Israeli PM Says Time Running Out To Stop Iran's Nuclear Programm

[Purveyor]

Time is running out for the international community to halt Iran's nuclear programme by peaceful means, the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, told US defence secretary Leon Panetta in Jerusalem on Wednesday.

Sanctions, diplomacy and declarations of a willingness to take military action as a last resort had not yet convinced the Iranians to stop their programme, he said. "However forceful our statements, they have not convinced Iran that we are serious about stopping them. Right now the Iranian regime believes that the international community does not have the will to stop its nuclear programme."

Netanyahu said earlier that although sanctions were hurting the Iranian economy, such measures had "yet to move its nuclear programme even a millimetre backwards".

Panetta is the fourth senior US administration official to visit Israel in recent weeks as concern has mounted in Washington that Netanyahu is preparing the ground for a military strike in the coming months.

MORE...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/01/israeli-pm-iran-nuclear-programme?newsfeed=true

[Ichingcarpenter]

1. Get Rid of your NUKES first ..... fuck you Israel.... show some leadership

South Africa did..... and they got rid of Apartheid which you seem to embrace more and more these days.

[mazzarro]

2. He has not removed the log in his eye

Bu he is itching to remove the flint in his neighbor's eye - even by force! Go figure.

[Hugabear]

3. +10000

Pretty fucking hypocritical of them

[badtoworse]

4. Given the rhetoric that has historically come out of Tehran, Netanyahu would be an idiot to disarm.

[cpwm17]

5. Iran has been threatening to defend itself if attacked.

That's pretty scary.

It couldn't be because the US and Israel have been, for years, threatening an unprovoked attack against Iran.

[badtoworse]

8. Iran has been calling for the destruction of Isreal for decades.

Iran is generally considered a sponsor of terrorism. Allowing it to acquire nuclear weapons would be idiotic. You need to look at the last 30 plus years to make judgement, not just the last 2 or 3.

[BOG PERSON]

10. everybody's a sponsor of terrorism nowadays

[cpwm17]

20. Can you provide a link for your claim about the alleged threats to Israel?

For many decades the US has been screwing over Iran. Has Iran done anything equivalent?

Thirty years ago the US helped Saddam in his unprovoked war against Iran. 500,000 Iranians died in that tragedy.

[tritsofme]

24. Seriously? That sort of rhetoric emanates from Tehran constantly

They don't even recognize Israel's right to exist.

Ahmadinejad says Israel ought to be "wiped off the map"

A few months ago Khamenei referred to Israel as a "cancerous tumor that must be removed"

I could go on forever, but we all have google.

[badtoworse]

31. That about sums it up. Thanks.

[cpwm17]

34. Clearly you've fallen for the hoax also

The "wipe off the map" BS was discredited years ago. But I can see where your priorities are.

[cpwm17]

33. I've got the Google also

http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/04/19/now-they-tell-us-iran-didnt-actually-threaten-to-wipe-israel-off-the-map/

The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished. He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The "page of time" phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon.

Ahmadinejad didn't say the words "wiped off the map." That's a hoax.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was not threatening Israel. He was talking about regime change, but not through war. He was dreaming about a non-aggressive Israel with equal rights for all. He's not exactly the best messenger, but he still was not threatening Israel.

With Israel's behavior, and its refusal to recognize the native Palestinians' right to exist, it's natural that other world leader will talk bad about them. I wouldn't want to live in a world where they didn't.

[nanabugg]

35. You cannot make the purposely blind see. They want to keep their eyes shut. nt

[tritsofme]

37. No use in arguing with a Ahmadinejad apologist.

[Comrade Grumpy]

39. ...is a pathetic cheap shot.

[tritsofme]

42. Did you read the post I was replying to?

How else could you describe it?

[sabrina 1]

7. Iran is no threat to the US, neither was Iraq, and that is all that should matter to the American

people. If war monger Netanyahu wants to start a war with Iran, let him do it by himself, but the American people do not want any more of their stupid wars which have cost so much in lives not to mention money.

Let him stop trying to drag the US into yet another disastrous war. He is hated around the world, and it would be very foolish of the US to be seen to be in collusion with him in any way.

[badtoworse]

9. If Iran's nuclear program is not stopped, there will almost certainly be a war.

Who starts is irrelevant. The US will finish it. You're naive if you believe otherwise.

[BOG PERSON]

11. Let there be war !!

after all BLOOD lubricates the GEARS of HISTORY !!!

[sabrina 1]

16. Iran has no nuclear weapons program. North Korea does, which is why no one bothers them with

threats of war. So all this is going to do is show other countries that if they want to be left alone they need Nuclear weapons.

Iran is no threat to this country, and our laws forbid this country from going to war unless we are directly threatened.

This is Iraq all over again. And someone needs to stop it.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

27. Have the Pakistanis and Indians had any nuclear exchanges recently?

They both have nukes.

[RZM]

12. South Africa wasn't really benefiting much from having nuclear weapons

They lost very little by giving them up.

Israel is a different story. It is a small country that is surrounded by enemies, not to mention the large and hostile Palestinian population it controls. Nuclear weapons really do serve a significant deterrence function for them. A non-nuclear Israel would be much more vulnerable to its neighbors. I would guess this would result in even more wars and would make Israel even more dependent on US military aid.

