U.S. OKs sale of bunker busters to Israel

[rhino 0]

Interesting.. Israel will be taking care of Iran.. Who will we arm to take care or North Korea?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7658949/

[billvon 3,120]

>Who will we arm to take care or North Korea?

We'll probably end up selling them F-16's to take care of someone we like even less. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that.

[freethefly 6]

Iran will kick the crap out of Isreal much like they did to Iraq (80-88), even though Iraq was heavily backed by the Reagan Admin.(the ship I was on spent more than 50 days off the coast of Iran/Iraq providing support to Saddam) The US continuation of supplying arms to facilitate an arms race in the mid-east does nothing but jepordize relationships with the Muslim people. It is obvious that the US does not care who it jumps in bed with as long as it serves its purpose.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[kelpdiver 2]

Iran still has no nukes, so it will do nothing to Israel but cower politely.

How much aid are we still sending to Israel? Aren't we just effectively selling weapons to ourselves?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The US continuation of supplying arms to facilitate an arms race in the mid-east does nothing but jepordize relationships with the Muslim people.

Yeah, you're right. We should just let the Muslims throw all those damn Jews into the sea, wiping them all out. Then the Muslims would love us once again. Peace, at last!

Who else would you like to sell-out in a vain hope for peace from terrorists?

[billvon 3,120]

> We should just let the Muslims throw all those damn Jews into the
>sea, wiping them all out. Then the Muslims would love us once again.
> Peace, at last!

Is that better than letting the 'damn Jews' kill all the Muslims? Neither scenario is appealing or realistic.

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

The US continuation of supplying arms to facilitate an arms race in the mid-east does nothing but jepordize relationships with the Muslim people. It is obvious that the US does not care who it jumps in bed with as long as it serves its purpose.

It is no longer just the US Got this off EARTHLINK. [url]Putin Defends Missile Sales to Syria
April 28, 2005 11:42 AM EDT
JERUSALEM - Russian President Vladimir Putin faced down Israeli criticism Thursday, saying Russia's planned sale of anti-aircraft missiles to Syria and supply of nuclear components to Iran does not threaten Israel's security.

Putin spoke on the second day of his historic visit to Israel - the first trip here by a Kremlin leader - before meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

The trip was intended to cement Russia's rapprochement with the Jewish state and boost its profile in the international arena. But it was shadowed by disagreements with Israel over Russia's aid to Syria and Iran, two of Israel's staunchest enemies.

Addressing Israeli fears that he's affecting the region's balance of power, Putin urged Iran to do more to show the world that it's not trying to build a nuclear weapon.

He also called for international supervision of the Iranian nuclear program, which Russia is boosting.

"It is necessary for our Iranian partners to reject the creation of nuclear cycle technology and not hinder placing all its nuclear program under complete international control," he said at a news conference after an earlier meeting with Israeli President Moshe Katsav. He was referring to the recycling of spent nuclear fuel.

Israel accuses Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons, though Tehran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said in the Hague, Netherlands, that his country will resume its uranium enrichment program - temporarily suspended in November - if talks on Friday with European nations fail.

Russia has provided assistance for Iran's nuclear program and has agreed to sell anti-aircraft missiles to Syria. Sharon repeatedly has said the missiles pose a danger to Israel and wants Putin to halt the deal.

Israeli Vice Premier Ehud Olmert said Thursday that Russia is selling Iran components that can be used to make non-conventional weapons, and that Russia's assistance to Iran is a cause of concern. Olmert, who took part in the Sharon-Putin luncheon meeting, told Israel TV afterward that the two "agreed on a number of practical steps" on security issues, but he gave no details.

Sharon, whose parents were born in Russia, greeted Putin in Russian at their meeting on Thursday and told the visitor he should "feel among brothers," Israel Radio said. A Sharon aide quoted Putin as calling Israel a strategic ally of Russia.

The United States announced Wednesday it had authorized the sale of as many as 100 large bunker-buster bombs to Israel, which experts saw as a warning to Iran about its nuclear ambitions.

Putin defended Russian involvement, saying that Russia was sensitive to Israel's security concerns. "Regarding Iran, we are working to make sure their nuclear ability is used for peaceful means."

