Muslim countries surrounding Israel have been spouting off for years on their intentions to “wipe Israel off the map�. (1948, 1967, 1973)

It is spooky now that one of them may soon be able to be in a position to do that.

This may not be the time of peace, love and understanding.
Nor is it time for some angry words from the UN.

Posted by: Pete at January 30, 2006 11:49 PM

---

I doubt Dubya will launch an attack on Iran, either with or without UN sanction. The Security Council has the power to impose sanctions but until some of those long-time trading partners start telling Iran to cool it's jets, the Iranian government will continue rattling their collective sabres. That's what Islamic theocratic governments do.

IF Iran starts to get close to having nuclear capability, Israel will take action to protect themselves, just like they did in Iraq back when Saddam's nuclear program getting close.

If Israel is forced to take action again, this should be taken as a clear signal that the UN has ceased to have any relevance whatsoever as the Security Council is incapable or at least unwilling to corral rogue nations.

Posted by: Mac at January 30, 2006 11:51 PM

---

There is an interesting article re. an Iranian blog on the BBC Website. I cannot post the url here but go to news. bbc . co . uk

Go to 'World' go to 'Middle East'

Posted by: anonymous at January 30, 2006 11:55 PM

---

Mac "IF Iran starts to get close to having nuclear capability, Israel will take action to protect themselves, just like they did in Iraq back when Saddam's nuclear program getting close."

Israel can't take care of themselves on this one.
Here is why.

-In 1981 Israel achieved tactical surprise in the Iraqi attack.
Now the whole world is expecting something from Israel.

-Iran learned from the 1981 attack, and they have spread out and fortified their bomb factories.

-Iran is further away from Israel than Iraq, and their will be more time exposed for the trip home

-The Saudi have their American-made Awacs planes, raising the level of difficulty.

-Israel will have to fly over the American Armed Forces in Iraq to get to Iran.

Conclusion, if Israel does anything, they will need permission and a helping hand from W

Posted by: Pete at January 31, 2006 12:19 AM

---

W wont have to launch an attack on Iran. Israel will take care of its own interests. There have been a few countries that have always punched out of their weight class. (Israel & England, spring to mind) That when push comes to shove, the grave diggers in Iran will be the busier bunch.

Also, I don't think Iran would use nuclear weapons in Israel. Its the land itself they're fighting over, a nuclear weapon poisons the land for thousands of years. The holly sites they're squabbling over would be destroyed.

Posted by: Curtis at January 31, 2006 12:46 AM

---

"There's more than one way to skin a cat!"

I know the conditions are different this time and the Israelis know it too. I firmly believe they'll come up with a way to make it happen. They'll do whatever is necessary to protect themselves, with or without W's blessing.

Posted by: Mac at January 31, 2006 12:46 AM

---

Pete, If israel where going to do a simple air strike, you're correct.

One thing to note, Israel has submarines, and has developed its own cruise missile program. A submarine launched cruise missile could destroy Iran's nuclear facilities just as effectively.

I would rate the submarine attack as a higher probability than an air raid flown over unfriendly skies.

Posted by: Curtis at January 31, 2006 12:49 AM

---

Curtis - I'm not sure I agree about Iran never using nukes on Israel. There are some abosolutist nutjobs who would rather have no-one on the land than Jews. I worry about Ahmedinajad (I'm going to claim that I just invented my own Farsi transliteration system, rather than looking up how to spell his name) being one of those nutjobs.

Now, he's not *really* No. 1 in the country, and there are a few like Rafsanjani who might still be able to put themselves between his finger and "the button", but there are probably just as many in the high ranks who'd be helping him.

Two points. First, from above - I don't think that to make that argument, I even have to prove that it's likely. I only need prove that it's possible, because if you could envision a possible scenario where it would happen, then you must act to stop that scenario, even if the odds are against it actually happening.

Second, there's a basic math that makes action required:

Direct, explicit, expressed and never withdrawn desire to remove another country from the map.

+

Ability to make that removal possible.

