rape Europe for longer then could have been helped for.



I personally think its a grave mistake to let all this anti American anti Iraq war sentiment somehow get in the way of the west taking action against real tangible threats.


If I had to chose between the risk of watching a western city go up in a bright flash of light and radiation, and a grumpier Iran and another conflict, I'll choose the grumpier Iran and another conflict.

Wars and soured relations can be healed over with time, but once that nuclear devil is released from Pandora's box, thats the world changed, and September the 11th will look like a non-event, because their is only one response to a western or American city being nuked, and thats retaliation.

 

[CptStern]

To make sure a state that is fundamentally hostile to the west

hostile? how so? are words enough to consider a nation "hostile"?

and what we stand for never gets its hands on nuclear weaponry with which it can attack Israel with

yes that would be the smart thing to do: detonate a nuke in your not so distant neighbour's city who also happens to own 200+ nuclear weapons ..at best iran is 10 years away from building a single nuke ..it would be sheer suicide to attack isreal both because of relative proximity to the blast and because they would be instantly anniliated ..regardless if they actually pulled the trigger or through a proxy ..they may be insane but they're not stupid

hold the region hostage with, or give out like candy to its terrorist group buddies to blow away a western city.

slippery slope logical fallacy .."better blow them up real good invade them kill 10's of thousands of their people before they kill us with their weapons of massive destruction .......sound familiar? funny how people repeat the same mistakes over and over again

If the world takes its cue from some of the people on these forums, history will be lamenting the mistake of invading Iraq while letting Iran act with impunity.

And spouting this international law dross is pointless. Hitler didn't give a shit about international law,

probably because the UN charter wasnt written till after his death ..you automatically lose this debate for even bringing up hitler

and thanks to Nevile Chamberlain and the other allies fear of another war causing inaction, the second world war took more lives then the first could hope to, entire swathes of Europe were occupied for years by a fascist ethnic cleansing regime of hate that took years of warfare and sacrifice and bloodshed and allot of bombed out destroyed cities and towns to put an end to.

yes however this is completely irrelevent ..iran is not nazi germany, they havent invaded anybody ..if anything the west is the aggressor here, invading and taking over iran neighbour and setting up shop

I personally think its a grave mistake to let all this anti American anti Iraq war sentiment somehow get in the way of the west taking action against real tangible threats.

if it's tangible you should have no problem listing the very real threat iran poses to the US ...please do so now, with sources ofd course

If I had to chose between the risk of watching a western city go up in a bright flash of light and radiation, and a grumpier Iran and another conflict, I'll choose the grumpier Iran and another conflict.

yes we should all have faith that warmongering republicans, neo conservatives and conservatives in general are telling the truth when they say a nation and it's WMD is a threat to global peace ..iraq has taught us absolutely nothing

Wars and soured relations can be healed over with time, but once that nuclear devil is released from Pandora's box, thats the world changed, and September the 11th will look like a non-event, because their is only one response to a western or American city being nuked, and thats retaliation.

knee jerk reaction much? slippery slope bullshit spoon fed by conservatives with alterior motives meant to frighten people into supporting their imperialistic dreams of glory and the collecting of money hats

perhaps we should just push the angle that iran needs to be wiped out to herald in the End of Days ..at least that's just as believable as saying iran poses a global nuclear threat ...the facts do not even in the slightest support you

 

[Eejit]

probably because the UN charter wasnt written till after his death ..you automatically lose this debate for even bringing up hitler

He probably meant League of Nations.

 

[CptStern]

germany withdrew from the LoN in 1933 so that doesnt work out either

 

[Kase]

i still say bomb them

 

[Sulkdodds]

I don't understand why Iran is being compared to Nazi Germany when it has not actually invaded or attacked any other countries yet.

 

[CptStern]

fondness for mustaches (even if accompanied by a beard)

 

[<RJMC>]

I think iran is really trying to get a bomb,but sure it will not use against anyone whit the exception to israel problably

but sure they will have the bomb just to show off how big theyr war-penis is

 

[Polaris]

I would agree with attack of Iranian nuclear sites, not with full-scale war.
World doesn't need more nuclear weapons. And nukes in hands of Islamists would soon become a nightmare for the whole world.

 

[nurizeko]

Spoiler

hostile? how so? are words enough to consider a nation "hostile"?

Yup, "wipe" "off" "the" and "map" in that order are considered hostile to me, and to most people who think saying "I want to wipe your existence from the face of the world" is fightin' werdz. Ontop of the usual sincere fundie Islamic hate speech.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPMAgLL4H6k

I trust no man in power who says he's all about love and peace to your face but behind it he's using religious bullshittery terms calling entire nations the new Satan and shit, and again threatening an entire country with death.

