Jimmy Carter says Israel has 150 nuclear weapons, newspaper claims »
Posted By TechnologyExpert 4 months, 2 weeks ago in NewsFormer U.S. President Jimmy Carter says Israel has a nuclear arsenal of 150 weapons.
Read Full Story at rawstory.com »
Submitted By:
TechnologyExpert
I am Editor-in-Chief at Alice Hill's RealTechNews (http://www.realtechnews.com). I also have my own blog (Tech-Ex) at http://TechnologyExpert.Blogspot.com. Finally ...
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 523
-
0%
aniokly4 months, 2 weeks ago
Is Carter sending Hamas a message? I am sure they would like to know how many nukes Isreal has, and what better way to find them then to hire out a senile old Democrat. He is such a goof.
Reply-
0%
libsRfunny4 months, 2 weeks ago
He's trying harder and harder to be relevant in his old age. He never was as a president, that's certain -- unless his relevance was double-digit inflation and unemployment. A rare feat not equaled since, thank goodness.
Reply -
0%
lfergie8124 months, 1 week ago
anickly and lib
This is getting old. Carter inherited the problems from Nixon and Ford's handling of the oil crisis of the 70's just as the next president will inherit the problems that this administration has created. Inflation is coming. Every time the price of energy goes up everything else is close behind. We're seeing it now with the increase of shipping which will make product you buy more expensive.
To curb the inflation of the '70's the Federal Reserve Bank raised the interest rates. Not Carter because the president doesn't set the interest rates.
People quit buying products in the '70's, just as they are doing today, and that caused people to be laid off, just as it's starting now, so unemployment goes up. It's a matter of economics. Companies cannot keep people on the payroll when they're not selling their product. Just wait.
Reply-
-
-
-
-
0%
djn3nunez34 months, 1 week ago
"oh brother... this is where i came in...
just as i give this forum another try, this nonsense reminds me of the b*llsh*t that inevitably starts.
yo, nospin and djn3 i have a suggestion for you and your ilk, how about a nice hot cup of shut-the-hell-up... "
I couldn't help but notice that you ppiituu couldn't help yourself and joined right into the fray. Thank you pot for calling the kettle black. But I don't really care if you take your own advice.
Reply -
0%
NoSpinDave4 months, 1 week ago
"just as i give this forum another try, this nonsense reminds me of the b*llsh*t that inevitably starts."
You should feel honored mine is the first comment you read then....and welcome back. See I can be quite nice!
....oh, and what DJN said. Ironic, isn't it? You actually posted something that made me agree with DJN.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
BB644 months, 1 week ago
You've got to be kidding. Carter stripped the military and then couldn't understand why there wasn't a single military unit that could handle a hostage rescue. He's also the "relevant" one who ordered no military response from the Marines when they stormed the embassy and also ordered all heavy weapons out prior. Great move. Marines that can't fire and all but a few round to fight with had he actually given the order. What a joke.
Had Carter acted like the President instead of a socialistic peace-nick, we might not face the dangers we do today from this area. Had we gone into Afghanistan on 15-Feb-1979 and hunted down the group that sponsored the killing of our ambassador, radical Islam wouldn't have had the b-lls to attack our embassy in Iran. To bad he didn't react when our embassy was taken. That is an act of war in the civilized world. Had we taken Sadr and his people out then, Iran wouldn't be the problem they are today.
Reply-
0%
Bkumm4 months, 1 week ago
"Carter stripped the military and then couldn't understand why there wasn't a single military unit that could handle a hostage rescue. He's also the "relevant" one who ordered no military response from the Marines when they stormed the embassy and also ordered all heavy weapons out prior."
What are you talking about?
Three things here.
1. Carter did NOT, contrary to popular belief "strip the military, just as Clinton did not strip the military. That is a baldfaced LIE. In fact, Carter, in his 1979 budget request, requested that military spending be increased substantially.
2. I can find no reputable source that suggests that when the attack took place (in a matter of minutes, by the way) that President Carter ordered no military response from the Marines.
3. What "heavy weapons"? 50 cals? Rockets? Tanks? What?
Cont.
Reply-
0%
Thinker224 months, 1 week ago
> I can find no reputable source that suggests that when the attack took place (in a matter of minutes, by the way) that President Carter ordered no military response from the Marines.
No wonder. You're supposed to look for evidence about the response he DID order.
