Thanks for the reply and the link, Brendan.  I rather think it bolsters the argument for the existence of a nuclear facility, though; as time has gone on, the news accounts it references seem more detailed, with new information being provided (admittedly only by "informed sources") that some type of nuclear facility was the target.

A recent example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/washington/14weapons.html?hp

As to the location, not sure.  It would need to be on a river or other large body of water to supply coolant, and perhaps near enough to Syria's ports to lessen road transport time of sensitve or dangerous materials. 

If it was merely for intimidation or to plan out air-attack routes to Iran, it was still a successful mission, apparently.  Time will tell, I guess, what was really struck, and whether Israel will mount a more ambitious mission, with a few more hours flying time added.

HH

"How is it that the Russians have come off looking like the peace keepers and defenders of the world while the Americans are reduced to the bully?"

 Not sure how that can be, Chris, although I'd think you'd have to begin from the premise that an Iranian nuclear program, culminating in the ability to produce warheads, is no big deal.  You'd also need to convince yourself that Russia's fledgling democracy, headed by a former KGB plutocrat who seems more and more loath to give up power, is up to the challenge of "defending the world."  

 Now I'm not saying that hitting Iran's nuclear program is the best or only solution. But the U.S. and EU seem to be in accord that Iran should not be allowed to have a military nuclear program, and I agree. And if it comes down to a choice of letting them have one, and allowing them to develop warheads, or bombing their program to rubble, I'd vote for the latter.

HH

Henry,

You ask how that can be, but surly you can't be so ignorant or dismissive of the perception that your country has cultivated throughout the world these past few years. I could go on endlessly listing some of the actions that have rightfully or wrongfully lead to this perception but I know you've read them enough times right here on this board.

As for Iranian acquiring nucleur weapons, I disagree that my position would have to begin from the premise that it's no big deal. I simply reject your government's argument that a nuclear armed Iran would lead to WWIII, much in the same way that I rejected your government's argument surrounding the invasion of Iraq. We disagree I know, but my position is hardly an extreme or naive position and many others much more knowledgeable in such things hold a similar view. Take the former U.S. Central Command chief for example who is quoted as saying that 'Iran is not a suicide nation', and that he is confident that a nuclear armed Iran could be successfully contained. He goes on to say;

Eric -- please come down off your happy high.  It's hard to talk rationally with someone so unrelentingly optimistic and cheerful.

Chris -- "You ask how that can be, but surly you can't be so ignorant or dismissive of the perception that your country has cultivated throughout the world these past few years."

Ignorant, hardly. Not will all the Americaphobes pasting any errant bit of anti-U.S. claptrap they can find on these pages.  But dismissive? Oh yes -- that I CAN be.  If you really have come to view Russians as "looking like the peace keepers and defenders of the world," then polite dismissiveness is, I think, the kindest reaction I can muster.

Brendan -- "I guess that is the central point. Although the fundamentalist rulers of Iran are quite threatening, their nuclear capacity is still a few years off by most estimates. Think positive, like george bush, mahmoud ahmadinejad can only serve a maximum of two four year terms."

Those are certainly the high points, that both Ahmadinejad and Bush are not long for office (it's to be hoped).  But the fact that the Iranian nuclear program is not fully functional seems to me to argue more for quick action than delay.  While I, like any rational person, would prefer diplomatic solutions, it seems clear that if Iran is truly bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, there's little diplomacy will be able to accomplish, other than lull people into a false sense of security that some progress is being made.  My sense is that Iran wants nuclear weapons, and will continue to pursue them as long as the mullahs are in control.  If that's the case, it also seems that it would be better to preempt their program (before reactors are fully fueled and functional), thus delaying the advent of a functional weapon by however many years, as well as lessening collateral damage from radiation leakage from a destroyed reactor.

As to whether Israel would go ahead with such an attack on its own, it seems clear they are willing, and probably capable, of doing so.  I doubt, from Israel's viewpoint, that there is anything they might gain from delay that would outweigh the threat they perceive in a nuclear-armed Iran.

 And thanks for the link to the raw story piece -- interesting, if ultimately unsubstantiated.  Of course, none of the stories about the airstrike have anything in the way of real confirmation, which is, I suspect, exactly the way Israel (and Syria) would like it to remain.  But I noticed you called the link "baloney." Given the tone of the site in general and the writer in particular, apt, my friend. Apt.