You'll no doubt try and squirm out of it, try and apologize for him, and try and explain and fail why the west should sit idly by and let Iran build nuclear weapons just because your childhood brain damage caused you to hear "death to Israel" as "give Israel hugs and blowjobs".

yes that would be the smart thing to do: detonate a nuke in your not so distant neighbour's city who also happens to own 200+ nuclear weapons ..at best iran is 10 years away from building a single nuke ..it would be sheer suicide to attack isreal both because of relative proximity to the blast and because they would be instantly anniliated ..regardless if they actually pulled the trigger or through a proxy ..they may be insane but they're not stupid

Nooo, I'm pretty sure insanity comes with acting stupid, or illogically. In what world should people who care absolutely nothing for human life care if America goes up in flames?. Retribution?. **** that, who cares in the world of fundamentalism how many people dies as long as you can lord over whoever left. If Islamic fundamentalism took into account logic and reason it wouldn't be the diseased boil on the face of humanity it is.

slippery slope logical fallacy .."better blow them up real good invade them kill 10's of thousands of their people before they kill us with their weapons of massive destruction .......sound familiar? funny how people repeat the same mistakes over and over again

Naw, just bomb their nuclear facilities into the dust, kill a few hundred tops. Its not fallacy if its plausible. Nobody would be so eager to rip into the US over Iraq if Saddam had been known for a fact to be developing chemical and biological weapons, the world would be ****ing crawling on all fours kissing Bush's ass.

Again, I'm no warmongerer, but theres a difference between not supporting an unjustified war, and just being a massive tool while a valid threat exists.

probably because the UN charter wasnt written till after his death ..you automatically lose this debate for even bringing up hitler

Only in your flawed argument bizzaro world. I didn't mention the UN either.

yes however this is completely irrelevent ..iran is not nazi germany, they havent invaded anybody ..if anything the west is the aggressor here, invading and taking over iran neighbour and setting up shop

Oh man, seriously, if your gonna spout that shit then **** right off because I cant take someone seriously like that.

Nazi Germany didn't invade anybody before either yet peoples fears over Hitler and the Nazi's proved downright validated. The west was an aggressor when ethnic cleansing was going on in the former Yugoslavia, but nobody shitted themselves with outrage at the naughty aggressor US having the audacity to attempt to stop the mindless killing and murder.

If your position is entirely based on the premise that Iran is innocence abused and the US/west is just out to kill some Arabs and eat their babies, then simply quote this sentence, say "yes, I am a noob" and then I'll know to ignore you.

if it's tangible you should have no problem listing the very real threat iran poses to the US ...please do so now, with sources ofd course

Nuclear weapon programme. I cite the nuclear facilities, the Uranium enrichement programme.

I cite the hate speech and religious fundamentalism.

yes we should all have faith that warmongering republicans, neo conservatives and conservatives in general are telling the truth when they say a nation and it's WMD is a threat to global peace ..iraq has taught us absolutely nothing

Pathetic. Such stupidity that you feel burned by one mistake and so everything that America says must be from Satans lips am I right?.

Iraq had no WMD, we all know this, we all know the Iraq war was pointless and stupid. Prove to me the Iranian government and its leaders have never once made comments and statements that prove clear hostility towards other states, and prove to me Iran doesn't have a nuclear programme its refused to cease despite global concern on its intentions, and I'll join the moron club of willful ignorance.

knee jerk reaction much? slippery slope bullshit spoon fed by conservatives with alterior motives meant to frighten people into supporting their imperialistic dreams of glory and the collecting of money hats

Now who believes in a fanciful fictional reality?. Knee Jerk is if I am calling for the death of all Muslims based on no evidence. I have cited the grounds for concern (nuclear programme, hate speech, fundamentalism generally being hostile to everything thats not it) and all I support is striking the Iranian nuclear facilities to put an end to their bomb ambitions, your the one thats refusing to see reason and assume Ahmadinejad and the Iranian governments arse shines of love and peace and understanding when its clearly not.

perhaps we should just push the angle that iran needs to be wiped out to herald in the End of Days ..at least that's just as believable as saying iran poses a global nuclear threat ...the facts do not even in the slightest support you

The facts support me fine, wiping out a country is obviously your sick fantasy not mine, again, all I would like to see is Irans nuclear programme destroyed.

I want untrustworthy regimes to never be able to get hold of the ultimate weapon of mass destruction. Even Russia is trustworthy in that regard.

You want people to ignore a hostile regime with nuclear aspirations and take absolutely no measures whatsoever to ensure an Islamic fundamentalists state (inherently illogical and dangerous ideology) don't get hold of them.


Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah...

