Israel developing missiles for India

[Resistance]

Times of India

WASHINGTON: Israel has begun work on developing for India two long-range artillery (LORA) missiles with a range of up to 300 km, a media report said.

Specifications for the missiles were submitted by Indian Army officials to scientists at the Lod-based Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI), according to a report in Defense News, a leading defence industry publication.

India needs 36 LORA missile systems and the India-specific ones would be an extended range version of the missile initially developed by the IAI, the report said.

[Jim Sagle]

1. Israel and India RAWWWWWWWWWWK!!!!!!!!!

[mmm]

2. Where are these missles headed?

There is certainly nothing good about this.

[Resistance]

3. they're sure to kill some civilians somewhere

that's nearly a certainty.

[_Jumper_]

4. To the only Muslim country with nuclear weapons

n/t

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[_Jumper_]

6. Really?

What makes you think that Pakistanis are radical and hateful?

Israel gave nuclear secrets--which it stole from the USA-- and of the utmost importance, to the USSR. Do you consider Israel to be dangerous? Or does Israel deserve "special" consideration?

[mobuto]

8. And guess who gave Israel its nuclear weapons program?

Israel has nukes not thanks to the United States - we didn't give them anything. Israel has nukes because France gave them nukes in the late fifties and early sixties.

So maybe France is dangerous. Maybe France deserves "special" consideration?

All proliferation is wrong. But Pakistan is different because they sold nuclear technology to the highest bidder, even though they were oftentimes renegade terrorist regimes. Pakistanis are not necessarily radical or hateful, but there are many radical and hateful people in Pakistan, and many of those hold extremely powerful positions in the government. That's dangerous.

[Resistance]

10. So?

There's plenty of radical and truly hateful people who hold even more powerful positions in the Israeli government (who the U.S. supports unconditionally) - so which is more dangerous?

[_Jumper_]

13. Resistence, I denounce your unilateral pre-emptive use of my words

:angry:

[mobuto]

24. Um, no

Pakistan installed and supported the Taliban, which then attacked the United States.

Israel did not.

Pakistan supported terrorists have tried repeatedly to assasinate the Indian prime minister.

Israel has not.

Pakistan has attempted to sell nuclear technology to the rogue terrorist states.

Israel has not.

[Resistance]

27. Um

Israel is a rogue terrorist state.

[mobuto]

29. And this is how it goes

You know, I'm not a die-hard Israel supporter. I have no qualms about criticizing it, and do so with some regularity. But its posts like that that really force moderates into Israel's camp. One childish, irresponsible pithy quote ruins the cause you espouse. Its bizarre, actually. Why do it?

[Resistance]

31. There is nothing childish or irresponsible about it

Israel constantly defies international norms and laws, making it a rogue state.

Israel also continues to terrorize the Palestinian people, by bulldozing homes, stealing their land, murdering civilians, and most recently, robbing their banks.

Israel, therefore, is both rogue and terrorist. It's really not very complicated.

[_Jumper_]

33. Moderates join the Israeli camp?

Then why are people in every country, except the US, pro-Palestinian?

[mobuto]

34. 50 million Frenchmen can't be wrong!

Ah yes, the ad populum fallacy.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I do speak for me. And I am not rendered sympathetic for people who call Israel a terrorist state.

[lefty_mcduff]

37. Isn't Pakistan supposed to be a US ally?

(thanks to *s convoluted foreign policies). So on the surface, Israel is supplying missiles (which would be developed, no doubt, with a great deal of US tax $$$ financed technology) to be aimed at somebody that is an ally of ours. If nothing else, it's bad form (though Sharon wouldn't know good form if it bit him in the ass) considering the supposed 'close' ties with the US, and more specifically, the neocons in the WH.

Israel refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty (thus allowing the ambiguity of whether or not Israel has nukes). By my reckoning, that makes them at the very least an 'uppity and uncooperative' nation, but not quite a rogue nation.

It's Israel's routine avoidance of international law that makes them a full-blown rogue nation.

[mobuto]

43. Pakistan as a US ally

Don Corleone had the last word on that kind of relationship:

"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."

Much of the current government of Pakistan is fairly friendly, as far as military dictatorships go, but it is extremely unstable. A coup could result in a serious nuclear threat to the United States.

Israel refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty

Pakistan refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty as well. In fact four countries haven't: Cuba, India, Israel and Pakistan.