HH

Henry,

It hardly matters what I think, but to be so dismissive to a great number of the world’s population smacks of extreme arrogance and is exactly why your country has lost it’s moral position in the world.

Is Russia the defender of the world? Hardly, but neither I’m afraid is the US, though perhaps the reemergence of Russia is what’s required to stop the carte blanche approach your government has taken towards much of the world, and if they can put a stop to another invasion by your country upon a sovereign country then more power to them.

"It hardly matters what I think, but to be so dismissive to a great number of the world’s population smacks of extreme arrogance and is exactly why your country has lost it’s moral position in the world."

 Hardly matters what I think either, eh?  And I don't know if you're intentionally misunderstanding me or not, but I fully comprehend and even sympathize with people around the world who don't like America's behavior these past 8 or so years.  I don't like much of it myself.  No, to be specific, I was being dismissive of your observation that Russia is  "looking like the peace keepers and defenders of the world." Your belief strikes me as ridiculous, given Russia's past, its continuing struggle with its strong-man syndrome, Putin's background and his apparent machinations to hang onto power. I think if you re-read what I wrote on this thread, you'll find that to be the case. Chris: "Is Russia the defender of the world? Hardly, but neither I’m afraid is the US, though perhaps the reemergence of Russia is what’s required to stop the carte blanche approach your government has taken towards much of the world, and if they can put a stop to another invasion by your country upon a sovereign country then more power to them." But you said Russians are looking like the defenders of the world, didn't you? We're still using English here, right? To continue ... you'll have to find me the U.S. position paper or resolution or legislation or whatever it is that leads you to think that the U.S. sees itself as the "defender of the world." I think the U.S. sees itself as the defender of the U.S., its citizens and its interests, and those who ask for the U.S.' help and protection. And rightly so. But ... more power to Russia, huh? If they can put a stop to America invading another country, I mean. Whatever country ... for whatever reason ... upon whatever provocation? Let's see ... the thing people seem to dislike so intensely about Bush is his absolutism ("You're either with us or against us" "The Axis of Evil" "Wanted Dead or Alive") I have to admit, I find this aspect of his personality repugnant. It makes him sound like an idiot, and is embarassing. Also, and much more dangerously, he and his cohorts seem to make policy based on such black-and-white perceptions. So you see, I DO understand non-Americans' antipathy toward this administration and its policies, and even share it to some degree. But it seems to me, my inconsistent frend, that you're espousing exactly the same worldview. Anything Russia can or does do to stop the U.S. is a good thing. I'll remember you said it. Here's hoping you don't come to regret saying it. HH

It is really quite interesting that the truth about what happened has not emerged, or if it has, it is mixed with so much misinformation it is not discernable. Why do Israel, Syria and the USA (I presume that someone in the USA knows) not wish the nature of the target to be revealed. Syria has denied it was a nuclear facility, but then I expect they would anyway. Israel has allowed leakage that it was a nuclear facility in construction; this is odd because you would expect them to have announced this more proudly. The NY Times seems to be the source of much of the debate and it is impossible to see whether they really have inside knowledge or if they are a patsy for misinformation.

It is certainly a convenient warning to Iran, particularly given the ease with which the Syrian defences were breached despite having a similar Russian defensive radar system as Iran. And a nuclear facility too!!

Some independent reports suggest it was a cache of North Korean built, if rather outdated, missiles. The Syrians say it was a military store but that it was empty. Well I doubt that because Israel don't usually get this sort of intelligence wrong and would not risk aircraft on a fools errand (would they?). Perhaps it was an empty building.

I guess it is nobody's interest to tell the truth here, which makes it more intriguing. Whatever it was, I guess Syria will not wish to advertise it, especially if it shows them in a poor light. They are in no position to retaliate militarily anyway, though I am surprised that their objections were not stronger. Perhaps it was something that Assad wanted taken out too; some sort of unofficial military activity. He would not want to admit that.

Someone in the USA must know, Republican and Democrat, but they are not saying either. All very intriguing.

Henry,

I can recall, two nutcases as you would call them, Bush and Putin, very recently alluding to the possibility of WW3. Since they hold the office that would give them a role in bringing about nuclear war, even if others will soon take over, this ought to give pause for thought. 

