Even if Iran was led by Mr. Rogers today, allowing Iran to have the bomb mean that when the next coup/revolution occurs, then that person/group/government has the bomb.

You seem to be arguing that Iranians are somehow less rational than...oh,I don't know...Russians?

If the Iranians were to willy-nilly use an N-bomb, they'd most likely be destroyed, and I'm sure they realize that.  The same applies if they were to allow some loose-cannon group to get ahold of one of their bombs.

All those unsecured Russian bombs are a much greater nuclear threat than Iran, but for some reason, we don't hear much about that.

But I'm not.  I'm arguing that there is nothing the West can do about things that are already in the past, having not invented time travel.  It's not a difficult concept, Jimmy.  Russia already has nukes, so the West certainly can't stop them from acquiring nukes.  Iran currently doesn't have nukes, so there is something the West can do to stop them from acquiring nukes.

"Unsecured," amigo, "unsecured."  You missed the most important word there.  Our safety would be better served by putting our resources into securing  those bombs, rather than getting into another war.

John Bolton was put in charge of working to secure those Russian bombs, and the general consensus is that he made things worse.  But hey, we're worried about Iraq here!

More importantly, because there's nothing we can do about Pakistan and India having the bomb, but there is something that can be done about Iran.

India and Pakistan don't have to fight proxy war. They just go head-to-head.

Yes, Pakistan already has the bomb and there's nothing to be done about that. But why does that mean there's nothing to be done about them assisting others (including Iran) in getting a bomb? Wouldn't stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons include stopping existing nuclear nations from assisting that development?

I'm all for that.  We should be working non-proliferation from every angle.  If it's possible to stop Pakistan without tumbling the government and throwing the place into (more)chaos, then it should be done.

without tumbling the government

The Musharaff regime is responsible for most of our troubles.  They created the Taliban, and they're doing dick to fight them now.  They're giving A-bomb tech to anyone they find useful.

It's absurd that we're trapped in Iran while Musharaff is sitting pretty on a pile of my tax dollars.

Lets examine the facts dispassionately. By which, I mean treat Iran as we would any other nation, rather than a member of "the Axis of Evil", etc. Because the fundamental fact is that Iran is not pro-Western, and that is the entire raison d'etre for the current scare-mongering.

Now, you might call that a sensible precaution to take - Iran was, after all, allowed nuclear technology under the Shah (it was even supplied with weapons-grade Uranium by the US). However it does not change the fundamental facts, which are that (a) Iran needs nuclear power; (b) it cannot realistically develop a parallel clandestine military enrichment capacity; (c) it is willing to allow IAEA inspections robust enough to ensure that diversion to a military program cannot occur; (d) has a right to peaceful Uranium enrichment, as do Morocco, Brazil, etc - and we don't mind those nations engaging in enrichment.

My basic worst-case scenario is this: that we are using Iran's perfectly legal enrichment program as an excuse to attempt to use military means to impose a pro-Western regime in this oil and gas-rich country at some point down the line, but because the means that are being employed are not legitimate, they will ultimately fail in a much worse manner than they have in Iraq. It appears that the same tactics that were used against Iraq are being used: sanctions (though not UN sanctions this time); hyperbole about their ambitions; then military intervention - I would imagine first of all an attack against their nuclear facilities, then use the inevitable reprisals as an excuse for a more wide-ranging attack.

I'll repeat it again: Iran is giving the UN all that it needs to ensure that they cannot clandestinely develop a nuclear weapon. You might choose to believe that our best option is to back them into a corner. I personally take the view that the world would be a safer place if the Iranian regime were welcomed into the fold rather than being pushed out. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, after all.

Finally, I wouldn't class myself on the fringe Left - though in the current US body politic, practically every other nation would be seen as to the Left (save for the dictatorships). The problem is that in the US there is no debate about the facts on Iran - it seems to be taken as read that they intend to get a bomb, and anybody who dissents from that view - a view based on the facts, not rhetoric or propaganda or worst-case scenario thinking - is a marginal voice. This is exactly what happened with Iraq, remember? Except that this time the consequences could be much, much worse. I based my views on Iraq on the evidence, not the rhetoric. I'll do the same with Iran.

Lets examine the facts dispassionately...

Please don't take this as a slam on your very well-written and astutely argued comment. I agree with its "interesting" moderation.

