Comments on: Uzi Mahnaimi and his misinformation http://www.yourish.com/2007/09/24/3717 Cutting straight to the point Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:21:52 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: SimoHurtta http://www.yourish.com/2007/09/24/3717/comment-page-1#comment-28638 SimoHurtta Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:31:22 +0000 http://www.yourish.com/2007/09/24/3717#comment-28638 Eric J don't you wonder that normally nuclear programs are huge complex industrial programs, with thousands of workers and huge amounts of building space. For example to bomb Iran's nuclear program it is estimated to be needed several hundred bombing raids. Syria has how ever managed after US-Israeli propaganda to create a mini nuclear program which was bombed by a couple of missiles and a commando team watching. Come-on, who believes that. The other reason not to believe the propaganda is why on earth would Iran hide to Syria a "new nuclear program" to a open desert a stone throw away from Iraq border and US troops. Makes no sense. Iran is big country which a complex terrain, it would be much easier and safer to hide it there. All signs are that this US Israeli propaganda is preparation to make the home fronts favourable for a new war. Eric J don’t you wonder that normally nuclear programs are huge complex industrial programs, with thousands of workers and huge amounts of building space. For example to bomb Iran’s nuclear program it is estimated to be needed several hundred bombing raids. Syria has how ever managed after US-Israeli propaganda to create a mini nuclear program which was bombed by a couple of missiles and a commando team watching. Come-on, who believes that.

The other reason not to believe the propaganda is why on earth would Iran hide to Syria a “new nuclear program” to a open desert a stone throw away from Iraq border and US troops. Makes no sense. Iran is big country which a complex terrain, it would be much easier and safer to hide it there.

All signs are that this US Israeli propaganda is preparation to make the home fronts favourable for a new war.

]]> By: Eric J http://www.yourish.com/2007/09/24/3717/comment-page-1#comment-28553 Eric J Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:42:32 +0000 http://www.yourish.com/2007/09/24/3717#comment-28553 Here's what I've put together from the pieces I've been reading: I think the attack on Syria destroyed a facility that was going to be the very beginning of a Syrian nuclear facility, built with help of the North Koreans, and eventually Iran. I think Iran wanted to start a parallel nuke program based in Syria, in case their own was shut down or derailed through either diplomatic or military means. So this was a signal that Israel would have zero tolerance for a Syrian nuclear program. And, perhaps by contrast, a signal to Iran that if they're willing to play by the rules of MAD, Israel is as well. (I don't think Israel can afford that gamble, but I don't live there, so I don't get to vote.) Here’s what I’ve put together from the pieces I’ve been reading:

I think the attack on Syria destroyed a facility that was going to be the very beginning of a Syrian nuclear facility, built with help of the North Koreans, and eventually Iran. I think Iran wanted to start a parallel nuke program based in Syria, in case their own was shut down or derailed through either diplomatic or military means. So this was a signal that Israel would have zero tolerance for a Syrian nuclear program. And, perhaps by contrast, a signal to Iran that if they’re willing to play by the rules of MAD, Israel is as well.

(I don’t think Israel can afford that gamble, but I don’t live there, so I don’t get to vote.)

]]> By: Sabba Hillel http://www.yourish.com/2007/09/24/3717/comment-page-1#comment-28550 Sabba Hillel Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:08:39 +0000 http://www.yourish.com/2007/09/24/3717#comment-28550 Actually, I would say that the Defense Department or the IDF would be at fault if they did <b>not</b> have <b>contingency plans</b> to take care of Iran by various means (including bombing or invasion). Part of the job of the military is to be able to provide answers to the question, <i>"What would happen if ...</i>". A contingency plan is not a definite plan to do something but an analysis of what to do if something is decided on. It is meant to provide the decision makers (such as the President) with options. As Defense Minister, Ehud Barak must have plans on what to do just in case any or all of the Arab neighbors attack (as in Yom Kippur 1973) or what to do if "the government" decides to wipe out Hamas. These necessary plans do <b>not</b> mean that they will actually be carried out. Actually, I would say that the Defense Department or the IDF would be at fault if they did not have contingency plans to take care of Iran by various means (including bombing or invasion). Part of the job of the military is to be able to provide answers to the question, “What would happen if …“. A contingency plan is not a definite plan to do something but an analysis of what to do if something is decided on. It is meant to provide the decision makers (such as the President) with options.

As Defense Minister, Ehud Barak must have plans on what to do just in case any or all of the Arab neighbors attack (as in Yom Kippur 1973) or what to do if “the government” decides to wipe out Hamas. These necessary plans do not mean that they will actually be carried out.

]]> By: Paul http://www.yourish.com/2007/09/24/3717/comment-page-1#comment-28542 Paul Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:07:21 +0000 http://www.yourish.com/2007/09/24/3717#comment-28542 QUACK !!! QUACK !!!

]]>