Israel, US bases within the range of Iranian missiles, commander says

[coma]

" One should take the log out of ones own eye, before taking the splinter out of anothers " :jap:

Yes. You (as apparently self-appointed defender of Iran) ought to keep that in mind yourself.

But that's a rather weak defense. How about 'If its wrong, it's wrong no matter who does it? How about object to that which is objectionable and not try to defend it just because of the side you've chosen and your ideology (and/or all consuming dislike for the "other side")'.

Not as catchy I know. Guess those won't catch on.

But I personally prefer intellectual honesty and integrity (and real arguments) to empty rhetoric and evasion.

Pot this is kettle over and OUT!!!

[SteeleJoe]

" One should take the log out of ones own eye, before taking the splinter out of anothers " :jap:

Yes. You (as apparently self-appointed defender of Iran) ought to keep that in mind yourself.

But that's a rather weak defense. How about 'If its wrong, it's wrong no matter who does it? How about object to that which is objectionable and not try to defend it just because of the side you've chosen and your ideology (and/or all consuming dislike for the "other side")'.

Not as catchy I know. Guess those won't catch on.

But I personally prefer intellectual honesty and integrity (and real arguments) to empty rhetoric and evasion.

Pot this is kettle over and OUT!!!

That makes zero sense given that there's no way you can reasonably accuse me of employing empty rhetoric or evasion. And really, you don't have to answer (and really shouldn't) -- but don't you feel sort of embarrassed to just declare the discussion over and bail (leaving many points unaddressed) when you can't rebut? (Cute emoticon and all)

Just as well. I'm truly not interested in acrimony or a slanging match. If you aren't up for (or to) a genuine exchange, then I guess we are indeed done.

Edited April 23, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[chuckd]

Q. "when has Iran overtly attacked another nation ?"

A. 1979

Okay.

1979

Some students sized an embassy. No shots were fired, no-one was killed.

It was the embassy of a country which overtly participated in a coup that overthrow a democratically elected government and actively supported a dictator.

More examples?

I answered your question. Your agenda is well known.

[chuckd]

Which country has used nuclear weapons when things didn't go their way?

Which country wants to deny the right of another country to do the same?

The US used two nuclear weapons on Japan to end the bloodshed of WWII. The cost to the Japanese nation was somewhere around 185,000 lives, compared to the estimated several million that would have been lost on both sides if an invasion had been necessary. You might want to familiarize yourself with Operation Downfall and discover a little history.

Read here: http://www.theabsurdreport.com/2007/1945-invasion-of-japan-plans/

At that stage of the war, things were hardly going against the US. The Japanese air force and navy had been seriously weakened and they had been pushed back to the defense of their home islands. Read up on the Code of Bushido while you are doing your history lessons. This might give you some insight into the thinking of the Japanese civilian and military population at the time. The death count on both sides would have been staggering.

I even think it would be safe to say quite a few Australian lives were saved as a result of the dropping of those two bombs in 1945.

[zzaa09]

" One should take the log out of ones own eye, before taking the splinter out of anothers " :jap:

Yes. You (as apparently self-appointed defender of Iran) ought to keep that in mind yourself.

But that's a rather weak defense. How about 'If its wrong, it's wrong no matter who does it? How about object to that which is objectionable and not try to defend it just because of the side you've chosen and your ideology (and/or all consuming dislike for the "other side")'.

Not as catchy I know. Guess those won't catch on.

But I personally prefer intellectual honesty and integrity (and real arguments) to empty rhetoric and evasion.

Pot this is kettle over and OUT!!!

Indeed. Our good Joe wears as a patch of honour. All right for me, but not for you. Far too true as Eurocentric thinkers might be.

[SteeleJoe]

Indeed. Our good Joe wears as a patch of honour. All right for me, but not for you. Far too true as Eurocentric thinkers might be.

No doubt it's an indication that I'm not as bright as I wish I was, but I confess I don't know what that means."Indeed" what? I'm a hypocrite? Is "all right for me not for you" supposed to be something I implicitly believe? Or is it something else entirely?

[kuffki]

Nothing but a provocation statement.