That addition cannot be allowed to exist. At no time (that I'm aware - I'll probably be proved wrong!) in the Cold War did the leaders directly say that they wanted to completely eliminate the other superpower, remove it from the glope. At least, they never said it during a stage in their history where they actually had the means to do it. Iran has already said it, and that means that, if the Security Council's mandate to maintain "international peace and security" is to be fulfilled then either the means (through stopping the bomb) or the desire (through revolution) must be removed. The second is costly, probably wouldn't work, and the only country who could "force a revolution" (read: invade) would be the USA, and they're just not going to with public support at home the way it is.

So we must not allow Iran to have a bomb.

Ashley

Posted by: Ashley at January 31, 2006 01:11 AM

---

God will protect Israel.

Posted by: Allan Carty at January 31, 2006 01:17 AM

---

Do the Shia value the holy sites in Israel as much as the Sunni do? I've understood that locations like Qom matter more.

And unlike Sunni Muslims, the Shia have a specific end-of-world belief system, involving the return of the Mahdi and such. Sunni have similar beliefs, but I don't think they have that sense of imminency.

Who knows what that sort of belief combined with nukes and general Islamic frustration can lead to.

Posted by: Steve Janke at January 31, 2006 02:28 AM

---

Scary. A pile-up of too many wrongs.

Posted by: brock at January 31, 2006 04:06 AM

---

-That *Other* Atomic Genie- a Nuclear Iran--

Posted by: backhoe at January 31, 2006 05:57 AM

---

They do not care about the holy sites in Israel. Jerusalem is only important to them because it is important to Jews and Christians. They put a mosque on the site where the 2 Jewish Temples stood just to prove that they are dominant. Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Koran. It was not important to them during any caliphate. When Jordan held Judaea and Samaria (West Bank) from 1948-1967 they did not even make Jerusalem their capital.

Posted by: ex-liberal at January 31, 2006 07:26 AM

---

Everyone seems to forget that Israel's nuclear weapons are illegal. Any other country would have been sanctioned by now. Sharon is known as the Butcher of Beirut. Granted, Israle is suposedly on '[our side', but why does that absolve them from responsibility? The Israeli that warned the world that Israel has secret nuclear weapons is still in jail, 20 years later.
Nuclear weapons do not just affect a small area. This is a clear and present danger to the entire planet. And nuclear war is being discussed as if it is local. Wake up people--this is not just a ME problem--it will affect the entire earth--

Posted by: at January 31, 2006 08:11 AM

---

Interestingly, Iran is the one of the few nations in the Middle East that has been the victim of attacks by weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

In the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq repeatedly attacked Iran with chemical weapons, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths.

US support for Iraq's use of WMDs against Iran during this period, including providing satellite imagery, intelligence, and even the chemical and biological precursors to WMDs (such as anthrax spores), has been well-documented.

It should come as no surprise, then, that Iran wants nuclear weapons capability: the US helped a country attack them with WMDs once. What's to stop it from happening again, particularly now that Israel has a plentiful arsenal of nuclear weapons?

Posted by: Ade at January 31, 2006 08:25 AM

---

Reading through the comments, I think its obvious that no one considers Iran with nukes a good idea. Even Russia and France don't.

Why not remove the threat? We have an overwhelming, stupendous advantage over these creeps, to the point where their nuclear capability can be destroyed without losing a single soldier. What is keeping the Free World from removing a clear and present danger?

The American Left, that's what.

The Democrats hitched their wagon to the Lefty anti-war movement, making them allies with nuclear mullahs in Iran.

A mushroom cloud over Jerusalem won't make any impression on these people. We know this because 2000 dead in a hole in Manhattan didn't, and that's their capital. Not caring about casualties is a speciality of the Left.

Every word they speak makes the mushroom cloud a little more likely, and they don't care if it gets them a couple more seats in the US Senate.

We are going to let people like that decide the fate of Western Civilization? Are we idiots?

