Who would have though it could be ?

uscitizen

uscitizen

Villified User
Israel has no intention of attacking Iran: Peres

Oct 21, 5:27 PM (ET)


JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel has no aggressive intentions toward Iran, Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres said on Saturday, after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert cautioned Tehran it would pay a price for pursuing its nuclear ambitions.

"We must never consider such a thing," Peres told Channel Two television when asked if he would support an independent Israeli military strike against Iran if other nations failed to curb its uranium enrichment program.

"Israel has never shown aggressive intentions (toward Iran) -- it has none. I don't think we have to, or can, deal with this issue," he said, cautioning that Israel could face international isolation if it attacked Iran.

Link to story:
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20061021/2006-10-21T212711Z_01_L21728404_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-NUCLEAR-ISRAEL-IRAN-DC.html


I am not sure whether I should be scared or reassured....
Could this be a sign of Bush's fall from power ? or what ?
 
Not so much that, as the reality of Isreali logistics. They have enough ground mobility to attack those on their borders but they don't have the ability to move large forces to other locations. Since Iran is mot aadjacent to Israel they would have no way of getting there. I think they might have contemplated a bombing strike like they pulled off on Iraq in the early 80s but since much of Iran's nuclear program is conducted deep underground, I doubt that such a strike would produce the same sort of result that it did in Iraq. And in fact all it would do is make them look like hypocritical bullies--since they have the bomb themselves and have never signed the International Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. I think their recent fiasco in Lebanon, where billions of dollars were spent in accomplishing nothing more than generating anti-Israeli feelings world wide may also feeding a new kind of unwillingness to participate in in losing ventures.
 
I think this is a way for Israel to tell the international community that it must do something about Iran. That Israel is not going to do all the dirty work like it did in Iraq years ago.
 
toby said:
I think this is a way for Israel to tell the international community that it must do something about Iran. That Israel is not going to do all the dirty work like it did in Iraq years ago.
Click to expand...

It is perhaps Israel realixing they need the international community.
What did they do in Iraq years ago Toby ? Refresh my old memory please.

umm I think we are talking about Iran Toby....
 
toby said:
I think this is a way for Israel to tell the international community that it must do something about Iran. That Israel is not going to do all the dirty work like it did in Iraq years ago.
Click to expand...

Yes they told the world they weren't going to do it, the question that calls for analysis is why are they not going to strike at Iran. This is the question that needs to be answered and it is the question that your three lines of gibberish fails to even address let alone answer. Why are you so afraid of questions that begin with WHY???
 
That is the answer, Israel is saying the international community MUST do something. That is the why and who.
 
Sorry toby that is another assertion based on a reading of the story but it does not accress the basic question why are they saying this. It is becoming clear that you do not understand what "why" means. My answer:

Prakosh said:
Not so much that, as the reality of Isreali logistics. They have enough ground mobility to attack those on their borders but they don't have the ability to move large forces to other locations. Since Iran is mot adjacent to Israel they would have no way of getting there. I think they might have contemplated a bombing strike like they pulled off on Iraq in the early 80s but since much of Iran's nuclear program is conducted deep underground, I doubt that such a strike would produce the same sort of result that it did in Iraq. And in fact all it would do is make them look like hypocritical bullies--since they have the bomb themselves and have never signed the International Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. I think their recent fiasco in Lebanon, where billions of dollars were spent in accomplishing nothing more than generating anti-Israeli feelings world wide may also feeding a new kind of unwillingness to participate in in losing ventures.
Click to expand...

attempted to address why they were saying that they were not going to attack Iran. So far your answers have only repeatedly asserted that the Israelis would not attack Iran or that they expected others to attack Iran but your answers have not addressed in any way the rahter pertinent question why would they not attack Iran and why are they saying this now. To say they are tired of doing the "dirty work" still begs the question why are they so tired now?
 
Are you that dense Prak, I guess you are. They are saying it to force the international community to do something. They are saying we are not going to handle it this time without support. They are saying we are not the only ones who will suffer if Iran gets the bomb.
 
toby said:
Are you that dense Prak, I guess you are. They are saying it to force the international community to do something. They are saying we are not going to handle it this time without support. They are saying we are not the only ones who will suffer if Iran gets the bomb.
Click to expand...

The question is why are they not going to handle it this time? You still have not answered that question. Why are they not willing to bomb Iran? As you so insistently noted they were more than willing to bomb Iraq why not Iran? That is the question I sought to answer, your readings and re-readings of their statement is not an answer to that question; neither is your claim that I must be "dense".
 
Last edited:
Sorry if you don't understand what I said that is your problem. I answered your question. If it is beyond your understanding then I can't help you.
 
Sorry toby, if you think you have answered the question then it is you that has the perception problem not I. Re-reading what they have said does not in any way represent an analysis of why they might be saying it or what real world problems might be forcing them to say it. There are real reasons why they are not going to attack Iraq and the story doesn't state what they are. Repeating the story line doesn't clarify anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top