[dudeness]

42. not 100% correct mobuto

the taliban are an offspring of the afghan/islamic resistance movement the mujahadeen ..these freedom fighters were intially funded and supported by the US under the auspices of Jimmy Carter and the CIA..funding to the tune of 100s millions $ in the early 1970s..they were trained by pakistani agents (ISI)and US advisers..the irony of the situation is of course..the war on terror has been totally funded and supported by US citizens for both sides..

[mobuto]

44. The Taliban are indeed an offspring

of the US-supported mujehedin. You are correct. But they didn't have a chance at ruling Afghanistan until the Pakistani ISI decided to install them as such in the mid 1990s.

[dudeness]

46. once again with total US compliance

although totally oppressive to women, barbarous in meeting out punish to those whom offend the strict religious practices in place..the US and others saw fit to allow outrageous human rights abuses occur in the hope a gas line deal could be done between members of the bush and corporate cabal and the new friends in the taliban regime ..taliban leaders were also entertained in the US itself by our corporate leaders in recent times..the deal fell thru (for whatever reason) and hence a regime change was required in Kabul and OBL once an ally is now the worlds most wanted man..pakistan acting under orders from the US helped install the taliban much to the horror of ordinary afghanis..

[number6]

47. makes perfect sense

"Pakistan installed and supported the Taliban, which then attacked the United States."

so we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq :evilgrin:

[Darranar]

49. ...and allied ourselves with Pakistan!

Bush foreign policy is great, isn't it?

[_Jumper_]

14. I agree

The reason I made the "special" consideration comment was because I thought you were one of those people hardcore pro-Israel people that forumulate your views on foreign policy based on Israel's interest.

We need to keep an eye on Pakistan but it likely changed in the wake of the scrutiny following the scandal and due to a growing realization as to the threat of terrorism.

Pakistanis are moderate Muslims. The ones in the western part may be fundies but the vast majority lives in the moderate eastern part. It elected a woman prime minister twice. It is hardly a fundie country. Of course, it has its fringe but so does every country.

[mobuto]

23. How can you say that?

The reason I made the "special" consideration comment was because I thought you were one of those people hardcore pro-Israel people that forumulate your views on foreign policy based on Israel's interest.

That would not be an accurate description of my views.

We need to keep an eye on Pakistan but it likely changed in the wake of the scrutiny following the scandal and due to a growing realization as to the threat of terrorism.

Why do you say that? Pakistan was embarassed for supporting the Taliban, and pundits said they would change. Pakistan was embarassed for supporting terrorists in India, and pundits said they would change. Now they've been embarassed selling nuclear technology to anyone with a large enough bank account, and now you expect them to change on their own? Pakistan is a country with severe problems. It has no public educational system - and only 30% literacy. Its army is scared of even entering one-third of the country. The divisions of wealth are more profound than just about anywhere else in the world and tens of millions live just above starvation. Pakistan has no democracy and no real prospect for internal reform.

Pakistanis are moderate Muslims.

I'm sorry, I wish it were true, but its not. I know a great many moderate Pakistani Muslims. Hell, I know quite a few Pakistani atheists. But by far the largest political party in Pakistan today - actually a merger of six parties - is Mutahida Majlis-e-Amal, an extremist hardline Islamist group alligned closely with the Taliban.

. The ones in the western part may be fundies but the vast majority lives in the moderate eastern part. It elected a woman prime minister twice.

Again, there are a great many moderates in Pakistan. But they are currently a minority, and their support has been declining fast. Benazir Bhutto's party is a shadow of its former self.

[_Jumper_]

26. Response

"That would not be an accurate description of my views."

Sorry, that was intended for Independent.

I am optimist so perhaps I am being unrealistic. They may change this time because of US and world pressure, just like they changed their Taliban policy due to it. The terrorism support is a result of domestic politics so that likely will not change.

I agree with you about its problems, though. Pakistan is a failed state while its archrival India can realistically dream of one day becoming a superpower.

The fundie parties in Pakistan never won more than 10% of the vote until 2002. Even then they only got 25% of the vote. Is that alliance really fundie? I know that in the past conservative parties would include fundies in their alliance and give the alliance an Islamic name.

[IronLionZion]

16. I didn't mean all of them

but there are enough to elect radically hateful members of Parliament and hold huge anti-USA, anti-India,and anti-Israel rallies.

