Sharon to take Mossad's help to foil Iran's nuclear programme

[Herschel]

Alarmed by rapid strides by Iran to acquire nuclear capability, Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon plans to take the help of its intelligence agency Mossad to prevent it from doing so.

According to the assessments of Israel Defence Forces Military Intelligence, Iran will ''cross the point of no return'' in another year, at which time it will be able to create fissionable material for bombs.

By 2006, it will have operational nuclear weapons, daily Ha'aretz reported today.

Mr Sharon's office reportedly believes that it is logical for the mission to move to the Mossad, which can gather intelligence, analyse and assess it and, in the future, perhaps conduct operations.

http://www.deepikaglobal.com/ENG4_sub.asp?ccode=ENG4&newscode=21491

I suppose some will say let Iran have them. Oh, my.

[Metrix]

1. Question

What would you say to Israel agreeing to give up their nuclear weapons in exchange for Iran not pursuing nuclear capability?

[Herschel]

3. Unacceptable

Israel as the dominant power in the Middle East is beneficial to her, America, and the world.

[StandWatie]

7. note blatant worship of State Power

Your posts are useful in a way.

[Darranar]

10. Uh... how?

Just an innocent question.

[StandWatie]

13. it doesn't

This is neo-con stuff and it doesn't matter that it doesn't help out "the world" it's about worshiping power.

[madrchsod]

15. oh ya, i forgot, israel has kept

those dam arabs from coming to my town and killing everyone.so i guess all that hard earned money the american taxpayers have been giving israel all these years really has worked . dam, i`m so happy they can have all they want

[chapter32]

2. Suppose, Iran will have nukes,

What do you think they will do with them?

[Herschel]

4. It is uncertain

Israel has had them for years without misuse. Can we trust Iran? I think you know the answer.

[chapter32]

6. Misuse?

You either use them or not. How do you misuse them?

And, stop keep telling people “I think you know the answer”, it’s annoying.

[Jim Sagle]

8. Who are you, Miss Manners?

[chapter32]

14. No,

And, I don’t have your nauseating manner either.

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. Misuse

One way would be to give one of them to the endless stream of terrorists that Iran funds and supports.

Israel can't allow them that option.

[SOS]

33. Terrorists

would obtain a nuclear device to use against the US or Israel from the former Soviet Union, not Iran. According to the IAEA, 18 such attempted purchases have been thwarted in recent years. Despite Nunn-Lugar, the idiots in the Bush admn. have not funded it's mandates. 50% of ex-Soviet
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons sites have no security at all.
It seems that Sharon's directive to Bush - attack Iran the day after Baghdad falls - will go unfullfilled, given the current catastrophe in Iraq. The cheerleaders for attacking Iran and Syria at OSP/PNAC in Washington have gone silent. It's not gonna happen. Perhaps Sharon has finally realized that the US attempt at "re-making" the Arab world is a complete failure and that the bombing of Iran will have to be done by Israel itself. What an Israeli attack on Iran could trigger is anybody's guess, but one possibility is rage throughout the region, including Pakistan...

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. Rage

Well, it's not like Israel is on good terms with its neighbors anyhow. Since they DON'T have nukes, there is no reason Israel should let that happen.

[Darranar]

12. Can we trust China? Can we trust the Soviet Union?

Neither of them ever attacked a nation with their nukes. Why should Iran use them for anything but a detterent?

[Herschel]

16. China and the Soviet Union are not

to be completely trusted. Iran is more prone to actual use, particularly against Israel.

[Darranar]

18. Well, clearly...

I don't say that we should trust Iran. But dictatorships, fundamentalist or not, tend to look after their own survival more then their ideology after a few years in power. Iran will use nukes as a detterent, and nothing more, IMO.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Did we just step into a time machine??