How do you see the likelihood of nuclear disarmament? Do you suppose that the countries which have nuclear weapons will continue to develop them and new countries will join the club, with no consequences for peace?

Do you envisage world dominance by China or some other country which would force disarmament on the rest of the world? Just how do you envisage world peace being established?

If not peace, then what would be the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons? Would the USA, the current greatest obstacle to peace, be sufficiently impressed to take disarmament seriously or would the trend be towards further preparation for a bigger and better war?

Mike,

"Clearly GWB's references to WWIII were never a threat, but a warning about unstable states like Iran or non-state actors like Al Queda. "

However you like to look at it, a nuclear attack seems not improbable. Will it cause sufficient damage for the USA to be convinced of the importance of nuclear disarmament?

"The threat is real. That's exactly the reason why strikes like the one in Syria are so important.  Destroy the capability BEFORE it is fueled.  The danger increases exponentially by waiting." Mike

 Too late. Russia and China have the capability.

"If you want disarmament, eliminate the threat that requires the armament in the first place. " Mike

The USA is the greatest threat. Too obtuse, Mike, not to see that.

"they are rational enough for diplomacy to keep the peace" Mike

The USA was not rational enough to abstain from aggression against Iraq and various other countries. I wouldn't bet on the Chinese abstaining, for ever, from invading Taiwan or Russia from obliterating US missile defence systems in Europe (if they are set up).

"If you cannot see greater theats in fundamentalist islamic terrorism, or mad Iranian mullahs, then discussion with you is pointless. " Mike

What threat do terrorists and mad mullahs with zero nuclear weapons pose, compared with the US/UK/Israel axis of evil, with thousands of nuclear weapons?

[quote]why always u enter islamic terroris,why u dont use christan terriroris as now u see who launch wars against muslims[/quote]

Perhaps because virtually ALL of the ongoing terrorist attacks are being done in the name of YOUR God, not mine.  It was not a plane full of Norwegian Nuns who flew planes into the Twin Towers.  It was a plane full of madman singing "Allah Akbar"  into an inferno. There is no group attacking Muslims with the claim that Jesus commanded them to do it.  I haven't seen anyone funding careers in suicide bombing for Jesus.  While not all Muslims are terrorists, clearly all of today's terrorists are Muslim.

Iranian Mullahs ARE mad because they are fueling insurgencies throughout the world in an insane attempt to establish a new caliphate.  Once they become a nuclear power, they will not hesitate to bring about the end of western civilization and die happily as martyrs.  That is madness by any measure.

This is just too good NOT to pass on here.

Wall Street Journal, Oct 24, 2007

[quote]

ELBARADEI LIED!!!!
A Washington Post story about Israel's recent strike on what appears to have been a Syrian nuclear facility ends as follows:

In an interview published yesterday, IAEA director and Nobel Peace laureate Mohamed ElBaradei expressed anger at the Syrians, Israelis and foreign intelligence agencies for not providing information about a suspected nuclear program.

"We have said, 'If any of you has the slightest information showing that there was anything linked to nuclear, we would of course be happy to investigate it,' " he told the French newspaper Le Monde. "Frankly, I venture to hope that before people decide to bombard and use force, they will come and see us to convey their concerns."

ElBaradei also said an airstrike could endanger efforts to contain nuclear proliferation.

"When the Israelis destroyed Saddam Hussein's research nuclear reactor in 1981, the consequence was that Saddam Hussein pursued his program secretly. He began to establish a huge military nuclear program underground," he said. "The use of force can set things back, but it does not deal with the roots of the problem."

And Saddam is still underground. But hang on a second! Everyone knows Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. Doesn't ElBaradei remember how BUSH LIED!!!!? And because Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, it was wrong to invade Iraq based on the assumption that he did have them. That's just simple logic!

So now we have ElBaradei arguing, based on the totally discredited premise that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that airstrikes on nuclear facilities in rogue states are a bad policy. Just as in the case of Iraq, logic dictates that because the premise is false, the conclusion must be wrong.

Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable that the civilized world is obliged to bomb Iran.

[/quote]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010775 While the conclusion is clearly offered tongue in cheek, the irony of the logic is amusing in the context of the "Bush lied" chorus so often found here.