Olmert to Resign

[BigRob]

The Israelis are simply going to get their deserved comeuppance because the US is not going to bomb Iran and the Israelis won't do it themselves because they would be hit too hard for their little country to be able to stand. So Iran is going to get the bomb sooner or later and the whole game gets to be played differently. If the US is smart it will get the hell out of the ME and start playing nice. There are much more important things for the US to do than look after nasty and selfish Jews who can't stop being arrogant and uppity toward others.

Lets look at the history of Israel shall we:

The British took over the land that is now Israel after defeating the Ottomans in WWI.

- During this time there are anti-Israel massacres and riots instigated by militant Arabs.

- After WWII and the holocaust, the UN mandates the creation of Israel.

- One day after Israel is created by the UN, five Arab states invade Israel.

- This is followed by the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War, as well as other various problems with Egypt all along.

- It was Israel that granted the Palestinians the ability to form their own governments in the West Bank and Gaza.

- Terror attacks continue against Israel from Lebanon, as we know there have been many problems there.

You say the "nasty and selfish" Jews are all "arrogant and uppity" towards each other, but you fail to acknowledge that since their creation their neighbors have basically refused to recognize their right to exist, and have continually attacked (and lost) to try to prevent this.

The problem is not with Israel, it is with the Arab states who basically come to the table with the notion that Israel has no right to exist.

 

[UShadItComing]

Lets look at the history of Israel shall we:

The British took over the land that is now Israel after defeating the Ottomans in WWI.

- During this time there are anti-Israel massacres and riots instigated by militant Arabs.

- After WWII and the holocaust, the UN mandates the creation of Israel.

- One day after Israel is created by the UN, five Arab states invade Israel.

- This is followed by the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War, as well as other various problems with Egypt all along.

- It was Israel that granted the Palestinians the ability to form their own governments in the West Bank and Gaza.

- Terror attacks continue against Israel from Lebanon, as we know there have been many problems there.

You say the "nasty and selfish" Jews are all "arrogant and uppity" towards each other, but you fail to acknowledge that since their creation their neighbors have basically refused to recognize their right to exist, and have continually attacked (and lost) to try to prevent this.

The problem is not with Israel, it is with the Arab states who basically come to the table with the notion that Israel has no right to exist.

There's no point in arguing all this over again Rob. Suffice to say that your country is going to be facing so many big problems very soon that it won't be able to save the Jews anymore. I don't care really.

There will be no war agaisnt Iran and it's been scare tactics all along. The scare tactics failed even though I thought for a time that they would succeed. I think the reason is because the Russians and the Chinese have covertly made it clear to Iran that they are there for protection, and that's not to mention that Israel would be toast if the US did Iran.

Iran will eventually get the bomb and that is going to change the whole game for the US in the ME.

Bush's war with Iraq is going to go down in history as the single biggest mistake the US has ever made. On the positive side it has only pushed the inevitable up about 10 years.

 

[BigRob]

There's no point in arguing all this over again Rob. Suffice to say that your country is going to be facing so many big problems very soon that it won't be able to save the Jews anymore. I don't care really.

There will be no war agaisnt Iran and it's been scare tactics all along. The scare tactics failed even though I thought for a time that they would succeed. I think the reason is because the Russians and the Chinese have covertly made it clear to Iran that they are there for protection, and that's not to mention that Israel would be toast if the US did Iran.

Iran will eventually get the bomb and that is going to change the whole game for the US in the ME.

Bush's war with Iraq is going to go down in history as the single biggest mistake the US has ever made. On the positive side it has only pushed the inevitable up about 10 years.

Well the point remains, those who would rather blame Israel and support the Palestinians in this situation mostly do not know what they are talking about.

Iran has given Russia and China oil deals, they have no been given explicit security guarantees. What you continually fail to see is that if the US attacked Iran, Iran would retaliate most likely covertly in Iraq, or by disrupting Saudi oil flow. If Israel attacked Iran, Iran would most likely respond the same way, and view the attack as one sanctioned by the United States.

Given that, do not be so sure that Israel does not take some action after it is determined who the next President will be, especially if they feel like their security will be undermined by the next President.

Iran will most likely get the bomb at some point yes, but if we can put it off for 15-20 years, all of the pro-Western youth will be fully grown up in Iran and will be the ones taking charge of the country at that point. The situation can change the longer we can stall Iran.

The Iraq War is not going to be the worst mistake the US has ever made. There have been and will be far worse ones. And if we leave Iraq a functioning pro-Western democracy, I do not think you can call it a failure by any means.