The Soviet Union being talked about using the present tense?? What the hell?? Hey, if I tug on that little string on yr back, will you tell me a story about the US President, Ronny Raygun, and give a bit of a realist-inspired rant on the *Evil Empire*? ;)

Here's a newsflash. No state is to be trusted when it comes to nuclear weapons. If the Soviet Union couldn't be trusted, then neither could the US, who always operated on a first strike approach. While that story about a flock of geese being mistaken for a US nuclear attack having the Soviets with their fingers hovering over the button is funny now in hindsight, it's incredibly scary when you think of what might have happened...

btw, just check out the language used by defence intellectuals as an indication that no nuclear weapon is to be trusted in any hands. They used the most clinical terms possible to describe things that would have wiped out most life on earth. And their language didn't have a word for peace and nothing to describe the massive civilian casualties that their weapons would cause. If you haven't read it already, I get to plug an essay I really love called 'Sex and Death In The Rational World of the Defence Intellectual' by Carol Cohn. I dare you to read that and then tell me any state can be trusted with nuclear weapons...

Violet...

[Herschel]

30. I apologize for compounding Mr. Darranar's error

Of course the Soviet Union is fortuneately a country of the past. We all are aware of the horrors nuclear weapons could bring. You may believe all countries are the same. You may believe all countries are to trusted equally. I think we know better.

[Darranar]

32. Oops...

that "can" in my post should be a "could." Fast typing is not errorless.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. A correction, Herschel...

I think you must have mislaid yr latest Likud memo. Israel does not, and I repeat NOT possess nuclear weapons!! What the deal is is that while most folk know that Israel does possess them, Israel says it doesn't, and knowing that yr keen on believing everything the Israeli govt says, you might have to rethink yr statement on Israel having possessed nuclear weapons for years without misuse. Maybe you could change it to 'Israel hasn't had them for years, but if they had, they would have had them for years without misuse'?

Violet...

[Herschel]

31. I am an American citizen

I do not believe all the Israeli government tells us. This does not alter the fact she is a great country and close ally.

[rini]

22. Haven't you

heard, (in a country floating in crude) there is a desperate need for more energy? This has nothing to due with wiping Israel, perhaps Iraq and (for good measure) Saudi Arabia off the face of the earth.

[drewb]

5. I think it's a mistake for any country to pursue Nuclear Weapons...

Perhaps we here in the USA could lead by example and dismantle all of ours?

As far as the Israeli government deciding who can and can not have them...

I don't think they have the moral authority.

[Jim Sagle]

9. It's about survival, not authority.

Iran is an Islamic state. Therefore Iran will destroy Israel if it gets the chance, Nukes would give Iran that chance. Israel will prevent that.

Any questions?

[StandWatie]

11. oh, that was deep

an Islamic state naturally would instantly nuke Israel without regard to the consequences.

In addition to being blatantly Islamaphobic it doesn't make any sense, what's stopping Islamic Iran from trying to run roughshod over Israel right this second or for that matter since 1979.

[Herschel]

17. Perhaps

Little Israel's nuclear capabilty prevents this.

[StandWatie]

23. how?

A serious enough conventional strike would probably draw a nuclear response from Israel anyway, a nuclear one would definately draw one and more importantly you can't nuke Israel without nuking the Palestinians.

[Scurrilous]

19. If.....

...Islam + Nukes = Attack on Israel, then why was Pakistan allowed to develop their nuclear capability?

[drewb]

21. Any questions?

No Jim, I think you've explained every possible eventuality succinctly.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. In the future when I need to know my opinion on something would it be alright if I just PM you and get it?

Thanks! :think:

[rini]

38. to some people

1 + 1 = 5. I think you don't Bs and just tell it as you see it. That's not bigotry.

[Forkboy]

20. I can't believe the blatant bigotry that's allowed here

:-(

[Herschel]

24. Explain yourself

Was your statement in reply to me?

[Forkboy]

25. oh my

I think you know the answer.

[Herschel]

29. You would rather mock

Than explain yourself. I will leave it at that.

[Forkboy]

35. some people deserve mockery more than others

I will leave it at that.

[bemildred]

37. Oh Forkboy,

you are such an animal.

Oh my.

[number6]

36. I think that was a reply to post #9.....

"Iran is an Islamic state. Therefore Iran will destroy Israel if it gets the chance, Nukes would give Iran that chance. Israel will prevent that. "

"Any questions?"

which offended me also...

[number6]

34. I can' t either, hell I thot this

was a High minded Liberal site ????