I would agree with attack of Iranian nuclear sites, not with full-scale war.
World doesn't need more nuclear weapons. And nukes in hands of Islamists would soon become a nightmare for the whole world.

Sums up my position completely.

Theres a difference between states that are simply not on good terms, and a conflict of ideologies where one or both sides are just unable to coexist with the other peacefully.

Russia and America aren't very friendly right now, but Russia isn't out to destroy the west nor is it likely to use its nukes out of sheer insane hatred, and it has proven itself by backing down when its interests conflict with nuclear annihilation.


Fundamental Islam is to the west what anti-matter is to matter, it just cant ****ing exist together. One is mostly progressive and tolerant, the other is mostly backwards and hateful of anything not of itself.

Even in some ideal world where Iran is trustworthy enough to not seek to use its new toys, Iran is a fundamentalist state, it is curious in that it has some trappings of other political systems but at the end of the day, a strict interpretation of Islam is what drives the regime, its leader is a religious figure. All it takes is any one of the fundie groups kicking about to play on sympathies and Islamic brotherhood or that shit to get hold of an Iranian nuke and then thats one city somewhere, most likely an Israeli or American, thats probabilities of going up in irradiated smoke has just jumped greatly.

 

[Kadayi]

I don't understand why Iran is being compared to Nazi Germany when it has not actually invaded or attacked any other countries yet.

Yeah you'd think given Iran has the biggest Jewish population in the middle east outside of Israel they'd have the odd concentration camp set up by now at least if that was the case.

 

[nurizeko]

Yeah you'd think given Iran has the biggest Jewish population in the middle east outside of Israel they'd have the odd concentration camp set up by now at least if that was the case.

What has Jews got to do with comparing two regimes that were suspected of "being no good" and likely to cause shit?.

 

[CptStern]

Yeah you'd think given Iran has the biggest Jewish population in the middle east outside of Israel they'd have the odd concentration camp set up by now at least if that was the case.

well ..

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3252830,00.html


oh wait

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3252934,00.html

 

[Kadayi]

What has Jews got to do with comparing two regimes that were suspected of "being no good" and likely to cause shit?.

What has Jews! What has Jews? Jews has What??? What Jews has??? Jews what has!!!!

WHO WAS PHONE?
WHO WAS PHONE?
WHO WAS PHONE????

:dozey:

We didn't plan on going to war with Germany because we suspected the Nazis of being "likely to cause shit". We waited until they actually did it.

:dozey:

 

[Kase]

We didn't plan on going to war with Germany because we suspected the Nazis of being "likely to cause shit". We waited until they actually did it.

yes and look how many people died :dozey:

 

[nurizeko]

yes and look how many people died :dozey:

Game set and match to Kase. :imu:



Also on a side note, Kad, man, I hate to say this, but you seem to finally be snapping.

 

[delusional]

yes and look how many people died :dozey:

You can't know what would of happened if we attacked German before they did anything. For all we know millions of more people could have died.

 

[Kase]

You can't know what would of happened if we attacked German before they did anything. For all we know millions of more people could have died.

or millions could of been saved

 

[delusional]

or millions could of been saved

but you still don't know.

 

[15357]

I say that if you can win, bomb them. Otherwise stfu until you can.

 

[Kadayi]

yes and look how many people died

That's still no justification for invasion/attack on a hunch, you need actual evidence, or which there presently is none. Personally I'm not so keen to waste the lives of service men and women as well as kill inmerable civilians on the basis of a hunch.

or millions could of been saved

False logic. You can't be saved if an event never occurs. If a bus doesn't crash on it's route the passengers aren't saved from the crash. There simply wasn't a crash. :dozey:

 

[Sulkdodds]

What. Germany invaded like three countries before we actually declared war. Their aggressive intentions were a lot more obvious and were more than just intentions for a long time before we went into conflict with them.

 

[Eejit]

Forget it. Some people are clearly just ruled by unreasoning fear.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I don't understand why Iran is being focused on to such an extent when it's hardly the only dangerous country which is building nuclear weapons. In the USA (a country which maintains its arsenal in contravention of the NPT), intelligence agencies provide Congress with a report discussing "mass destruction" programmes in India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, etc.

One country is missing on the list, deliberately; it is Israel. The US knows that Israel has 60-80 nuclear weapons. It has known for a very long time; since the late sixties, when the Nixon administration both knew about the programme and actively colluded in keeping it secret - for example, by organising a shill 'inspection'. Israel has jelously guarded the fiction of 'nuclear ambiguity' (whereby nobody admits whether Israel has nukes or not); in 1986, when technician Mordechai Vanunu gave incriminating photographs to a British newspaper, he was, as per the traditional Mossad MO, drugged, kidnapped, and held in secret. Yet finally, late in 2006, Ehd Olmert accidentally mentioned that Israel did have nuclear weapons - and nobody seems to care.