 

[UShadItComing]

Robby my boy, if Israel attacks Iran there isn't going to be anything 'covert' about Iran's response. You can take that to the bank now. But if either Israel or the US attacks Iran, the question is, what is the Russian and Chinese response going to be?

Don't even go there because it's not going to happen and that's exactly the reason it's not going to happen.

I've been on the right side of this issue right from the start Rob. Do you want to learn something or do you want to just keep digging in your heels like an American patriotic citizen would do?

This Iraq war will go down in history as the biggest mistake the US will ever make.

Simply because future mistakes will be made by a much less entity than what the US is today. Hang onto your hat sonny boy.

 

[BigRob]

Robby my boy, if Israel attacks Iran there isn't going to be anything 'covert' about Iran's response. You can take that to the bank now. But if either Israel or the US attacks Iran, the question is, what is the Russian and Chinese response going to be?

If Israel hits Iran, the retaliation is going to come against the United States. It will come in the form of "covert" action in Iraq to destabilize the situation. Or in a more open way such as attacking Saudi oil fields, or threatening the Straight of Hormuz. That said, the Iranian Navy is no match for the US Navy, and the US can keep the straight open, even if it results in open war.

I would say that China and Russia would veto any UN action in Iran, but would not intervene in a situation of air strikes or invasion. While these may not be the best moves available, I predict they would stay out of it.

For example, Iraq had big deals with France and Germany before we invaded, and they did a grand total of nothing to stand with Iraq. China is not going to risk losing its largest market (the US) to stand up for Iran. Russia might openly complain about it, but we could cut deals with the missile defense shield to placate their concerns.

I've been on the right side of this issue right from the start Rob. Do you want to learn something or do you want to just keep digging in your heels like an American patriotic citizen would do?

Do I want to learn something? Tell me, what foreign policy experience do you have? What makes you qualified to pass on a judgment like this? A nuclear Iran is unacceptable to the interests of the United States, but a nuclear Iran will not threaten the heegemony of the United States.

This Iraq war will go down in history as the biggest mistake the US will ever make.

Simply because future mistakes will be made by a much less entity than what the US is today. Hang onto your hat sonny boy.

Says you.

 

[UShadItComing]

Rob wrote:

Do I want to learn something? Tell me, what foreign policy experience do you have? What makes you qualified to pass on a judgment like this? A nuclear Iran is unacceptable to the interests of the United States,

No doubt Rob.

.... but a nuclear Iran will not threaten the heegemony of the United States.

No? You think a nuclear armed Pakistan is no threat to US hegemony? All nuclear armed nations become a threat to other nations which have designs on others. This is why India got nukes. And then that is why Pakistan quickly got it's nukes. Israel got it's nukes and that is why Iran will get it's nukes.

I tell you Rob, if Iran arms itself with nuclear weapons then Iraq will align itself with Iran which is quickly becoming the regional power. If that happens then the US will be powerless in the ME because it will not be popular there. Why aren't you understanding this.

If you care read Eric Margolis', War at the Top of the World. If not then just continue to flap your gums meaninglessly.

 

[BigRob]

No doubt Rob.

So no relevant experience.

No? You think a nuclear armed Pakistan is no threat to US hegemony? All nuclear armed nations become a threat to other nations which have designs on others. This is why India got nukes. And then that is why Pakistan quickly got it's nukes. Israel got it's nukes and that is why Iran will get it's nukes.

No, a nuclear armed Pakistan is not a threat to US hegemony. What exactly do they have outside of the bomb that is a threat?

I tell you Rob, if Iran arms itself with nuclear weapons then Iraq will align itself with Iran which is quickly becoming the regional power. If that happens then the US will be powerless in the ME because it will not be popular there. Why aren't you understanding this.

Iraq is not going to quickly align themselves with Iran simply because Iran has a nuclear weapon. In middle east politics today most Arab nations continue to look to Egypt and Saudi Arabia to lead them, not Iran.

Added to that, Iraq would have no need to align with Iran because as it is, the United States army is in Iraq and is protecting Iraqi sovereignty. Even if we do take your example of Iraq aligning with Iran, we will retain influence among moderates such as Kuwait, the UAE, and also in Egypt, and to an extent with the Saudi's who will turn more towards the US in effort to balance against a nuclear Iran.

In fact, there is a good argument to be made that Iran going nuclear will increase the influence of the United States in the region as more moderate arab states look for outside guarantees on their security.

If you care read Eric Margolis', War at the Top of the World. If not then just continue to flap your gums meaninglessly.

You are citing a book by a journalist with ZERO footnotes and sources as your evidence? And since I assume you have read the book you can agree that he makes some bold claims in there, but strangely offers no substantiation for them. Do you take everything you read as gospel truth?