But it wasn't what I was attempting to get you to explain. When I asked "could you maybe take a swing at explaining to us just how your position can be seen as logical or rational even to you?", I was referring to what I had (glibly, I admit) termed the "Holloway Doctrine".

In other words, what I would like to see is the reasoning behind the fact that your default position on many foreign affairs issues - not just this one - seems to be "Western leaders always lie, but Middle Eastern/Third World/Anti-Western leaders never do."

That is the thing about you that I totally fail to understand.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

LOL.

In other words, what I would like to see is the reasoning behind the fact that your default position on many foreign affairs issues - not just this one - seems to be "Western leaders always lie, but Middle Eastern/Third World/Anti-Western leaders never do."

Well, first of all I don't actually believe that.

From the Western side, for example, the French were principled over Iraq, and Norway is always well behaved. I think when you say "the West" you actually mean "the Bush administration", and I think few would disagree that this administration is one of the most mendacious ever put into office.

From the Middle Eastern side you will find that I abhor Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen and the other Arab monarcho-dictatorships, and don't believe much of what they say; for example Kuwait's ridiculous claims of an Iraqi bomb plot against Bush Snr.

As for the rest - specifically  Iran and Iraq, which is what we are actually talking about here -  my view is based on a dispassionate examination of the facts. In the specific case of Iran's nuclear program, they cannot develop a nuke and accept the safeguards proposed by an international committee of experts as well as the IAEA designed to ensure that they cannot.

Iran has a growing population and two natural resources - oil and gas - that are running out. Currently 40% of their oil is used for domestic power production, and that still isn't enough.

Would that the world were simple enough for such a doctrine...

"There was a time I would have used shumway/urkel's name there, but gordo has kind of blown his own cover"

What do you mean by that?

"There was a time I would have used shumway/urkel's name there, but gordo has kind of blown his own cover"

What do you mean by that?

Easy there, Steve. I meant no insult.

I meant that I no longer see you as True Believer. I think you often take positions with the explicit intention of sparking controversy and/or entertaining us.

But I still love your work, dude. Seriously.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

I don't know what you mean by "True Believer", but I am an authentic conservative, though not the kind most people on the left have the idea of. And I like jokes. I'm not a Republican, Christian fundementalist, or Neo-Con.

Conservatism has greater variey than modern liberalism.

And while many of my views are extremist, some of my views that cause controversy here are (to my great amusement) entirely within the American mainstream.

don't know what you mean by "True Believer", but I am an authentic conservative

I, for one, truly believe you.

It's already made a difference, and I don't think he is a lone wolf.

But you didn't really answer my question, which was "Do you have any problems with Iran or with its current president and his infamous musings?"

I think that over-reacting will make Iran a greater danger than it is now...but that's what the warmongers want, and that's why they are shouting at you nearly every day about what a horrible threat Iran is.

"Do you have any problems with Iran or with its current president and his infamous musings?"

ms_sue,

What "infamous musings"? The lie that he wants "Israel wiped off the map" - when he actually just called for regime change? The twisting of his statements on the Holocaust into straight denial - when he is actually saying that if the Holocaust happened it is for the Europeans to pay, and if it didn't then again the Palestinians shouldn't pay? Admittedly he says that he is undecided on the matter, but that is decided not denial.

On the whole matter of Iran, we are again being persuaded through lies and black propaganda that Ahmedinejad is another Hitler, bent on world domination through the acquisition of WMD. However, as with Iraq, there is no evidence for this whatseoever - indeed, every utterance of the Iranian elite says that they do not want nukes in the region, and the Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa against their possession. Do fatwas only count some of the time?

Repeat a lie often enough and it will stick. In the case of Iran, the "wipe Israel off the map" NYT mistranslation is repeated ad nauseum, always with quotes around it, despite every editor worth his salt knowing that it is not what he said.

For the reality, this is a good resource. Note that he compares the NYT misstranslations with the closer to reality ones at MEMRI - which can hardly be called anti-Israeli.

Hi, Paul. I wondered where you've been. Thanks so much for the link. That site is a doozie.  Glad to hear that the guy is just sorely misunderstood and is merely suggesting regime change. Maybe his quoting Khomeini about wiping Israel off the map was just a slip as was this misunderstood quote:

"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets," Ahmadinejad said in the speech to thousands of people in the Iranian city of Zahedan, according to a report from Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting.