Moscow's agreement with Iran requires it to return all its spent nuclear fuel to Russia so it cannot be used for military purposes, Putin said. "I agree that these steps are not enough and we have to get Iran to agree to nuclear inspections," he said at a joint news conference in Jerusalem with Katsav, whose role is largely ceremonial.

Putin also pledged to tackle the growing problem of anti-Semitism in his country, saying "there can be no place for xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of racial or religious intolerance" in the 21st century.

Putin was greeted Thursday morning by the pomp of an official welcoming ceremony, complete with a military honor guard and Jewish, Muslim and Christian religious leaders.

Putin also sought to allay concerns about the Syrian arms deal, saying the missiles should pose no threat to Israel. "The missiles we are providing to Syria are short-range anti-aircraft missiles that cannot reach Israeli territory," he said.

Israeli warplanes bombed alleged militant training bases outside Damascus on Oct. 5, 2003, and have buzzed one of Syrian President Bashar Assad's palaces.

Putin, whose country has traditionally supported the Arabs in their conflict with Israel, said he had personally vetoed the sale of longer-range missiles to Syria out of concern for Israel's safety.

Officials who briefed reporters on the Putin-Katzav meeting said Russia already had signed a deal with Syria for missiles with a range of 185 miles. According to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Putin told Katsav "then I checked and my experts told me that Israel has no way to intercept these missiles so I canceled the deal."

"We are taking the opinions and concerns of our partners into consideration, and not changing the balance of power in the region," Putin said at the news conference. "Israel has no problem here."

Israeli media reported Thursday that Sharon also opposes Russia's plan to sell military equipment to the Palestinians. Palestinian officials have said Russia is interested in selling armored vehicles to their security services for use in riot control. Israel fears the armored vehicles could fall into the hands of militants.

Putin began his visit here late Wednesday on a note of controversy, proposing, just before his arrival, that Russia host a Mideast peace conference in the fall, after Israel withdraws from the Gaza Strip. Palestinians warmly embraced the idea, but Israel and the United States brushed it aside.

He did not bring up the conference proposal during Thursday's news conference with Katsav, but said the region had a unique opportunity to achieve peace.

"We think there is a chance now to achieve a just Israeli-Palestinian settlement ... much will depend on Israel's willingness and the Palestinians' willingness, first and foremost," Putin said.

Putin was to travel to the West Bank city of Ramallah Friday for talks with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.

Putin and Katsav unveiled a monument donated by Russia, in memory of the 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust. The Russian sculpture depicts six nude figures, one a small child, standing in a circle surrounded by barbed wire.

After meeting Sharon, Putin also visited Yad Vashem, Israel's Holocaust memorial center. He toured the new museum and laid a wreath in the Hall or Remembrance, where ashes of Jewish victims of the Nazis are buried. He wrote in the guest book, "We are deeply mournful of all the victims of the Holocaust. This type of tragedy must never happen again."

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

The US continuation of supplying arms to facilitate an arms race in the mid-east does nothing but jepordize relationships with the Muslim people.

Yeah, you're right. We should just let the Muslims throw all those damn Jews into the sea, wiping them all out. Then the Muslims would love us once again. Peace, at last!

Quote

Adolf would have loved you for that comment, no matter how you really mean it.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The US continuation of supplying arms to facilitate an arms race in the mid-east does nothing but jepordize relationships with the Muslim people.

Yeah, you're right. We should just let the Muslims throw all those damn Jews into the sea, wiping them all out. Then the Muslims would love us once again. Peace, at last!

Quote

Adolf would have loved you for that comment, no matter how you really mean it.

I met a couple of Arabs at a party in Abu Dhabi several years ago that felt that Hitler's biggest mistake was not completely eradicating all the Jews. This was at a time when the Arabs were trying to eradicate each other.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Is that better than letting the 'damn Jews' kill all the Muslims? Neither scenario is appealing or realistic.

I don't see Israel threatening to invade Muslim countries and vowing to wipe them off the face of the earth.

I do, however, see Muslims advocating that against Israel.

And Christians.