 

[UShadItComing]

What did you do Rob, do a search for the book and find a review you liked? The man's got some credentials Rob, which trump footnotes.

Never mind, you don't want to know.

 

[BigRob]

What did you do Rob, do a search for the book and find a review you liked? The man's got some credentials Rob, which trump footnotes.

Never mind, you don't want to know.

Do you deny that he makes controversial claims with no supporting evidence? I guess you do not. For example:

"Additionally, since the book is not intended as an academic text, there are no footnotes or references. This is of particular concern given the context of some of the significant and unsubstantiated accusations made by Margolis. For example, on page 33 Margolis states that the “KGB staged carefully calibrated assassinations, ambushes and raids complete with faked evidence left behind, that convinced Mujahedin leaders they were being attacked by other allied Mujahedin groups.” This may or may not be true, but it is a significant accusation offered without substantiation."

A bold claim to make with no proof, regardless of your personal qualifications.

And the review was from Canadian Military Journal

 

[UShadItComing]

Do you deny that he makes controversial claims with no supporting evidence? I guess you do not. For example:

"Additionally, since the book is not intended as an academic text, there are no footnotes or references. This is of particular concern given the context of some of the significant and unsubstantiated accusations made by Margolis. For example, on page 33 Margolis states that the “KGB staged carefully calibrated assassinations, ambushes and raids complete with faked evidence left behind, that convinced Mujahedin leaders they were being attacked by other allied Mujahedin groups.” This may or may not be true, but it is a significant accusation offered without substantiation."

A bold claim to make with no proof, regardless of your personal qualifications.

And the review was from Canadian Military Journal

His book makes many bold claims and you can choose to accept them or not, but the attraction of the book for me is that Margolis spent a considerable amount of time in those countries and succeeds in explaining to me the significance of what is happening. I think it could be of use to you if you read it for a background on the region and just separate what you consider is the wheat from the chaff. You will probably find that it's less anti-American than it is anti-Russian or anti-Chinese. He has a lot of feeling for Tibet for example. IN any case Rob, I found it useful. One of the most useful books I have read on the region.

I have only just recently read this book and it came about because I asked Margolis some questions and he answered some and then directed me to his book. Specifically I was wondering if Russia and China are both supporting Iran behind the scenes and if he thought they had covertly guaranteed Iran protection against US or Israeli attack. It seems to me that both are overtly supporting Iran by demanding that the attacks against Iran are now confinded to sanctions. Sanctions which Iran appears to be scoffing at now. Since asking Margolis those questions it has become much clearer to me now that there will be no military attack on Iran and there has been a lot of bluffing going on.

Maybe, maybe not Rob, but when the new pres is sworn in we will have a better idea. Be it McCane or Obama, it seems to me that they're both only politicians who will have to rely on better sources of information than what they can summon up on their own. I don't think it makes a lick of difference. But of course we should know that if it is all bluff then the whole facade is destroyed if the public starts to accept it as all bluff.

This is not to say that either Russia or China wants to see a nuclear armed Iran but on the other hand maybe they wouldn't think it's such a bad idea. If you would read Margolis you would get a better understanding of the mechanisms in play when India, Pakistan, or Israel armed themselves with nuclear weapons. And especially how this is playing out as to predictions on where the flash points could be.

 

[BigRob]

His book makes many bold claims and you can choose to accept them or not, but the attraction of the book for me is that Margolis spent a considerable amount of time in those countries and succeeds in explaining to me the significance of what is happening. I think it could be of use to you if you read it for a background on the region and just separate what you consider is the wheat from the chaff. You will probably find that it's less anti-American than it is anti-Russian or anti-Chinese. He has a lot of feeling for Tibet for example. IN any case Rob, I found it useful. One of the most useful books I have read on the region.

I have only just recently read this book and it came about because I asked Margolis some questions and he answered some and then directed me to his book. Specifically I was wondering if Russia and China are both supporting Iran behind the scenes and if he thought they had covertly guaranteed Iran protection against US or Israeli attack. It seems to me that both are overtly supporting Iran by demanding that the attacks against Iran are now confinded to sanctions. Sanctions which Iran appears to be scoffing at now. Since asking Margolis those questions it has become much clearer to me now that there will be no military attack on Iran and there has been a lot of bluffing going on.

Maybe, maybe not Rob, but when the new pres is sworn in we will have a better idea. Be it McCane or Obama, it seems to me that they're both only politicians who will have to rely on better sources of information than what they can summon up on their own. I don't think it makes a lick of difference. But of course we should know that if it is all bluff then the whole facade is destroyed if the public starts to accept it as all bluff.