Reply -
0%
BB644 months, 1 week ago
What? In that terrible rescue the Navy used helicopters that were 20 years old designed for Vietnam not desert duty. It was all they had. On the cutbacks, perhaps you should talk to or at least research your heroes before they lie to you. His budget request submitted in 1979 was an increase, that's because was for the 1980 fiscal year and he already knew we were short. Most of what we were using was Vietnam left overs, way past their prime. Even the cam wasn't useful. The year before he bragged about cutting over $6 billion from the budget the year before.
On the orders, I know that was something that Kevin Hermening talked about. I've searched everything I have but can't find the reference. I know it was in the old Milwaukee Sentinel not the Journal. I know it was after he left the military but before I left for the military, so that would put it around 1981-2. Sorry that's as close as I can get on short notice.
Reply-
0%
BB644 months, 1 week ago
On heavy weapons, most embassies have extra equipment. Shot Guns anti-tank/anti car bomb weapons, M60's in some cases and even Stingers at times. After the Marines in Beirut, they installed most of them on/in/around the White House grounds. Concrete barriers, M15&M16's for the uniformed Secret Service. Things drastically changed after Carter left office.
Reply -
0%
Bkumm4 months, 1 week ago
And that was Carter's fault? That's like blaming President Bush for the fact that he sent troops to Iraq in Humvees that were not designed or armored for the role in which they found themselves.
And don't give me any of that crap about 20 year old equipment. We still fly the B-52's, right? When did the last one of them come off the assembly line?
He raised the budget request after he realized the Soviets weren't going to abide by the treaties they had signed.
Reply-
0%
BB644 months, 1 week ago
Where to begin. There wasn't a treaty signed by Carter with the USSR they didn't break and he never "raised" budgets. He slashed the Navy, Air Force, Army, Marines and Coast Guard by $ 6,000,000,000. In 1970's money, that's a lot. On the Humvees, you don't remember the vehicle they were replacing do you? They were supposed to replace the venerable Jeep. canvas/cloth doors, no roll bar, no protection, armor or other urban assault protection. In fact it didn't even have a roof in combat conditions. The Humvee was a great improvement and has a bullet proof wind screen and other armor additions. It's not the best answer but was much better then the Jeep. BTW, this was another Carter slash, he thought the Jeep was fine.
On the B-52, it's a flying antique. Still capable but in a real war against an enemy with SAM's or other anti-aircraft weapons, would be sorely placed in direct combat rolls. See B2 bombers, http://www.airforce.com
Reply
-
-
-
0%
BB644 months, 1 week ago
I never insulted the men lost in Carter's attempts to play hero. He sent men into a battle with old equipment not designed for desert duty. There were to many branches involved with this and they never did have a chance to train together in prep for the assault. If that wasn't bad enough, he tied the hands of the CIA and replaced many key people with political appointees. He also pulled many of the field operatives and restricted working with other nations. His contestant anti-Israel spin prevented the Mossad from sharing information and status of the hostages.
If anyone denigrated our people,the blood is on Carter's hands.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
Bkumm4 months, 1 week ago
"Had we gone into Afghanistan on 15-Feb-1979 and hunted down the group that sponsored the killing of our ambassador, radical Islam wouldn't have had the b-lls to attack our embassy in Iran."
What ARE you talking about? The attack on the US embassy in Iran was all about Iranians. They took the US embassy because of American interference inside of Iran. It had nothing to do with Afghanistan at all.
Reply-
0%
djn3nunez34 months, 1 week ago
"They took the US embassy because of American interference inside of Iran. It had nothing to do with Afghanistan at all."
Mostly it was the US support of the Shah since 1953 that did it. It was a Bush/CIA President-Carter Conflict that developed in Iran. You see Carter forced Bush to resign as the CIA chief when he became President. Then the CIA reported to Carter that all was well in Iran and they expected the Shah's regime to continue well into the next decade. They lied. Of course they knew he had cancer and wouldn't live to the next decade, much less continue his iron grip on Iran. There are many rumors about how it all played out too. But one thing is certain, after Carter, a Bush has been in the White House for 20 out of the last 28 years.
Reply-
0%
BB644 months, 1 week ago
Actually, drawing on Bani-Sadr's open discussions, it was clear the murder of Ambassador Dubs became the catalyst for the "student" lead attack on our embassy. The Shah's return might have been the excuse but they were pretty sure the US military would not attack. They felt that Carter was a weak leader and as hours turn to days, days to weeks, they were sure eventually, their demands would be met. They also knew about the press and played up to them during the election again expecting Carter to cave in. Didn't work exactly right did it? Never got the Shah back did they.