If anything Iran has just brought more attention to itself and stronger evidence not only to continue with sanctions but increase it.

To make matters worse, now Iran is issuing a "threat" to 2 nations who are by far more superior in every aspect, especially when it comes to military.

[WarpSpeed]

^^

Keep in mind its wikileaks.

State Department will just say: "We cannot confirm the authenticity of these documents and we cannot comment on supposedly leaked classified information," or "I can’t comment on the contents of allegedly classified documents nor can we vouch for their authenticity."

The State Department admit that there was a theft of their documents, they never claimed that the published cables are fake or modified or falsified or not from them. And nobody else, except few (Iran) who think wikileaks is an CIA operation, doubt the authenticity of the cables.

Furthermore it is still only that what someone from the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv said about Netanyahu.

Really quite irrelevant since Netanyahu is now the Prime Minister he can do it himself and yet he has hasn't ? So what does that say about the voracity of Wikileaks ?

[bangkokeddy]

^^

Keep in mind its wikileaks.

State Department will just say: "We cannot confirm the authenticity of these documents and we cannot comment on supposedly leaked classified information," or "I can’t comment on the contents of allegedly classified documents nor can we vouch for their authenticity."

The State Department admit that there was a theft of their documents, they never claimed that the published cables are fake or modified or falsified or not from them. And nobody else, except few (Iran) who think wikileaks is an CIA operation, doubt the authenticity of the cables.

Furthermore it is still only that what someone from the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv said about Netanyahu.

Really quite irrelevant since Netanyahu is now the Prime Minister he can do it himself and yet he has hasn't ? So what does that say about the voracity of Wikileaks ?

Yes, Israel is also still on the map. What does that say about the alarmists?

Don't know what it say about the voracity of wikileaks.

I think the cables not fakes, but real. If you wanna cast doubt on the content you have to ask: What does it say about the reliability of the information provided by US diplomats and their sources.

Edited April 23, 2011 by bangkokeddy

[Ulysses G.]

I think the cables not fakes, but real. If you wanna cast doubt on the content you have to ask: What does it say about the reliability of the information provided by US diplomats and their sources.

Who actually thinks that they - or anybody else - in the spying game always get everyhing right? Is anyone naive enough to think that this information is anything but a collection of informed guesses?

Edited April 24, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[geriatrickid]

I believe that the UAE has something to say about the occupation of its islands by Iran. I believe the Gulf states have an issue with Iran threatening their oil tanker movements and oil facilities. All Iran needs to do to find out how limited the patience of its arab neighbors is, is to provoke a confrontation. This time around, I think one will find that India and China will get off the fence if they see their oil supplies threatened.

[coma]

I think the cables not fakes, but real. If you wanna cast doubt on the content you have to ask: What does it say about the reliability of the information provided by US diplomats and their sources.

Who actually thinks that they - or anybody else - in the spying game always get everyhing right? Is anyone naive enough to think that this information is anything but a collection of informed guesses?

I have to agree. Military Intelligence is not an exact science. Therefore is not 100% reliable. In relation to wikileaks however I am of the belief that they get this raw material and investigate it also to make sure it is /and or close to correct before publishing it. I cannot think of anything published that didn't seem more than pausable.

[Pakboong]

I think the cables not fakes, but real. If you wanna cast doubt on the content you have to ask: What does it say about the reliability of the information provided by US diplomats and their sources.

Who actually thinks that they - or anybody else - in the spying game always get everyhing right? Is anyone naive enough to think that this information is anything but a collection of informed guesses?

I have to agree. Military Intelligence is not an exact science. Therefore is not 100% reliable. In relation to wikileaks however I am of the belief that they get this raw material and investigate it also to make sure it is /and or close to correct before publishing it. I cannot think of anything published that didn't seem more than pausable.

To the best of my recollection, and if anybody really cares, the last time Iran attacked another sovereign nation was 1729 when it attacked India. They have since been attacked by several other countries.

[inmysights]

Not to disagree with you coma, but these people do have a history of national and international refrain which trends more to offensive than defense.

Who? Israel, Iran or the US?