"The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets," he said. "(It) deals very severely with those who deny this myth but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophet."

"If you have burned the Jews, why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel," Ahmadinejad said.

"Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?"

And when he says, "God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States. . . . This goal is attainable, and surely can be achieved," I guess that's just a mistranslation...or, along with a call for the annihilation of Israel, welcome words, perhaps?

To you and marduk and another poster who labled my question to Jimmy H. on this thread as "offtopic" or "illiterate," what a joke. Maybe it was "obnoxious" to some in its implication, but it was perfectly comprehensible and directly related to the topic and post to which I addressed it.

Corrections: Make that "labeled."

Also, although my "I guess that's just a mistranslation...or, along with a call for the annihilation of Israel, welcome words, perhaps?" was decidedly not directed at any one person, it did not add to the anything constructive to the discussion.
 

ms_sue,

Lets face some facts. First of all, what Ahmedinejad is saying is common currency in the Middle East, and has been since 1947: why should the people of Palestine pay for the crimes of Europeans, inflicted against other Europeans, in a primarily European war?

The link that you offer uses the NYT "wiped off the map" mistranslation. That is a red flag for me. The article is a mistranslation as it quotes him as saying that there is a "myth that Jews were massacred". However, he did not say that - he said "some have created a myth on holocaust and hold it even higher than the very belief in religion and prophets" - not a myth of Holocaust, but a muth on the Holocaust - the myth being that the Holocaust justifies the treatment of the Palestinians.

All of this was covered in the link I originally provided for you. I have no idea why you want to believe crude propaganda rather than truth, however I am sure you have your reasons, or have already been effectively brainwashed.

Make no mistake, as with Milosevic and Saddam, the Ahmedinejad=Hitler propaganda has only one aim - to allow the people of the West to feel no shame when we illegally attack Iran. And as with Saddam, the unfortunate fact is that it will be carried out on the basis of lies, backed up with propaganda, and since it will be carried out on that basis it will ultimately backfire. As with Iraq, I am against this demonisation on the basis that it will ultimately cause further destabilitation of the region and could ignite major conflict that affects me directly.

Paul, let's face some facts.  If the Palestinians, Hezbollah, and the rest of the usual suspects in the Middle East are going to continue to play that "why did you stick all these Jews in our midst instead of keeping them in Europe back in 1945" they are just going to look like the posturing fools they are.  Nobody is going to be able to undo over a half century of history and wipe the Jews and the state of Israel off the map, no matter how often you ask them to do so or threaten to hold your breath until it happens.

I think what those of us not in the middle of this thing wonder is why there seems to be only two sides to the conflict -- either unquestioning acceptance of Israel or unquestioning condemnation of Israel.  It seems to me that Israel, as a political nation state is rather a settled question at this point in history.  Why is it that there seems to be such denial on the part of the Arabs and Arabists such as yourself?  If the parties would let go of their hatred and suspicions and move towards finding accomodation, it would be a win-win for everyone.  But why do I get the feeling this is going to fall on deaf ears?

You talkin' to me?

As Jimmy says, for peace in the region all Israel has to do is to do as the international community has asked for the last forty years, and pull back to the 1967 borders, or reach a realistic and mutually agreed settlement with the Palestinians. All players - Iran included - would accept a settlement on that basis, including the explicit recognition of Israel.

If the parties would let go of their hatred and suspicions and move towards finding accomodation, it would be a win-win for everyone.

But the fact is that for a win-win, there must be huge concessions on the Israeli side - and Israel has shown that it never intends to give up any of Eretz Yisrael; that its end-game is an Israel in historic Galillee and the Palestinians in the open prison of Gaza. I don't know if you had noticed, but Israeli leaders who talk about compromise tend to get assassinated.

Most of the Arab world is willing to accept Israel...if they will go back to the '67 borders, and stop their aggression against their neighbors.

Their excuses for their actions don't hold water.

Well, Sue, how do you answer Ahmadinejad's question?  Why should the Palestinians (and the Lebanese and the Egyptians) pay for the European crime of the Holocaust?

To you and marduk and another poster who labled my question to Jimmy H. on this thread as "offtopic" or "illiterate," what a joke.