Posted by: The Phantom at January 31, 2006 09:02 AM

---

Ade--I agree with you--this is the rest of the world deciding who will be allowed to break international law. the US backed Iraq for years--they supplied arms to both Iraq and Iran in that war that was instigated by the CIA--more games at the expense of life on this planet--this time they have taken on Iran for the benefit of Israel and against the well-being of the planet--the world learned nothing from the Crusades and are determined to again fight a no win war.
Israel's nuclear weapons are illegal but that does not seem to matter.
This situation has been created by the manipulation of Israel and the US--and we will pay--and no, I am not blaming a political party--it is the mentality that 'whoever has the most toys when he dies, wins', it is greed and arrogance that is causing this situation--and the planet will pay

Posted by: George at January 31, 2006 09:14 AM

---

Anon, Israel's nukes are not illegal. Contrary to popular opinion, having nukes is not illegal. Iran and others (not Israel) signed the Non Profileration treaty and so they are in violation of said treaty by pursuing them.

And Israel isn't going around telling everyone about how they are wipe everyone else off the map ala North Korea. As well, Israel is a functioning democracy which manages to not be a basket case full of religious fruitcakes.

Ade, the US never supplied WMD to Iran and never cheered their use against Iran. That is absolute Orwellian BS.

The real problem you lefties have is the existence of real democracy in the ME and particularly if it happens to contain Jews. The left is contrained to cheered on every dirtbag genocidal dictator so long as they are anti US in sentiment.

Posted by: joe at January 31, 2006 10:01 AM

---

Hey I am not thrilled by the prospect of the current Iranian government posessing nukes.

But what should Canada's response be.

Diplomatic for sure, we have our own battles with that regime ad they are no friends of ours, murdering a citizen and all. The best position is to support the consensus that the Big Boys work out. No one will criticize Harper if the Europeans are involved and Canadian diplomacy, such that it matters should be working to ensure a common Euro, Russo and US front. We are not the point of the spear.

Military...we have nothing to contribute and should make that clear.

There is a way to say yes and there is a way to say no....that is the proper philosophy. It is not our direct battle. But it is in our diplomatic interest and national interest to ensure a united Western and potentially extra western front to this.

Iran will collapse from within, there is no need for direct military intervention.

Posted by: Stephen at January 31, 2006 10:03 AM

---

After Canada's weak response to the death of a Canadian citizen I doubt very much that we have any diplomatic weight in Iran at all. If we're unwilling to protect our own citizens why would the believe any tough talk from Canada?

Posted by: Curtis at January 31, 2006 10:18 AM

---

To the best of my knowledge, Israel doesn't refuse to acknowledge the right to exist of Arab nations around it.

Having been the target of Arab nations in three wars already, I firmly believe that their nuclear weapons have deterred additional conventional military attacks.

Iran doesn't want nukes to defend itself against nations that want it wiped out. It wants nukes to destroy one nation in particular.

There's a world of difference there.

Posted by: Andrew at January 31, 2006 10:38 AM

---

Allan Carty: “God will protect Israel.�

Allan you’re stand out as a big idiot in a pile of really huge idiots here.
What you said is completely devoid of meaning. You could say that about anything.
How about “Zeus will protect Greece.�?
Sounds moronic now doesn’t it?
Now are you getting how stupid you sound (are)?

Posted by: Nick the Dick at January 31, 2006 10:40 AM

---

"Also, I don't think Iran would use nuclear weapons in Israel. Its the land itself they're fighting over, a nuclear weapon poisons the land for thousands of years"

...you can go stand on the very spot where the first nuke was exploded at the Trinity test site...it's a tourist attraction now...and people live in Nagasaki still.

D

Posted by: David Lockwood at January 31, 2006 10:42 AM

---

Jean Chretien on sending Canadian troops to Afghanistan:

"We don't want to get into a big fight over there. We want to bring peace and happiness as much as possible".

Stephen on Iran:

"The best position is to support the consensus that the Big Boys work out"..."There is a way to say yes and there is a way to say no....that is the proper philosophy".