Israel deserves a swift kick in the ass. Meaning it should be cut off from aid and undergo sanctions until Palestine is liberated along the green line.

The only country more dangerous to peace than Bush's America is Israel. I long for a president to show some guts and treat Israel with true even-handedness. We would not tolerate oppression of a people from any other nation.

[Resistance]

18. unfortunately

we do tolerate (and enthusiastically support) alot of oppression in the world.

[_Jumper_]

21. We have no choice in many cases

No country has ever had, has, or ever will have a pure foreign policy.

[mobuto]

25. The United States Government is responsible

first and foremost to act in the interests of its citizens. What's remarkable, however, is just how often the interests of America coincide with the interests of promoting democracy and human rights. I think nowhere is that made more clear than in the Middle East and Central Asia, where we have reaped very harsh rewards for having supported undemocratic regimes.

[Resistance]

30. a few questions

What exactly do you mean by the "interests of America"? Protection of citizens? Rights to natural resources? The right to continually alter the structure of global business relations in our favor?

What are some examples of where those interests "coincide with ... promoting democracy and human rights"?

What "harsh rewards" are you talking about?

[mobuto]

35. The interests of the United States

are far too numerous for me to adequately discuss here, but a few of them are the protection of American citizens, the promotion of American power and the growth of the American economy.


What exactly do you mean by the "interests of America"? Protection of citizens? Rights to natural resources?

Yes to the first, the second is hard to decipher. Rights to natural resources? If you mean access, then you're absolutely right. The United States needs to be able to obtain those resources necessary for its economic survival. But it doesn't need to own or control them.

The right to continually alter the structure of global business relations in our favor?

Yes and no. Because if doing so prejudices foreign business against cooperation with the United States, or prejudices foreign consumers agains buying American products, etc., then the net result can be harmful. You have to look, on a case by case basis. And I think in a preponderance of cases, the US is best served by operating abroad within the rule of law and in the interests of human rights and democracy.

What are some examples of where those interests "coincide with ... promoting democracy and human rights"?


Saudi Arabia. The oil supply, essential to our national security, is currently threatened by the prospect of Saudi insurrection. Insurrection is possible because we have supported a repressive regime that abuses human rights and rebufs all suggestions of democracy. I think history has shown that democracy is the least-unstable form of government - and stability is essential for American business.

What "harsh rewards" are you talking about?

See above. I think plenty of bad things have come out of Saudi Arabia. Hamas terrorsts, Al Qaeda terrorists, Egyptian Islamic Jihad terrorists and Chechen terrorists, just for starters.

[Resistance]

38. Hmm

I am not sure I'm any closer to understanding your point of view ...

How is oil supply taken from Saudi Arabia "essential to our nat'l security"? It may be essential to our current needs (which should and is possible to change), but for our security? I don't think so. My problem lies with the fact that the wrong people profit from those oil resources. The only people who should profit are the people who live there. Not some rich Saudi families, and not American investors. Yet corporations have become so powerful that they control American military might, and, accordingly, use it for their own greedy interests. This is wrong, and should be opposed.

We've come to a point where we're not promoting democracy and human rights anymore (if we ever did, which I don't see much evidence of). Instead we're going around bullying others into submitting to the demands of a rich and powerful elite minority. These problems are, in my view, getting worse, not better.

So, while we can certainly go around pointing an accusing finger at "undemocratic regimes", I really think we need to question our own actions in the world. Not only is it the responsible thing to do, but our own country, the United States, happens to be by far the most powerful nation in the history of the world. The continuing abuse of that power is sure to have disastrous consequences.

[mobuto]

45. How is oil part of our national security?

Easy.

Without oil, our tanks can't move, our planes can't fly, and our rifles cannot be maintained. Our economy grinds to a halt, and our nation is defenseless.

It may be essential to our current needs

That's all that matters. Could a Hydrogen economy practicaly eliminate our need for foreign oil? Perhaps. But that hasn't happened yet.

My problem lies with the fact that the wrong people profit from those oil resources. The only people who should profit are the people who live there. Not some rich Saudi families, and not American investors.