Jimmy-"Iran has rational reasons to want a nuke and if I were them so would I, as both the US and Israel have a history of lawless aggression and both have talked about attacking Iran." You-"But they're crazy!" Jimmy-"why are you taking domestic iranian propaganda at face value? And what does it have to do with my point?" You-"Why aren't you criticizing Iran instead of Israel?" Jimmy-"You're a propaganda victim." You-"You're an anti-semite."

Offtopic because it's not a response to his post, illiterate because you apparently don't understand that it's not a response to his post, and though I didn't go there, obnoxious because your implication is that Iranian behavior cannot be based in rational security concerns but must be the result of crazy antisemitic race hate and that talking about anything different must be the result of anti-Israeli bias.

Since we're down in the sewer now anyway I'll try to dig us out by turning the explicit translation of your question back at you: Do you really believe that Iran desires nuclear weapons in order to turn Israel into a flat glass plain? Is their goal the destruction of the people of Israel in nuclear fire? Is that what you believe? And if that is what you believe why hide behind loaded questions and implications of racist bias?

tnt needs to track moderation. stats page!

The only thing implied in my repeating the question in my post -- "I know your opinion of Israel and the U.S. here. Do you have any problems with Iran or with its current president and his infamous musings?zz' -- was that JH sees the issue as black and white and never, ever gives an inch. You may or may not agree with him, but I am correct in that appraisal. I simply wanted him to state it explicitly, which he finally did, saying that any acts considered terrorist or inhumane on the part of Israel are to be noted and lambasted, while any actions on the part of its "enemies" are understandable and expected, given his view of history.

My question to him was simply to elicit a clarification of his mindset, and although it took three times to do so, it was successful.

My question says virtually nothing about my opinion, other than that I did not want such a one-sided view unquestioned.

My question was neither illiterate nor offtopic. But thanks for your mini-rant regarding what you think you know about my views.

Funny sue.  You concede everything I just pointed out but seem convinced you've been mistreated by my moderation.  C'est la vie.

tnt needs to track moderation. stats page!

marduk_kur, you could successfully turn this back on me if, and only if, I were known for my long pro-Israel-no-matter-what posts on every single related thread; if I never allowed for any difference of opinion; and if I labeled anyone who might disagree with my bias as misinformed, to be kind.

But I don't. And I don't moderate posts as "illiterate" or "offtopic" unless they are that. My question and my posts thereafter have been neither.

Until now: My inference from your comments here and from my memory is that you are often just a bit too taken with your own genius and incisive, ironic wit. C'est la vie.  

marduk_kur, you could successfully turn this back on me if, and only if, I were known for my long pro-Israel-no-matter-what posts on every single related thread; if I never allowed for any difference of opinion; and if I labeled anyone who might disagree with my bias as misinformed, to be kind.

Turn what back on you sue? In your own words:

The only thing implied in my repeating the question in my post -- "I know your opinion of Israel and the U.S. here. Do you have any problems with Iran or with its current president and his infamous musings?zz' -- was that JH sees the issue as black and white and never, ever gives an inch. You may or may not agree with him, but I am correct in that appraisal. I simply wanted him to state it explicitly, which he finally did, saying that any acts considered terrorist or inhumane on the part of Israel are to be noted and lambasted, while any actions on the part of its "enemies" are understandable and expected, given his view of history.

In response to a post explaining why Iran would have rational reasons to fear Israeli & American aggression and desire a deterrent, which is a very good point and important to keep in mind as we're assaulted by a blizzard of demonizing propaganda. As sting said, "don't the Iranians love their children too?". Or something. Anyway, I'll quote it here in its entirety so you can see what you were responding to:

The US invades their neighbor, who was almost completely disarmed.  Israel invades another neighbor (again).  Can you think of any reason the Iranians would balk at giving up their nuclear ambitions?
Frankly, if I was being threatened by the US, I'd be doing my damnedest to get my hands on an A-bomb, ASAP.  And never mind if the current administration gets voted out, US politics are too volatile to depend on American voters having the good sense not to install another loose cannon.

Israeli politics, on the other hand, are consistent.  Consistently threatening.