While it would be nice if no nation had nuclear weapons, the benefits for Israel far outweigh the gains that would accrue from giving them up. Long-term, only lasting peace and a resignation of the Islamic world to Israel's continued existence as a Jewish state would create a situation in which they would ever give them up.

It's unfortunate, but that's how it is.

[badtoworse]

13. Well stated and true.

[cpwm17]

21. Israel creates its own enemies

Anyone with detectable intelligence can see that.

They've imposed themselves on the region through brute force. They are the hostile power. It is the Israelis that refuse to make peace.

Making peace would force the Israelis to quit their expansionist ways and recognize the native Palestinians' right to exist.

The Palestinians have little power and are highly oppressed by the Israelis.

[RZM]

22. Ok. What does that have to do with nuclear weapons?

I never said that Israel didn't create their own enemies. I only said that they have lots of them. From a strategic standpoint, it matters very little who created what. It only matters what the situation is.

And you could argue that most countries 'create their own enemies,' so that really isn't saying much. In the rough and tumble world of power politics, pursuing your interests (in the case of Israel, existing as a state with a Jewish character) tends to make enemies.

[cpwm17]

23. You implied that Israel's neighbors had some responsibility for the conflict:

"Long-term, only lasting peace and a resignation of the Islamic world to Israel's continued existence as a Jewish state would create a situation in which they would ever give them up."

But I'm can't completely disagree with you, since nuclear weapons do help Israel continue its horrible behavior. There are far better solutions than nukes: peace. So Israel's nuclear program can't be morally defended.

[RZM]

26. They do bear some responsibility

I'd say taking the decision to attack another country implies some level of responsibility for the conflict. They could have, you know, not attacked Israel.

I think your argument rests on the notion that Israel does not have a right to exist as a state with a Jewish character and any outside effort to achieve that end is ultimately the fault of Israel itself, since their existence as a Jewish state is fundamentally illegitimate. They bear responsibility for attacks against them because if they didn't exist as they do, those attacks wouldn't happen. If that's what you think, then say so. It's not exactly a fringe opinion. Plenty of people around the world share it.

[cpwm17]

36. What attack against Israel are you referring to?

To accept Israel as a nation with a Jewish character is to proclaim that the native Palestinians are inferior. As an American, and a human, I don't believe that's morally acceptable.

Israel's terrible treatment of the Palestinians is a direct consequence of it's "Jewish character." The same bad behavior happens in other nations where one group tries to dominate another.

[RZM]

38. 1973

Israel struck first in 1967, though its opponents were on a war footing and had massed large numbers of men and equipment on the borders.

I'm also not a fan of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, but I support the two state solution and not the one-state solution that calls for Israel to cease to exist as a Jewish state.

[Bonobo]

41. You need some history lessons.

While there is some truth in what you say, you are a fool if you believe that Israel was welcomed to the ME with anything but daggers and vows to "drive it into the ocean".

Study history before you talk as if you understand.

[malaise]

18. Ditto

Haven't they cried wolf too many times - damn!

[sabrina 1]

6. Since he is one of the least popular people on the planet, why is he given any press when he

spews his so obvious and dangerous war-mongering rhetoric? That man is a threat to world peace and worries an awful lot of people way, way more than Iran who we know he so desperately wants to use the US Military to attack.

This is beginning to sound very, very familiar. Someone needs to shut him up or maybe the Israeli people could do the world a favor and throw him out of office.

[RZM]

14. Since when is press recieved dependent on popularity?

Bin Laden wasn't particularly popular, but every word he said got lots of coverage. Same thing with the Dinner Jacket.

The reason all of these people get press is the same as the reason I don't. What they say matters, while what I say really doesn't.

[sabrina 1]

15. I think it's the other way around. The reason why what you say doesn't matter is because

you don't get press coverage. The reason why what moronic war-mongers like Netanyahu matters is because they get press coverage. If more was heard from the people than these ego maniacal politicians, maybe the people would have more power.

[RZM]

19. Except Netanyahu is the head of a government

So decisions that he makes and things that he say affect a lot of people. Me, not so much.

[sabrina 1]

30. True, and all the more reason why he should be covered honestly. Otoh, the only place he has or

should have power, is in his own country. And I would like to see more coverage of those he attacks, and more investigative reporting on the claims he makes. But the US media appears to be afraid to challenge this individual for some reason. So they are giving him power he is not entitled to outside of Israel.

[tritsofme]

25. You don't think...oh I don't know...perhaps...being the Prime Minister of Israel

might entitle you to a bit more press coverage than some random internet user?

Kind of a crazy idea I know...

[sabrina 1]

29. Sure, but the coverage he gets should be truthful.

He is a war monger. He is a threat to world peace. He should be challenged on his statements.

[nanabugg]

17. Time is also running out to stop the Israelis from doing something really stupid! nt

[spanone]

28. did mitt deliver kkkarl's timeline instructions?

[no_hypocrisy]

32. Is it still an October Surprise if we're not surprised?

[Bonobo]

40. Iran has as much right to build a nuclear bomb as anyone else.

Last time I checked, the only country to intentionally drop a nuclear bomb on another was the United States.