American investors don't profit directly from Saudi oil. Its owned 100% by the Saudi state. The oil money goes to the Saudi family, and indirectly to the Saudi people. But Saudi Arabia has no economy other than oil and it doesn't do a very good job of redistributing the wealth it has. That's exactly why I think we need to put pressure on the Saudis to democratize, with the understanding that they have a very tenuous hold on power.

We've come to a point where we're not promoting democracy and human rights anymore (if we ever did, which I don't see much evidence of). Instead we're going around bullying others into submitting to the demands of a rich and powerful elite minority. These problems are, in my view, getting worse, not better.

We can debate the minutia of that, but I'll agree with your wider point. We do need to do more to promote democracy and human rights, most especially in the Middle East and Central Asia. Even ignoring the moral component, I think its in our interests to do so.

So, while we can certainly go around pointing an accusing finger at "undemocratic regimes", I really think we need to question our own actions in the world.

We are responsible only insofar as we support those undemocratic regimes and refuse to use the full power of the American government to persuade them to act otherwise.

[Darranar]

32. The interests of the American people do indeed lie...

in promoting democracy and human rights.

What is actually done is another matter, both because those in power are often highly incompetent (look at the Bush administration) and because all too many have no interest whatsoever in doing anything but lining their own pockets and those of their friends.

[mobuto]

36. I would hardly cite the Bush Administration

as being a model of enlightened foreign policy. In fact its hard to imagine a more bumbling bunch of bums.

[Darranar]

41. The Bush administration is simply one example.

[Resistance]

7. So?

Israel is just as dangerous - if not more so. The deputy defense minister in Israel is talking about a "genetic defect" in Palestinians for crying out loud!

[IronLionZion]

9. if you think I support Israel

then you don't know me very well. If I was POTUS, I would at least sanction Israel and cut off aid to force them to free Palestine along the green line.

Pakistan and Israel both cause terrorism. Many of their citizens are extremely racist.

The Pakistanis and Israelis here in America tend to be good people and get along fine. But a lot of the ones in their home countries are just psychotic.

No offense to anyone here.

[Resistance]

12. my fault

I can see you're even-handed about it. Sometimes it's hard to tell around here y'know.

[tinnypriv]

39. Don't forget

Sharon governs in a coaltion with National Union, two members of which are members of the government.

National Union roughly evolved from elements of Ichud Leumi, Herut, offshoots from Likud etc. i.e. murderous terrorist organisations.

Kinda like Arafat governing with al-Asqa, or perhaps the rejectionist PLO front.

[IronLionZion]

11. Sorry if I offended anyone

[_Jumper_]

15. NP

I am of Pakistani descent and I didn't find it offensive. There is a lot of confusion about foreign countries and some people mistakenly think it is another Saudi Arabia.

[IronLionZion]

17. I'm Indian

And I know there are good and bad Pakistanis, just like there are good and bad Indians. It just seems like there are a lot of radicals in Pakistan, but I didn't mean that all Pakistanis were radical.

Surely you've seen the hate rallies and speeches on the news. It must be tough for the good Pakistanis to put up with all that shit.

[Resistance]

19. I see the same thing in America

The warcry against Iraq has been viewed by me as pretty much a hate rally. I mean, Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11, yet there's always these attempts at making a connection between the two.

I turn on my AM radio, and it seems to me it's one long right-wing hate speech. They've got totally uninterrupted air-time to just spew away, lying, distorting, making gross generalizations against anyone who doesn't praise and admire the current power structure ... man that's even worse than anti-West rallies in Pakistan, in my view. And, as I am sure you know, it's so tough putting up with it all the time.

Anyway, yeah there's "good" and "bad" in all societies. I'm just saying I don't see how it's any worse in Pakistan than anywhere else in the world.

[_Jumper_]

20. Absolutely

I criticize them constantly and I often argue with a few immigrants from there that are in my family. It indeed is a cancer for that nation and for the world. My problem was that it appeared that you thought that all Pakistanis were lunatic fundies.

BTW, are you an Indian or an American of Indian descent?

[IronLionZion]

22. born in USA

of Indian heritage

[_Jumper_]

28. Ok, I was just curious

n/t

[Forkboy]

40. They might as well

in these times who isn't dealing weapons?

[IconoclastIlene]

48. Yeah....and

I agree totally, why not, everyone else is doing it!!

Besides, one of the lost tribes are in India anyway...and I am not sorry one bit.

[Forkboy]

50. sorry

I should have added a <sarcasm> tag.