Did you address his point, his argument? No you did not.  You "just wanted him to state explicitly" that "any acts considered terrorist or inhumane on the part of Israel are to be noted and lambasted, while any actions on the part of its "enemies" are understandable and expected". Well kudos to you! Sorry you didn't like the moderation I felt you deserved for it.

And I don't moderate posts as "illiterate" or "offtopic" unless they are that. My question and my posts thereafter have been neither.

Yea well "illiterate" is obviously imprecise since you can read perfectly well and it was meant to communicate that your response lacked any reasonable connection to the post you presumably just read. "Offtopic" likewise. Regardless I'll stand by it until and unless we get better appelations. "Threadjack"? "Smear"?

My inference from your comments here and from my memory is that you are often just a bit too taken with your own genius and incisive, ironic wit.

Just a bit? You're really too kind.

tnt needs to track moderation. stats page!

Yea well "illiterate" is obviously imprecise since you can read perfectly well and it was meant to communicate that your response lacked any reasonable connection to the post you presumably just read. "Offtopic" likewise.

Ah, I get it! In your rule book, we can reply solely to the exact words posted and not at all to what we see as a general mindset delineated in post after post. We might as well all post anonymously then. And you know how I feel about that.

Regardless I'll stand by it until and unless we get better appelations. "Threadjack"? "Smear"?

Smear and threadjack, eh? I do believe my one question has taken on mythic proportions. But good on you, marduk_kur, for not suffering fools lightly.

Ah, I get it! In your rule book, we can reply solely to the exact words posted and not at all to what we see as a general mindset delineated in post after post.

Yeah, why respond to somebody's argument when you can just cast aspersions on their motivations.

tnt needs to track moderation. stats page!

"Do you really believe that Iran desires nuclear weapons in order to turn Israel into a flat glass plain?"

tnt needs to track moderation. stats page!

Who has Ahmadinejad persuaded that the Holocaust is a fraud?

Do you want names?

Seriously, I'm surprised that anyone would be so blithe about the man's utterances, which include more than just Holocaust denial. It's almost as if expressing any indignation or concern would then mitigate your stance, which doesn't seem to leave any room whatsoever for culpability on the part of any country but Israel.

Too many "any's"?

Get your war on, Sue.  Tehran awaits liberation.

I consider outrage against Ahmadinejad to be counterproductive.  Let him say what he wants.  Making a lot of noise about it just confirms the US's hostile attitude toward Iran, and confirms the fears that make them want A-bombs.

If there was a country near mine with a history like that of Israel's, I'd be of the opinion that they should be pushed into the sea, too.  They start wars, they violate international law, they violate negotiated agreements, they commit assassinations, they have unconditional backing from the biggest superpower in the world.  The country was established by terrorists in a spirit of racism, and has never repudiated that history.  They're a danger to everyone around them, and they are a danger to the US as well.

The culpability of other parties is minor in comparison to that of the Israelis.  They started the whole mess, and they've never done anything except make it worse.  They've rejected every attempt at peace, they've violated every agreement they made (did you notice how they broke the ceasefire last week?), and they've used every provocation as an excuse to go on a killing spree.  Claiming that there is any sort of symmetry in the situation is letting them off the hook for their criminal history.

Sure, the PLO committed terrorist acts...a long time ago.  Sure, Hezbollah committed terrorist acts...a long time ago.  But those are no excuse for what the Zionists have been doing since they first conceived of the project of recreating Israel.

What outrages me most about the situation is the constant stream of lies that we are fed.  I remember the news stories I red as a teenager, about the plucky Israeli army, and how it stopped an overwhelming force of enemies through sheer courage: LIES!!!!  Now I see the claims from Israeli propaganda officers about how they try to minimize casualties: LIES!!!  I see the headlines about Israeli "reprisals" and Hezbollah "attacks": LIES!!!!  

Israel invades Lebanon and tears it to pieces, and for some reason, discussion centers around how the Lebanese should be disarmed?!?!?

There really is no excuse for the kinds of things Israel does, and worse, I can see the influence of Israel on our current government in things like Abu Ghraib and the secret prison system, and in the manner in which they are conducting the war in Iraq.

Jesus, you made me rant.  I hope you're satisfied.

What you've done is set an interesting foundation upon which all actions by Israel that you consider to be terrorist or inhumane are to be duly noted and reviled, yet any such similar actions by any surrounding countries or groups are to be considered just and fair in the light of your view of history.