The Canadian penchant for straddling the fence in the face of urgent current events is still alive and well, eh?

mhb23re

Posted by: MHB at January 31, 2006 10:44 AM

---

Thanks for fanning the flames of war Idiot!
For something real read: http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts145.html

Posted by: Nick the Dick at January 31, 2006 10:48 AM

---

Israel has NOT signed the non-proliferation treaty--in fact no one really knows how many nuclear weapons they have. An Israeli scientist that blew the whistle on the nuclear program was jailed in 1986 and is till in jail--he had been released with the proviso that he speak to no media--he did speak to the media and was returned to jail.

Posted by: George at January 31, 2006 10:58 AM

---

Joe said:

"Ade, the US never supplied WMD to Iran and never cheered their use against Iran. That is absolute Orwellian BS."

You are mistaken. The US supplied Iraq with a variety of agents used to make WMDs, including anthrax, botulinum, and gas gangrene.

The US also supplied Iraq with military hardware including helicopters, as well as battlefield intelligence that enabled Iraq to use WMDs against Iranian forces.

After the Iraqis used poison gas to capture the Fao peninsula in early 1988, a US defence intelligence officer, Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona, toured the battlefield and reported to Washington that the Iraqis had used chemical weapons to achieve victory. Colonel Walter Lang, senior defence intelligence officer at the time, later told the New York Times that "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern."

The position of the United States towards Iran regarding WMDs is deeply hypocritical.

Posted by: Ade at January 31, 2006 11:09 AM

---

I don't know if your flame referred to me or not, but I read the link you'd posted. I found it pretty illuminating, especially

"... there is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. There is nothing but unproven assertions, assertions, moreover, that are contradicted by the evidence that does exist".

Brilliant. Only the Left could have its collective head this far up its collective butt to write - much less believe - this nonsense. The article should be renamed "Rank Ignorance REPORTS".

And why do the Left continue to act as apologists for the likes of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? When he says Israel should be wiped off the map, why does it twist itself into pretzels, "clarifying" what he "meant" to say?

Why not simply take him at his word?

Think, pal. It's not just the US that is concerned about Iran getting nukes; there is international fear. The the worst of all possible scenarios in the MidEast is a nuclear Iran, and anyone not believing this is practicing Ostrich Theory at its outer limits.

A more accurate description of the options faced by the world on this issue is:

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200601130837.asp

If sanctions or diplomatic arm-twisting can resolve this issue & prevent Iran from getting nukes, fine. But we're moving away from that possibility, and the thought of Iranian nukes is far more frightening than the possibility surgical airstrikes to prevent it.

mhb23re

Posted by: MHB at January 31, 2006 11:20 AM

---

Does anybody know what the 2 blue stripes that are on either side of the Star of David on the Israeli flag represent?

My understanding is that they represent the Nile and Euphrates rivers. The star of david represents Israel's claim to all the lands between these 2 great rivers. Take a look at a map of the region.

How would you feel if you owned/lived on ancestral land in this zone? Especilally if you were a Muslim and had no interest in Judah.

Who is the provocatuer and who is the provoked?

Iran it seems has always had nutcases at the helm but it doesn't help matters that the rest of the world fails to understand its concerns.

Posted by: Ron at January 31, 2006 11:41 AM

---

Hmmmm...Russkis and Chi-coms pull out of Iran and leave them to the UN wolves to natter over ( a sure sign they are expandable), American military sector has been rattling sabers for a couple of years to get at Iran, Israel willing to "help" the US effort in hopes the US will reciprocate when they have another war with the Hammas run Palististine.

Folks I see a ready made 2008 election issue to return the GOP to office. No sane American would let the disarrayed dems deal with a nuclear crisis. If I was a US taxpayer or someone naive enough to have all my assets in US currency, I would want this Iran entangelement to end quickly and cheaply with a minimum of expense....we know what military/strategic option that leaves.

If I was an Iranian or a Palestinian, I would be desparate to rid my nation of the foamy mouthed head jobs in power that are about to call down judgement day for my people.

Posted by: wlyonmackenzie at January 31, 2006 11:46 AM

---

Canada's response to Iran should be to re-start the Avro Arrow program and build some aircraft carriers for it to fly off.

Its hard to stomp on the likes of Iran if you can't get there from here.