[freethefly 6]

I said nothing of letting the Muslims "throw those damn Jews into the sea" (your words). My point is that by continuing to build up arms in the mideast does very little for hope of peace. The US and Russia have long been the main supplier of weapons to what is widely known as a hostile and unstable region. With Iraq now wide open the arms race will only escalate causing more tension. Who do you suppose will be the main supplier in Iraq? Not Russia. They have their corner in Iran and Syria. We have Israel and now, once again, we have Iraq. It is a you throw a rock, I'll throw a bigger rock back kind of thing. As long as people continue to not get along the arms industry will always be on hand to supply what we need the least of, more weapons.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

My point is that by continuing to build up arms in the mideast does very little for hope of peace.

For those who espouse the doctrine of peace throught strength, Israel is the poster child.

How long has it been since Israel suffered a full invasion? And how long has it been since it went hot with its nuclear arsenal?

Whereas now it worries most about car bombers, before it worried about tanks, and lots of em.

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

For those who espouse the doctrine of peace throught strength, Israel is the poster child.

And they do this while surrounded by hostile neighbors.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[billvon 3,120]

>For those who espouse the doctrine of peace throught strength, Israel is the poster child.

We can only hope, then, that North Korea and Iran develop their nuclear arsenals as quickly as possible then, so that peace comes to those unstable regions.

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

>For those who espouse the doctrine of peace throught strength, Israel is the poster child.

We can only hope, then, that North Korea and Iran develop their nuclear arsenals as quickly as possible then, so that peace comes to those unstable regions.

Sure. Do you think these two countries possess the same measure of restraint as Israel??

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[billvon 3,120]

>Do you think these two countries possess the same measure of restraint as Israel??

Nothing about restraint in the doctrine of peace through strength. If you are strong enough you will not be invaded - or so goes the doctrine. If that's true, then the more weapons, the better.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>For those who espouse the doctrine of peace throught strength, Israel is the poster child.

We can only hope, then, that North Korea and Iran develop their nuclear arsenals as quickly as possible then, so that peace comes to those unstable regions.

Aye, once they're there. But the process is particularly unpeaceful if done in the open.

Also, while N Korea is in no position to make war on unarmed neighbors, Iran still is, so a nuclear arsenel doesn't necessarily bring peace. See ourselves for the prime example.

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

Interesting.. Israel will be taking care of Iran.. Who will we arm to take care or North Korea?

Hmmm... It's not making it any easier to convince the Russians, Chinese et al not to sell weapons and equipment to Iran...

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[billvon 3,120]

>Aye, once they're there. But the process is particularly unpeaceful if
>done in the open.

Hmm, so the time when they are _partially_ armed is the dangerous time. I could see that. But that puts us in the odd position of hoping it happens quickly if peace is to be maintained.

>Also, while N Korea is in no position to make war on unarmed
> neighbors, Iran still is, so a nuclear arsenel doesn't necessarily
> bring peace. See ourselves for the prime example.

Since we have nuclear weapons, we are unusually aggressive? While that may be true, I think that we are somewhat more conciliatory with countries like China and Russia - countries that have the ability to hit back. That would argue that equal retaliatory abilities are critical to maintaining peace. Given that we managed to not get into all-out war with the USSR, there's some historical precedent.

[falxori 0]

Quote

Nothing about restraint in the doctrine of peace through strength. If you are strong enough you will not be invaded - or so goes the doctrine

you might "not be invaded", but if country A has a declared goal to destroy country B, i'm not sure it worries about getting invaded. more likely it will focus on offensive rather than defensive measures.

and if you consider Iran's and Syria's MO up until now, they rarely attacked israel directly. they arm, support and send others to do their job for them.

we've discussed it before, the more likely scenario is a nuke or a "dirty bomb" going off without a clear return address.

O

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[likearock 2]

Quote

Also, while N Korea is in no position to make war on unarmed neighbors, Iran still is, so a nuclear arsenel doesn't necessarily bring peace. See ourselves for the prime example.

Everyone's missing the point here. The danger of Iran and North Korea having a nuclear weapon is not that they'd use it themselves. Mutually assured destruction is still in full force, even for countries that don't have nukes (read Japan) but have nuclear possessing allies.