Please provide details of that 'history'.

So many questions plus a request for detailed history. You want to be burped after you ingest all this info? All three countries have proven offensive to each other at times as do some individual people.

I agree to some extent. However my view is, when has Iran overtly attacked another nation ? I know they fought a long hard defensive war againts Iraq in the 80's. But they didn't initiate it. Without going into weather Iran is supporting terrorism or not, as this is about strategic weapons, where/ when have they been the natural aggreessor ? I think people have been misconcieved or even fool that Iran is an agressive country by Mr Ahmadijed and his empty threat rhetoric.He wants the West scared and it is working.

Quite so. Anyone wanting information on this might do worse than to avoid the World propaganda machine that is mainstream media and visit 'the peoples voice dot org'

[bonobo]

Which country has used nuclear weapons when things didn't go their way?

Which country wants to deny the right of another country to do the same?

When things didn't "go their way?"

First of all, only one country used atomic weapons. None have used nuclear. But that is quibbling.

The US had things "going their way" when the decision was made to use the atomic bombs. The idea was that doing so would cow Japan into surrender thereby saving millions of US and Soviet lives, and not more than a few Japanese as well.

You can argue all you want on whether the choice was a good one or not, but to infer that the US used them only when things were "not going their way" is wrong.

As far as which "country" wants to deny others the right to do the same, I would say that is a host of "countries," not just one. Once again, the righteous of that is open to debate, but let's get the facts straight.

[coma]

Which country has used nuclear weapons when things didn't go their way?

Which country wants to deny the right of another country to do the same?

When things didn't "go their way?"

First of all, only one country used atomic weapons. None have used nuclear. But that is quibbling.

The US had things "going their way" when the decision was made to use the atomic bombs. The idea was that doing so would cow Japan into surrender thereby saving millions of US and Soviet lives, and not more than a few Japanese as well.

You can argue all you want on whether the choice was a good one or not, but to infer that the US used them only when things were "not going their way" is wrong.

As far as which "country" wants to deny others the right to do the same, I would say that is a host of "countries," not just one. Once again, the righteous of that is open to debate, but let's get the facts straight.

I believe the use of the atomic bomb over Japan in 1945 was the ONLY course of action. Had they not been employed the US and Pacific Allies would have taken uncountable lives invading maioland Japan. Maybe not even achievable. We got to remember that the Japanese didn't even surrender after the first bomb, such was thier resolve. It took another one 3 days later that talked them around.

Today I believe the UN needs a severe overhaul on the way they do business, veto powers ,new permanant members, a ready reative army ready to deploy on any mission that is sanctioned by the council etc etc . Then I would like to see ALL nuclear weapons placed under the command the the UN Security Council. I know I am dreaming but that is not a crime.

[WarpSpeed]

^^

Keep in mind its wikileaks.

State Department will just say: "We cannot confirm the authenticity of these documents and we cannot comment on supposedly leaked classified information," or "I can’t comment on the contents of allegedly classified documents nor can we vouch for their authenticity."

The State Department admit that there was a theft of their documents, they never claimed that the published cables are fake or modified or falsified or not from them. And nobody else, except few (Iran) who think wikileaks is an CIA operation, doubt the authenticity of the cables.

Furthermore it is still only that what someone from the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv said about Netanyahu.

Really quite irrelevant since Netanyahu is now the Prime Minister he can do it himself and yet he has hasn't ? So what does that say about the voracity of Wikileaks ?

Yes, Israel is also still on the map. What does that say about the alarmists?

Don't know what it say about the voracity of wikileaks.

I think the cables not fakes, but real. If you wanna cast doubt on the content you have to ask: What does it say about the reliability of the information provided by US diplomats and their sources.

More likely they (Wikileaks) only published what they wanted to and it's taken out of context to bolster their sensationalism, as for alarmists, Iran still isn't a threat and doesn't have a bomb......Yet but they're working on it.....

[Robby nz]

Was wondering if you could class depleted uranium weapons as used in Iraq and other places and now claimed by some to have been dropped on Libya as neuclear or atomic?