I've argued with right-wing Israelis who see the picture only in black and white. So don't assume you know the totality of my opinions here. But reading a rant like yours neither impresses me nor persuades me; as a matter of fact, it makes me rethink my more moderate view. So thanks a bunch!

Splitting the difference isn't necessarily moderate.  If someone says, "Let's lynch the bastard!" beating him half to death isn't the moderate position.

My position is based on the facts of the matter.  No doubt you think yours is too...as we've seen in your credulous swallowing of anti-Iranian propaganda, and refusal to spit it up, even when you are provided with more information.

There's no symmetry in the matter.  The Israelis consistently act to prevent peace, and attack and murder not just militants, but even peace activists on the Palestinian side.  The problem isn't that two sides won't work together, it's that one side prevents any possibility of working together, and that side is the Israeli side.  If the Israelis had acted in good faith and the Palestinians had rejected them, I'd be criticizing the Palestinians, but so far that hasn't happened.

If the Israelis stop attacking their neighbors, and yet they continue to be attacked, then I would say that they have a right to defend themselves.  So far, that hasn't happened yet.

I advocate allowing the Israelis to keep the territory within the '67 borders, not because they have a right to it, but simply in the interest of peace.  The Arab League has offered peace on those grounds, the PLO has offered peace on those grounds, Hezbollah has offered peace on those grounds, and yet the Israelis continue to attack their neighbors and claim that they are defending themselves from people who refuse to recognize their existence.

"I remember the news stories I red as a teenager, about the plucky Israeli army, and how it stopped an overwhelming force of enemies through sheer courage"

Israeli tank commanders were particularly noted for their courage in the Israeli-Egyptian war, because they were ordered to go into battle standing up with their command hatches open.  While tank commander casualties were high - they were easily picked off by Egyptian infantry, they made mincemeat out of Egyptian armor, who were buttoned down and couldn't react as quickly to developing situations.

This is typical mythologizing.

I went looking for information on the balance of forces between the Israelis and the Arabs in the Yom Kippur/Ramadan war, and found things like this:

The combined forces of Egypt and Syria totalled the same number of men as NATO had in Western Europe. On the Golan Heights alone, 150 Israeli tanks faced 1,400 Syria tanks and in the  Suez region just 500 Israeli soldiers faced 80,000 Egyptian soldiers.

I agree about it being nearly impossible to find information about the exact balance of forces (though you have now piqued my interested and you should expect to hear back form me if when I find more information) but the fact that Isreal had 2000 tanks (1000 which were highly advanced) doesn't counter the information that on the "Golan Heights alone, 150 Israeli tanks faced 1,400 Syria tanks and in the  Suez region just 500 Israeli soldiers faced 80,000 Egyptian soldiers".  Those two things are not mutually exclusive and it certainly isn't mythologizing to make some significant mention of it.

The reason those numbers are significant is that they are left to stand alone, as if that was the entire Israeli force. They are never followed up with more accurate figures for the Israeli forces. It's propaganda meant to reinforce the (false) image of the overwhelmed and tiny Israelis, who nonetheless fight back and win, like David against Goliath.  Remember that myth?

If you can't recognize propaganda, you will be its victim.

The reason those numbers are significant is that they are left to stand alone, as if that was the entire Israeli force. They are never followed up with more accurate figures for the Israeli forces. It's propaganda meant to reinforce the (false) image of the overwhelmed and tiny Israelis, who nonetheless fight back and win, like David against Goliath."

Those plucky Israeli's!

I think it's pretty clear at least in the Golan Heights they outnumbered and fighting against technologically advanced Soviet tanks.  

I do see your point about the numbers being left to stand on their own.  But this point it seems neither you, nor I, have the facts regarding the size of the armies amassed in 1967.  But you claim that the Israeli's were not outnumbered.  I still haven't found numbers, have you?

I still haven't found numbers, have you?

Funny how that works, isn't it?

I don't think so.  Try to find the numbers of military units for the war between Vietnam and Cambodia (1978) or for the China-India War (1962).

I'm sure if either of us had the time to do book research we'd find our answers but the internet just seems to highlight major battles in these 'obscure' wars.

It still doesn't address why, in an absence of information, you think Israel was not outnumbered.