The danger is that North Korea, with a known track record of selling arms to terrorists, and Iran, the prime sponsor of Hezbollah, would help get these nukes in the hands of terrorists. A terrorist, not associated with any country in particular, won't care about MAD because who are you going to retaliate against? That's the true nightmare scenario.

Wayne

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Who will we arm to take care or North Korea?

We'll probably end up selling them F-16's to take care of someone we like even less. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that.

Bill, for the first time, you didn't make sense to me. Is everything okay?

First, we've already sold F16s to Israel. Second, Israel's more immediate need/assessment for these types of weapons are more effective a deterrent against Syria. Third, Isreal is not going to strike Iran, not while we have significantly better assets available and are already the "bad guy" in the region.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[freethefly 6]

It is the new "Cold War". Somehow, I do not remember any peace during the last one. The sixties were anything but peaceful and from what I have read the fifties were not any better. The seventies and eighties were overbremming with tension. How convenient we had weapons to keep the peace. Just imagine what a terror filled world it would be if the atom bomb (the baby of the Cold War)was never concieved. The problem is obvious. Nations are much like small children. You have one, I want one too! If my neighbor has a gun and there is reason to fear that neighbor then I too should be able to have a gun that is equal if not greater than his. That is the reason and problem of an arms race. Does the world need another standoff like the one between the US and the former USSR? The answer is obvious. No it does not. Sad, not many are willing to stand up against what is on its way. Those who do stand up are labled unpatriotic. Could tension be relieved if all countries disarmed their nuclear arsenals and those that considered arming back down from such? Most likely it would relieve tension but with the current fervor for war it is not likely to happen at anytime. Like a child and a security blanket, once you have it, it is hard to give it up. The only way to peace is disarment of weapons aimed at other nations unilaterally and shift the focus toward terrorist who have no nation. Not very lucrative for the arms industry but very lucrative for those who wish not to live in the shadow of another cold war.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Quote

>Who will we arm to take care or North Korea?

We'll probably end up selling them F-16's to take care of someone we like even less. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that.

Bill, for the first time, you didn't make sense to me. Is everything okay?

First, we've already sold F16s to Israel. Second, Israel's more immediate need/assessment for these types of weapons are more effective a deterrent against Syria. Third, Isreal is not going to strike Iran, not while we have significantly better assets available and are already the "bad guy" in the region.

I think he was intimating that the US would be likely to sell F16's to Korea because there was a new enemy we liked less... ie just like we sold WMD to Iraq even though we knew they were bastards simply because we thought Iran were a bigger bunch of bastards.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Iran will kick the crap out of Isreal much like they did to Iraq (80-88), even though Iraq was heavily backed by the Reagan Admin.(the ship I was on spent more than 50 days off the coast of Iran/Iraq providing support to Saddam) The US continuation of supplying arms to facilitate an arms race in the mid-east does nothing but jepordize relationships with the Muslim people. It is obvious that the US does not care who it jumps in bed with as long as it serves its purpose.

You should read up on history a bit. Iran did not "kick the crap" out of Iraq in the 80-88 war. There was no measure of success for either side other than a body-count (in which case Iran "lost" more). By the end of that war, the "line" between the countries was virtually unchanged.

Israel successfully thwarted multi-national efforts against its very existence in 1967 and 1973. Not only thwarted, but virtually wiped out some forces altogether. Had the US not informed the Israelis of USSR involvement in restraining Egypt, they could've marched to Cairo unopposed at the end of that conflict.

Israel has also successfully maintained a vastly superior qualitative lead over its rivals to make up for the quantitative shortfalls it must contend with as a small country.

From www.fas.org:

Quote

Israeli national security strategy is founded on the premise that Israel cannot afford to lose a single war. Because the best way to avoid losing a war is to not fight it in the first place, Israeli strategy begins with the maintenance of a credible deterrent posture, which includes the willingness to carry out preemptive strikes. Should deterrence fail, Israel would seek to prevent escalation, and determine the outcome of war quickly and decisively. Since it lacks strategic depth, Israel must prevent the enemy from entering its territory, and must try to quickly transfer the battle to enemy territory.

That having been said, Israel does not have an "overt" nuclear doctrine, as they still do not acknowledge its existence. Iran however, once it has a weapon, is quite a bit more likely to use it.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!