Those who us the stuff (guess who) claim it is less harmfull than natural uranium but from what I read the chemistry of the stuff changes when it is involved in an explosion and there may be long term efects of its use.

Of course it hasnt been used long enough to show real long term problems but again, from what I read, there have been reports of an abnormal number of birth defects in countries where it has been used in munitions.

[bonobo]

Was wondering if you could class depleted uranium weapons as used in Iraq and other places and now claimed by some to have been dropped on Libya as neuclear or atomic?

Those who us the stuff (guess who) claim it is less harmfull than natural uranium but from what I read the chemistry of the stuff changes when it is involved in an explosion and there may be long term efects of its use.

Of course it hasnt been used long enough to show real long term problems but again, from what I read, there have been reports of an abnormal number of birth defects in countries where it has been used in munitions.

Depleted uranium is not used as a weapon, per se, but as a round. It is not "dropped" on Libya or anywhere else. It is essentially a bullet. Because of the high density of the metal, is has the mass to punch through armor better than other metals. (It is also used in commercial aircraft and in many medical situations). So it cannot really be called a nuclear or atomic weapon.

Depleted uranium has about 1/3 the radiation of natural radiation. The controversy is that some, such as the WHO, state that there is no toxicity to exposure to depleted uranium. Other studies indicate there might be a degree of toxicity. Others state that while the round itself is non-toxic, when it hits armor, small pieces can be broken off ans suspended in the air, and when breathed in, can lodge in the lungs where over time, it can cause medical problems.

Regardless, even is long-term exposure can cause some problems, it would be incorrect to call depleted uranium rounds nuclear or atomic weapons.

[bangkokeddy]

I think the cables not fakes, but real. If you wanna cast doubt on the content you have to ask: What does it say about the reliability of the information provided by US diplomats and their sources.

Who actually thinks that they - or anybody else - in the spying game always get everyhing right? Is anyone naive enough to think that this information is anything but a collection of informed guesses?

I have to agree. Military Intelligence is not an exact science. Therefore is not 100% reliable. In relation to wikileaks however I am of the belief that they get this raw material and investigate it also to make sure it is /and or close to correct before publishing it. I cannot think of anything published that didn't seem more than pausable.

In case of the cable leaks we don't have to forget Who speaks there. And that is not wikileaks. They might be selective what they publish, but they don't do any edits in the cables except to XXXXXX names and hints to identities of third persons. If something that was said in these cable is not 100% reliable, you can't say wikileaks got it wrong.

The cables itself seems to be genuine. But that says nothing about the content.

Some headlines like Wikileaks Reveals: Ohlala in Dystopia; Dubious horse deals in Bonanza; Papa Smurf and corruption in Smurfistan are misleading about who speaks.

It are US diplomats who speak there. And of course that is no evidence for anything, not a proof that XXXXX is right about the Ohlala or that Smurfism is corrupt.

Its just the opinion of the US diplomats that was revealed, their point of view.

That Netanyahu is now the Prime Minister and hasn't attacked Iran yet, despite his alleged ambitions reported in the cable is also not a proof or evidence that the US Intelligence is not reliable.

Its also not a proof that Netanyahu doesn't have such ambition.

And all that say nothing about the reliability of wikileaks.

[coma]

Was wondering if you could class depleted uranium weapons as used in Iraq and other places and now claimed by some to have been dropped on Libya as neuclear or atomic?

Those who us the stuff (guess who) claim it is less harmfull than natural uranium but from what I read the chemistry of the stuff changes when it is involved in an explosion and there may be long term efects of its use.

Of course it hasnt been used long enough to show real long term problems but again, from what I read, there have been reports of an abnormal number of birth defects in countries where it has been used in munitions.

Depleted uranium is not used as a weapon, per se, but as a round. It is not "dropped" on Libya or anywhere else. It is essentially a bullet. Because of the high density of the metal, is has the mass to punch through armor better than other metals. (It is also used in commercial aircraft and in many medical situations). So it cannot really be called a nuclear or atomic weapon.