This is not to say that either Russia or China wants to see a nuclear armed Iran but on the other hand maybe they wouldn't think it's such a bad idea. If you would read Margolis you would get a better understanding of the mechanisms in play when India, Pakistan, or Israel armed themselves with nuclear weapons. And especially how this is playing out as to predictions on where the flash points could be.

There is no doubt that China and Russia are blocking any meaningful sanctions in the UN. If you cannot sanction the oil, then sanctions are pointless.

As for the rest, I think that should the US or Israel actually carry through on an attack (which is by no means a guarantee, but it is still an option) China and Russia will most likely not say much about it, or publicly come out against the attacks, but do nothing else. China is not going to rush to the support of Iran after an attack would occur. What they will do is block any meaningful sanctions or action by the UN in the hope that an attack will not occur. But if one does, they will mostly stay out of it.

Certainly there is always a lot of bluffing in a situation such as this, and much of the political rhetoric is sabre rattling, but by no means is an attack off the table.


Certainly India/Pakistan could be/is a flashpoint. Kashmir could easily boil over one day and result in a war. I do not think either side would take it nuclear, unless they were about to be completely overrun, but I am not sure it would come to that.

Israel is more a worry in that regard, but even then, unless they are about to be totally destroyed I do not think they would take anything to the nuclear level either. Nuclear bombs do not ensure that you do not go to war, especially against another nuclear power, but they do give you that last option if you are about to be overrun.

 

[UShadItComing]

There is no doubt that China and Russia are blocking any meaningful sanctions in the UN. If you cannot sanction the oil, then sanctions are pointless.

As for the rest, I think that should the US or Israel actually carry through on an attack (which is by no means a guarantee, but it is still an option) China and Russia will most likely not say much about it, or publicly come out against the attacks, but do nothing else. China is not going to rush to the support of Iran after an attack would occur. What they will do is block any meaningful sanctions or action by the UN in the hope that an attack will not occur. But if one does, they will mostly stay out of it.

Certainly there is always a lot of bluffing in a situation such as this, and much of the political rhetoric is sabre rattling, but by no means is an attack off the table.


Certainly India/Pakistan could be/is a flashpoint. Kashmir could easily boil over one day and result in a war. I do not think either side would take it nuclear, unless they were about to be completely overrun, but I am not sure it would come to that.

Israel is more a worry in that regard, but even then, unless they are about to be totally destroyed I do not think they would take anything to the nuclear level either. Nuclear bombs do not ensure that you do not go to war, especially against another nuclear power, but they do give you that last option if you are about to be overrun.

The reason why an India/Pakistan war is so dangerous is because Pakistan can't win and India knows that. Therefore if India had the resolve to win and not just hold to the current status quo, it would become nuclear.

If Iran is attacked then Israel gets hit bigtime and they can't stand that. Therefore I believe it they have to go nuclear against Iran. 'If' that were to happen then all bets are off because Russia or China would need to go nuclear. But wait, let's back up. This is the reason why there is not going to be an attack by the US or Israel. This is all bluffing and it's becoming more evident every day. In fact it's hardly a secret anymore.

The US has begun talks with Iran and I suspect those talks will continue. This is a show of weakness but it is the show of weakness which Obama has been accused of for so long. He was right on that one at least.

Will Iran ever be able to trust the US to be peaceful in the future as regards Iran and the ME? I really don't think so but guarantees of protection by the world with US sanction by the US could perhaps lead to a solution. IN any case the US has lost in the ME now and it's just putting off the inevitable defeat with it's tail between it's legs, Ho Chi Minh city style.

 

[BigRob]

The reason why an India/Pakistan war is so dangerous is because Pakistan can't win and India knows that. Therefore if India had the resolve to win and not just hold to the current status quo, it would become nuclear.

Neither side has the resolve to win, and if they did go nuclear, both sides get destroyed and neither side wins. In the case of Iran and the US. Iran lacks the missile technology to send a warhead to the US, and the US could survive a nuclear attack, whereas Iran would not survive the response.

If Iran is attacked then Israel gets hit bigtime and they can't stand that. Therefore I believe it they have to go nuclear against Iran. 'If' that were to happen then all bets are off because Russia or China would need to go nuclear. But wait, let's back up. This is the reason why there is not going to be an attack by the US or Israel. This is all bluffing and it's becoming more evident every day. In fact it's hardly a secret anymore.

If Iran is attacked I think that Iran retaliates against US interests. Not Israel, in all the ways that I outlined before. Israel will not go nuclear against Iran, and Israel going nuclear in no way causes China to go off and nuke anyone, I do not see the logic connection on that one.