Israel, unlike Iran, has materially demonstrated its persistent aggression. It's bombed Syria, remains in fairly nasty occupation of Palestine (has always endorsed settlements; in 2001 used chemical weapons in Gaza; has exempted itself from treaties on chemical weapons usage) and in 2006 persisted in a disasterous, vicious invasion of Lebanon in which Israeli forces instituted collective punishment on a civilian population, targeting civilian infrastructure, deliberately bombing the Jiyeh power plant - causing a massive oil spill which has ruined the local tourism industry - and, mostly in the last 72 hours of the invasion (revenge), scattering some 4 million cluster bombs over the country of Lebanon which have continued to kill an average of 2.5 Lebanese civilians a day. Not to mention this thread's subject, the plans to bomb a country before any concrete aggressive intentions have been demonstrated. After Iraq, I can't believe that anyone still credits these wafer-slim "we have evidence they might harm us in future!" arguments.

Iran seems also dangerous and unpredictable; it probably is trying to develop nukes (although uniquivocal statements from either 'lobby' cannot be justified). Yet it is not nearly as militarily aggressive as Israel, a country which has to a far greater extent demonstrate openly its utter unsuitability to possess weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction. The 'bomb Iran' people here - regardless of how good an idea a practical invasion would actually be (it would not) - need to stop spouting such weird nonsense about an 'existential threat' to the west from those big scary Pol Pot raghead motherfuckers, and start noticing that not only is Iran, one of the world's many awful states, not the Great Satanic Enemy it's cracked up to be, but that it is not even the most dangerous state in the middle east, and that if we are so venemously against it, it is generally not for altruistic reasons.

 

[nurizeko]

Sulk, Israel could have a million nukes, it doesn't use them, I wouldn't trust Iran with my own shit, let alone a nuke of its own, THATS the point.


And bombing nuclear facilities isn't an invasion.

What. Germany invaded like three countries before we actually declared war. Their aggressive intentions were a lot more obvious and were more than just intentions for a long time before we went into conflict with them.

I'm sure the allied powers weren't totally distrustful of Hitler (for good reason) in the years leading up to his little invasions.

False logic. You can't be saved if an event never occurs.

Bullshit logic. Cancer thats diagnosed isn't fatal yet but it doesn't stop you from seeking a preemptive solution.

The environment isn't ****ed beyond recovery yet but we still try and avoid it.

If your logic was the only factor then there would be no need for the word and concept of prevention.

Also the guy you quoted was Kase, not me.

 

[Sulkdodds]

It's also my point, and you've missed it.

The Republic of Iran has been in one war - the Iran-Iraq war, in which it never used chemical weapons (although Iraq did, with some help from the USA).

Israel, as I mentioned, has prosecuted numerous aggressive actions against foreign states or people and has frequently done so with excessive force, deliberately targetting civilian populations, even employing chemical weapons.

 

[nurizeko]

Nukes.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I'm sure the allied powers weren't totally distrustful of Hitler (for good reason) in the years leading up to his little invasions.

...

Bullshit logic. Cancer thats diagnosed isn't fatal yet but it doesn't stop you from seeking a preemptive solution.

This is stupid. In both cases, there is a certain and dangerous course of events which is not only set but has also already begun before the surgeon or the nation decides to take action. Although the allies waited too long before tackling Hitler, he had, by the time they acted, already given arms and armies to the insurgent faction in Spain, supported the Italian actions in North Africa, anchluss'd with Austria and invaded Czeckoslovikia. Similarly, in a cancer patient, the cancer - which is unlikely to go away, based on the medical evidence we have - has already been diagnosed. These are concrete things, acted upon, whereas attacking Iran right now would be like throwing someone into chemotherapy because they smoke a lot and spend three hours a day basking in UV light.

Similarly, although neither country has ever used a nuclear weapon, one of them (Iran) has never used a civilian-killing weapon, and is not noted for its aggressive actions against other countries. The other (Israel) not only has stockpiles of indiscriminate weapons, but has also repeatedly and viciously attacked not only other nations and territories, but their people, deliberately targetting civilians with indiscriminate weapons like cluster bombs and chemical weapons - which, while not as virulent as nukes, are likewise engines of mass-slaughter and likewise bound by international treaties that Israel is ignoring. One of these countries has no great precedent of foreign aggression, nor of using mass weapons on populations, and anyway hasn't got the means. The other country has demonstrated an aptitude and an eagerness for both, and already has the means and technology to continue its behaviour. What rational argument or real evidence can you produce to support your claim that the former is more likely to drop The Bomb, or is more a danger to human life generally, than the latter?