Depleted uranium has about 1/3 the radiation of natural radiation. The controversy is that some, such as the WHO, state that there is no toxicity to exposure to depleted uranium. Other studies indicate there might be a degree of toxicity. Others state that while the round itself is non-toxic, when it hits armor, small pieces can be broken off ans suspended in the air, and when breathed in, can lodge in the lungs where over time, it can cause medical problems.

Regardless, even is long-term exposure can cause some problems, it would be incorrect to call depleted uranium rounds nuclear or atomic weapons.

Tell that to the boys suffering from Gulf War Syndrome, that science say could be directly relaited to extended exposure to /and or use of Uraniam Depleted Rounds.

[Ulysses G.]

The US had things "going their way" when the decision was made to use the atomic bombs. The idea was that doing so would cow Japan into surrender thereby saving millions of US and Soviet lives, and not more than a few Japanese as well.

You can argue all you want on whether the choice was a good one or not, but to infer that the US used them only when things were "not going their way" is wrong.

The US and the Allies were winning by then with no doubt at all. However, there was no guessing about whether the Japanese would have fought to the last man, woman or child to repel an invasion and so the Atomic bombs were used to convince them to surrender which saved many lives on both sides.

It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that the US was losing WW2.

[Ulysses G.]

Tell that to the boys suffering from Gulf War Syndrome, that science say could be directly relaited to extended exposure to /and or use of Uraniam Depleted Rounds.

Posting something like this begs a link to a legitimate source to support it.

[coma]

Tell that to the boys suffering from Gulf War Syndrome, that science say could be directly relaited to extended exposure to /and or use of Uraniam Depleted Rounds.

Posting something like this begs a link to a legitimate source to support it.

Don't take my sentence out of context. I have highlighted a key word in it for you ? That said have a read of this. http://iicph.org/du_update_2_3 It is a good read.

[bangkokeddy]

Which country has used nuclear weapons when things didn't go their way?

Which country wants to deny the right of another country to do the same?

When things didn't "go their way?"

First of all, only one country used atomic weapons. None have used nuclear. But that is quibbling.

The US had things "going their way" when the decision was made to use the atomic bombs. The idea was that doing so would cow Japan into surrender thereby saving millions of US and Soviet lives, and not more than a few Japanese as well.

You can argue all you want on whether the choice was a good one or not, but to infer that the US used them only when things were "not going their way" is wrong.

As far as which "country" wants to deny others the right to do the same, I would say that is a host of "countries," not just one. Once again, the righteous of that is open to debate, but let's get the facts straight.

I not want to argue here and now if the choice to use the atomic bombs was good or bad, but i have to make one remark.

That the idea behind was to save millions of lives is just a narrative for the ethical justification of it. One narrative of many and not a undisputed one. What means that it isn't exactly straight facts or definitely true.

In 1945, an overwhelming majority of Americans regarded as a matter of course that the United States had used atomic bombs to end the Pacific war. They further believed that those bombs had actually ended the war and saved countless lives. This set of beliefs is now sometimes labeled by academic historians the "traditionalist" view. One unkindly dubbed it the "patriotic orthodoxy."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/894mnyyl.asp

Others suggest that there were different motivation behind it and came up with arguments like that:

- The bomb was used partly to justify the $2 billion spent on its development.

or

- Japanese lives were sacrificed simply for power politics between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/special/trinity/supplement/procon.html

So question is not only - did the atomic bomb really save millions of lives? (how many millions actually?) and was it the reason for the surrender, debatable is also if 'to save lives' was really the intention or is that merely a propaganda meme.

Edited April 24, 2011 by bangkokeddy

[coma]

Why do you think there has not been another World War?

2 words : Nuclear Weapons

[Ulysses G.]

Tell that to the boys suffering from Gulf War Syndrome, that science say could be directly relaited to extended exposure to /and or use of Uraniam Depleted Rounds.

Posting something like this begs a link to a legitimate source to support it.

Don't take my sentence out of context. I have highlighted a key word in it for you ? That said have a read of this. http://iicph.org/du_update_2_3 It is a good read.

It is not out of context. It is the whole content of what you wrote and is exactly what I was responding to. By the way, that COULD probably should have been highlighted when you posted it.