"It still doesn't address why, in an absence of information, you think Israel was not outnumbered."

Because it conforms with his preconceived notions.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

On the other hand, MayorBob's preconceived notions about the plucky Israelis need no confirmation.

The information I found about Israeli armor showed that there was approximate parity between them and the Arabs.  We've been lied to before about how the Israelis were outnumbered.  In looking at how the YomKippur/Ramadan War is reported, we've seen an example of the kind of misdirection that has been used in Israeli mythologizing.

My preconceived notions were the same as yours, MayorBob.  I abandoned them as I learned more.

"The information I found about Israeli armor..."

This is what I'm asking for.  Can you provide a link or other source?  As you mentioned, everything I've read so far shows the Israelis significantly outnumbered at least tactically and probably strategically.  

You imply that this is all myth making, yet neither you nor I have been able to find or provide contradictory numbers.

If it's an issue of despising Israel, you can continue to do that whether or not they were out numbered in 1973, I'm more interested in the military aspect.

http://www.treesandthings.com/comments/2006/8/23/18715/2692#39

I fail to see how that link would enlighten me on military numbers.

I am of an open mind on the question of military disposition but I am beginning to suspect that, for you, this is simply a propaganda issue, another way that Israel can be made to look bad (first for not being the underdog, and second for propagandizing that they were).  For me the issue was of the truth, of what happened in 1973, what were the military implications, etc.

I was hoping for a partner in this discussion, I see that that is not going to be the case.

"On the other hand, MayorBob's preconceived notions about the plucky Israelis need no confirmation."

Well that comment shows you know absolutely squat about my feelings or opinions in the matter.  But, don't let the fact that I'll criticize the Israelis on their bullshit as soon as I'll call the Palestinians on their bullshit.  Bottomline, if it's bullshit it's stinking up the place and needs to be thrown out.

But, do go on with your righteous self, Jimmy.  You're look so adorable with your knee jerking everytime one of these Israeli/Palestinian threads run.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

I'll criticize the Israelis on their bullshit

Go right ahead.

No, I'll sit this one out.  Foolish me, I thought when I wrote this one up a bit more time would be spent discussing Iran and a bit less time spent discussing the Israeli/Palestinian thing.  Face it Jimmy, you simply traded in one preconceived notion for another and you still view the world in a black and white context.  Think how much richer it might be to view things in living color.  

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Funny, Ms. Sue pulls out AIPAC propaganda against Iran, and you are silent about it. I thought you were willing to criticize Israel, but your attention seems to be focused more on people who criticize them.

I will call people on their pro-Israeli nonsense and people on their pro-Palestinian nonsense when I get interested enough in the argument to give a shit.  When the discussion took the tack it did between Israel Good & Palestine Bad and Israel Bad & Palestine Good, frankly I lost interest because as someone else in this thread noted, there didn't seem to be any point.  

Note I didn't call you on anything you said in the thread, only that you are a one trick pony on the issue.  See the difference?

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Here's a great example of where my preconceived notions came from.  It wasn't until the late '80s that I began catching on to the facts of the matter.

Why do you hate the Jews, Jiminy? Is it because Shlomo didn't invite you to his Bar Mitzvah?

Well, Holocaust denial and a call for the destruction of Israel.

I guess the question is, is he really going to launch nukes once he gets them (Iran tested some new missiles this past week), or is he trying to get Iranian minds off the real issues: poverty and the lack of basic services?  

I recall that the reason he got elected was because he promised solutions to the latter issues.

I guess the question is, is he really going to launch nukes once he gets them (Iran tested some new missiles this past week), or is he trying to get Iranian minds off the real issues: poverty and the lack of basic services?  

My initial thought here would be immediately dismissed as Godwin-ing, so I'll refrain.

I don't know whether Iran will launch nukes when it is able to, but I suspect that its alter ego  might not think twice about it. I do know that any person who would say "God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States. . . . This goal is attainable, and surely can be achieved," should not be dismissed lightly.

BTW, has anyone else noticed the uncanny resemblance between Steve Carell and Ahmadinejad?

Would only that getting Ahmadinejad laid would solve the problem.

Holocaust denial and a call for the destruction of Israel.

See my reply to ms_sue above. Ahmedinejad did neither of those things, as any well-informed person ough