Posted by: The Phantom at January 31, 2006 11:55 AM

---

I can't see the US and allies being responsive to a protracted expensive conventional "taming" of Iran...we learned our lesson in Iraq...TOOOO damn expensive!!

Iran ( if they get to the Kim Jong threat stage) will be taken out with larger anti personel technology that reqires less time, man power and expense. They will use a strategy which keeps the resitance virtually non existant. Look for Iran to go down in less than a month and take less than a year to restructure.....anything more will not get public approval.

Posted by: wlyonmackenzie at January 31, 2006 12:03 PM

---

That's right Phantom restart Avro Arrow if W. lets us and convert some CSL ships into carriers then head off to the Persian Gulf.

The mouse will roar again.

Posted by: Ron at January 31, 2006 12:31 PM

---

Wrongo Ronno.

The blue stripes on the israel flag represent the tallit. (a prayer shawl, with blue stripes on it)

Just another example of your understanding of the world. "I reject your reality, and substitute my own" should be your motto.

Posted by: Curtis at January 31, 2006 12:44 PM

---

>> My understanding is that they represent the Nile and Euphrates rivers. The star of david represents Israel's claim to all the lands between these 2 great rivers. Take a look at a map of the region.

What a load of anti-semitic crap.

The flag is basically a rabbi's prayer shawl with the Star of David overlain on it. The Star of David had been in unofficial use for centuries by Jews in the ME and Europe - long before the current Middle East map borders existed.

Posted by: CERDIP at January 31, 2006 12:45 PM

---

MHB,

Listen dumb dumb, you sound like the other side of the old Soviet coin.
“It’s the Left! They’re under your bed!�

Brilliant. Only the Left could have its collective head this far up its collective butt to write - much less believe - this nonsense. The article should be renamed "Rank Ignorance REPORTS".

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts145.html

If you had read further you would have discover that Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is not the least bit a leftist,� He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury� under Ronald Regan.

A Republican!
But I guess you’re a brain-dead zombie who can only spew out the epitept “Left� “liberal� to those with whom you disagree.
Maybe its you who should take his head out of his ass.

Posted by: Nick the Dick at January 31, 2006 01:06 PM

---

Ron,
please for your own health, lay off of the Islamo-koolaid.
As others have pointed out, the blue stripes in the Israeli flag symbolize the blue threads in the Jewish prayer shawl.
Jews/Israel are not expansionist or imperialistic. They simply want to live in their ancestoral homeland. Should Canada ally itself with Israel or her enemies? Hmmm, that seems to be a difficult question for some to answer. It requires figuring out if there is actually a right and wrong or just different "narratives".

Posted by: ex-liberal at January 31, 2006 01:24 PM

---

Damn, I should of known Hamas was spin-doctoring.

Posted by: Ron at January 31, 2006 01:42 PM

---

Why would a rational thinking adult, bother to read Hamas' websites or materials? They're terrorists, their point of view deserves no consideration.

Posted by: Curtis at January 31, 2006 02:48 PM

---

Don't forget--Iraq also had WMD---NOT

Posted by: George at January 31, 2006 02:59 PM

---

Nick, you really are a Dick.

God indeed has and will protect Israel.

So what if you don't believe it, that doesn't give you the right to berate someone who does.

Aside from that point, there is no logical reason why Israel exists when you got 100+ million enemies all around you. The country's length is like Edmonton to Calgary and the width at the narrowest point is only 30 miles, almost the size of Vancouver to Chilliwack, if not less.

The six day war in '67 should have been a wipeout, if anything Israel pushed back so hard the UN stepped in to prevent Israel from going to Cairo and Damascus.

Indeed, Israel and the Jews are God's people, He will protect, and those who oppose will fall.

cheers
tom

Posted by: tomax at January 31, 2006 03:12 PM

---

Oh Dear.

Guess it's hard for Nick-O the Dick-O to reconcile the possibility of a previous NR editor & Republican mouthing wearying left-wing boilerplate that'd be more at home at Rabble.ca than at the National Review.