Edited April 24, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

So question is not only - did the atomic bomb really save millions of lives?

Just ask the men who would have had to invade Japan.

Why the bomb was needed or justified:

• The Japanese had demonstrated near-fanatical resistance, fighting to almost the last man on Pacific islands, committing mass suicide on Saipan and unleashing kamikaze attacks at Okinawa. Fire bombing had killed 100,000 in Tokyo with no discernible political effect. Only the atomic bomb could jolt Japan's leadership to surrender.
• With only two bombs ready (and a third on the way by late August 1945) it was too risky to "waste" one in a demonstration over an unpopulated area.
• An invasion of Japan would have caused casualties on both sides that could easily have exceeded the toll at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
• The two targeted cities would have been firebombed anyway.
• Immediate use of the bomb convinced the world of its horror and prevented future use when nuclear stockpiles were far larger.
• The bomb's use impressed the Soviet Union and halted the war quickly enough that the USSR did not demand joint occupation of Japan.

http://seattletimes....ent/procon.html Edited April 24, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

Which country has used nuclear weapons when things didn't go their way?

Which country wants to deny the right of another country to do the same?

When things didn't "go their way?"

First of all, only one country used atomic weapons. None have used nuclear. But that is quibbling.

The US had things "going their way" when the decision was made to use the atomic bombs. The idea was that doing so would cow Japan into surrender thereby saving millions of US and Soviet lives, and not more than a few Japanese as well.

You can argue all you want on whether the choice was a good one or not, but to infer that the US used them only when things were "not going their way" is wrong.

As far as which "country" wants to deny others the right to do the same, I would say that is a host of "countries," not just one. Once again, the righteous of that is open to debate, but let's get the facts straight.

I not want to argue here and now if the choice to use the atomic bombs was good or bad, but i have to make one remark.

That the idea behind was to save millions of lives is just a narrative for the ethical justification of it. One narrative of many and not a undisputed one. What means that it isn't exactly straight facts or definitely true.

In 1945, an overwhelming majority of Americans regarded as a matter of course that the United States had used atomic bombs to end the Pacific war. They further believed that those bombs had actually ended the war and saved countless lives. This set of beliefs is now sometimes labeled by academic historians the "traditionalist" view. One unkindly dubbed it the "patriotic orthodoxy."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/894mnyyl.asp

Others suggest that there were different motivation behind it and came up with arguments like that:

- The bomb was used partly to justify the $2 billion spent on its development.

or

- Japanese lives were sacrificed simply for power politics between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/special/trinity/supplement/procon.html

If you don't wish to argue the point, why do you dispute it with two links?

Here is the entire portion from the Seattle Times, from which you have selectively chosen the ones that would support your anti-US position...

_______________________________________________________

Why the bomb was not needed, or unjustified:

Japan was ready to call it quits anyway. More than 60 of its cities had been destroyed by conventional bombing, the home islands were being blockaded by the American Navy, and the Soviet Union entered the war by attacking Japanese troops in Manchuria.

American refusal to modify its "unconditional surrender" demand to allow the Japanese to keep their emperor needlessly prolonged Japan's resistance.

A demonstration explosion over Tokyo harbor would have convinced Japan's leaders to quit without killing many people.

Even if Hiroshima was necessary, the U.S. did not give enough time for word to filter out of its devastation before bombing Nagasaki.

The bomb was used partly to justify the $2 billion spent on its development.

The two cities were of limited military value. Civilians outnumbered troops in Hiroshima five or six to one.

Japanese lives were sacrificed simply for power politics between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

Conventional firebombing would have caused as much significant damage without making the U.S. the first nation to use nuclear weapon.

______________________________________________________

Why would they need to justify the cost of the Manhattan Project? Nobody even knew it existed.

Looks like a typical straw man argument. I see you are still being dishonest with your links.

[Ulysses G.]

Others suggest that there were different motivation behind it and came up with arguments like that:

Anyone who reads Thai Visa knows that some arguments are just made up nonsense to attack Western democracies to further a radical political agenda.