The US has begun talks with Iran and I suspect those talks will continue. This is a show of weakness but it is the show of weakness which Obama has been accused of for so long. He was right on that one at least.

The US has tagged along on the new round of European led talks. Another way to interpret this is that the US is prepping Europe for an attack. Europe's complaint was that the US was not even trying diplomacy, so by sending an envoy along for the talks (which will most likely fail, as all the other ones have) will give the US the leverage to say "We tried your way, it is time to try ours."

Will Iran ever be able to trust the US to be peaceful in the future as regards Iran and the ME? I really don't think so but guarantees of protection by the world with US sanction by the US could perhaps lead to a solution. IN any case the US has lost in the ME now and it's just putting off the inevitable defeat with it's tail between it's legs, Ho Chi Minh city style.

Oh please. Iran is not the sole country in the Middle East. Many moderate Arab states in the middle east continue to view the United States with legitimacy. They also look at the situation in Iraq as the US keeping our word, which actually serves to enhance our image among the moderates.

You say:

I really don't think so but guarantees of protection by the world with US sanction by the US could perhaps lead to a solution.

No one is going to guarantee the protection of Iran. Europe does not want Iran to have a bomb, neither does Russia (as seen by their previous offers) but neither of them want to go to war over it. I predict if the US or Israel does end up hitting Iran, Iran will retaliate against the US somewhere in the Middle East, or in Saudi Arabia, but Europe, Russia, and China will condemn the attack, but stay out of it.

 

[UShadItComing]

Neither side has the resolve to win, and if they did go nuclear, both sides get destroyed and neither side wins. In the case of Iran and the US. Iran lacks the missile technology to send a warhead to the US, and the US could survive a nuclear attack, whereas Iran would not survive the response.

Come on Rob, nobody is claiming that Iran could get a nuke to the US yet. But in time they will gain the capability and the US doesn't like that kind of war where a million US citizens get offed. That's the beauty of nuclear weapons. In the meantime Iran would hit Israel and probably US interests close to Iran. And block Hormuz.

If Iran is attacked I think that Iran retaliates against US interests. Not Israel, in all the ways that I outlined before. Israel will not go nuclear against Iran, and Israel going nuclear in no way causes China to go off and nuke anyone, I do not see the logic connection on that one.

Wishful thinking, Iran would most certainly do Israel because that's the threat that is preventing a war. China has no interest in nuking anyone.

The US has tagged along on the new round of European led talks. Another way to interpret this is that the US is prepping Europe for an attack. Europe's complaint was that the US was not even trying diplomacy, so by sending an envoy along for the talks (which will most likely fail, as all the other ones have) will give the US the leverage to say "We tried your way, it is time to try ours."

Well it's clear you personally want another war Rob, but you're not going to get one with Iran. We'll leave it at that unless you can come up with something better to tell me on why you think you're going to get your wish. My whole argument hinges on Russia and China not allowing it to happen because their interests dictate it not happen. The Russians and the Chinese are not going to hand the ME over to the US on a silver platter. Bush's big mistake was in thinking that he could take the ME. Deal with that at least because that is the issue. Tell me if you think that the status quo with Saddam could have carried the situation through for the US until a new leader came to power. Or was it a loser in any case for the US eventually?

You see, I'm not all that certain that the Us didn't do the right and necessary thing in hitting Iraq the first time. Right for the US of course and obviously morally wrong. But right in the sense that the US was losing Iraq and consequently the ME.

Oh please. Iran is not the sole country in the Middle East. Many moderate Arab states in the middle east continue to view the United States with legitimacy. They also look at the situation in Iraq as the US keeping our word, which actually serves to enhance our image among the moderates.

The huge majority of the people of the ME hate the US. Corrupt monarchies maintain the status quo. That's what Bin Laden was on about with Saudi.

No one is going to guarantee the protection of Iran. Europe does not want Iran to have a bomb, neither does Russia (as seen by their previous offers) but neither of them want to go to war over it. I predict if the US or Israel does end up hitting Iran, Iran will retaliate against the US somewhere in the Middle East, or in Saudi Arabia, but Europe, Russia, and China will condemn the attack, but stay out of it.

Russia and China don't want war. The US wants war because without war the US is going to lose Iraq.

 

[Jeugenen]

IN OLMERT AND ISRAEL WE TRUST
Who in the World does not trust in Olmert’s good reputation, since being assured that he never lies; and certainly never steals or robs? And who embodies the fine Israeli character and Israeli stereotype better that Olmert? Who in the World shall dare to say: “Olmert is a liar”; “Olmert is thief”; “Olmert is a land-robber”; “Olmert is an Israeli.”