Rather than flame the site with more of your exhilarating wisdom, Nicky, why not surf the National Review to see how many of its contributors share the viewpoint you so vehemently defend. I recommend you start with the Hanson link I'd provided earlier.

Later, when you're a Big Boy, and do a bit more online research and change your /nick to something not utterly moronic (if not accurate), you can rejoin the conversation and perhaps contribute something meaningful.

mhb23re

PS: the word you were trying to spell is "epithet"

Posted by: MHB at January 31, 2006 04:18 PM

---

If one does some research you`ll find that Iran is a signatory to the non proliferation treaty and have never broken the rules of the treaty. The same reason exists for the US wanting to go after Iran as for going after Iraq, nothing to do with WMD`s, everything to do with the selling of oil in Euros rather than US dollars as this would bring down the US dollar as the fiat currency of the world. Being that the US needs 2 billion dollars of foreign investment per day to sustain themselves this would bankrupt them.

Posted by: Rick at January 31, 2006 04:20 PM

---

Iran can sell its oil for whatever it wants. Who cares? Most Iran's oil customers are European anyway, so they're probably already taking euros.

The US dollar is still the benchmark for the international exchange of goods and services. And will continue to be, irregardless of Iran's currency policies. If OPEC where to change its currency preference, then the United States would have some extra inflation coming into their economy, but the US dollar would not collapse in value, nor would the US government go bankrupt.

It wouldn't be a big deal economically. It would be a bigger deal politically as it would (to many) mark the beginning of the decline of the United States.

This another moonbat conspiracy theory.

Posted by: Curtis at January 31, 2006 06:11 PM

---

If it is such a moonbat, as you say, conspiracy theory why is it that one of the first things the US invaders of Iraq did was start selling their oil in US petro dollars again. I think because the only thing keeping the US solvent is the fact every other country in the world needs US dollars to buy oil. Its the only thing backing their dollar.

Posted by: Rick at January 31, 2006 08:14 PM

---

Check this out.

CALCULATING THE RISK OF WAR IN IRAN
by F. William Engdahl
January 29, 2006

http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/2006/0129c.html

Posted by: Denis at January 31, 2006 11:24 PM

---

Rick

Nice to see that someone here really knows his stuff.

Protecting the fiat US petro dollar was the only reason for the US invasion of Iraq and had nothing to do with installing democracy or WMD.

The reason to attact Iran is no different.

Got Gold!

Posted by: Denis at January 31, 2006 11:31 PM

---

" What a load of anti-semitic crap. "
So what is antisemetic about that statement? It may not be correct but that doesn't make it anti semetic.

I have a further question.
Why is it that over the course of history the jews always seem to be at the centre of conflict?

Horny toad

Posted by: Horny Toad at February 1, 2006 01:58 AM

---

Dear Mr. Toad,
If you inadvertantly tell lies about Jews, because you don't know the truth, then this is excusable and correctable. If you knowingly spread lies about Jews, you are an anti-Jew. Your second question is very interesting. In Deuteronomy, Moses talks of a time when people will no longer know God. Moses tells them that they will just need to look at history (his story)to see.

Posted by: ex-liberal at February 1, 2006 09:19 AM

---

Tom,

Berating people who spout nonsense is always a good idea.
Just because you believe it doesn’t make it so. If you want to throw punches don’t put on a dress first little Tommy.

It seems as though you’re no fan of logic either.
Your reasoning is like the following example statement: the size of your brain is small, therefore you are a homosexual.
I would say that your small brain and you being a homosexual are two independent facts.
Being slow witted is directly related to your small brain and your love of gay porn is in directly related to your being a homosexual, but being gay and dim have nothing to do with each other.

Posted by: Nick the Dick at February 1, 2006 10:25 AM

---

Stevey, little boy, you miss every point except the one at the top of your head don’t you?

The wisdom you should open yourself up to is thinking for yourself rather than consulting with the National Review to see what they think.

Stevey, you sound like a communist party hack who can only spout the official party line.

Posted by: Nick the Dick at February 1, 2006 10:26 AM

---

Nick...

Go away little troll...

Posted by: tomax at February 2, 2006 03:28 PM

---