Reply-
0%
BB644 months, 1 week ago
On your claims of the CIA, you're way off, where to begin? First on Bush, to be the director of the CIA, he resigned from the GOP and broke all ties with them. He really followed the non-partisan policy and did a rather good job. Carter, who seems to lie, I mean claim he wants to work with all people promptly fired Bush the same day he took office. Which is his right but it was a little funny how he did it. Typical for a farmer, not a President.
As to informing Carter of problems in Iran and Afghanistan, that actually is credited to Nassiri, Chief of Savak. He personally delivered a message to President Carter from the Shah advising him of the impending revolutions in Iran and Afghanistan late summer early fall, 1978. Carter ignored both thinking it was an attempt to get US troops into Iran. How things would have been different had Carter actually listened. He permitted radical Islam to grow nice job peanut boy.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
BB644 months, 1 week ago
Well skippy that's the difference between you and me. I can read. The first attack by fundamentalist/radical Islam wasn't in Iran, it was in Afghanistan. On February 14, 1979, shortly after eight in the morning, Ambassador Dubs, was kidnapped and murdered by radical Islamic terrorists. Evidence produced over the years points to connections with elements of the KGB and other terrorist supporting nations.
Another Carter error. While other nations increased protections in the embassies, Carter was concerned that it would appear hostile so he left the embassies less protected.
Reply-
-
0%
BB644 months, 1 week ago
Well, from my posting, I believe that's what I said. There was KGB involvement, on both sides. Does it surprise you really? Play both sides, make sure the person you want dead is dead. Carter's reaction was a minor protest. As always, restraint, fear, and hiding in the White House.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
bluetexasvalley4 months, 1 week ago
"That is an act of war in the civilized world."
There's no such thing as war in a truly civilized world.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
antibrainwasher4 months, 1 week ago
faux news, owned by the anti-american Australian billionaire that mega-spin worships through his sock puppet O'Reily, who he pays and edits, says......
and mega-spin listens intently....
Reply-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.10 Replies
-
0%
BB644 months, 1 week ago
John, I've sparred with you before. Please tell me hard facts that point to the good Carter did. If you mean the peace treaty with Egypt and Israel, it's still costing us over $20 billion in aide and that both sides realized the pointlessness of killing each other, but I'll give you that. What else did he do?
Reply-
0%
djn3nunez34 months, 1 week ago
He made five major addresses on energy, and pressed the need to improve efficiency, increase conservation and find new sources of domestic energy. In 1980, Carter and the Democratic Congress passed the Energy Security Act of 1980. This bill created a comprehensive and coherent energy policy directed toward eliminating our dependence on imported oil.
Had saint Raygun not dismantled it all, maybe we wouldn't need the ME for it's oil?
Reply-
0%
BB644 months, 1 week ago
That was more political grand standing than actual policy work. For the first 3 years Jimmy the Democratic President couldn't get the Democratic House nor Senate to support anything he wanted. That's like the Clean air bills signed by Clinton just to make press that major cities all of a sudden were no longer compliant the day after he left office. All political games. Carter was and remains our worst president and worst ex-president.
Reply
-
-
-
-
NemoShiZniTComment removed: User banned.
-
NemoShiZniTComment removed: User banned.3 Replies
-
0%
bluetexasvalley4 months, 1 week ago
You've obviously never read the Book of Revelations yourself. Is that what Hagee said it says? lol
Reply -
0%
Daylight4 months, 1 week ago
NemoShiZniT
The Anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent,who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal..
Where did you get this crap? Jesus was a Muslim he submitted his will to the will of God. And Muslim is a person who submit his will to the will of God, naturally cannot be a Muslim. He will definitely a Christian because Paul is the anti-Christ, he distorted Christianity. So the logical argument here is that he will be from the Christianity.
Read this what Paul has to say here, he preached his own Gospel:
Paul, who never saw Jesus, also admitted that the RESURRECTION WAS HIS GOSPEL (Timothy II 2:8): Remember the Jesus Christ of seed of David was raised from the dead ACCORDING TO MY GOSPEL." He was also the first who declared Jesus as SON OF GOD(Act 9:20): "And straight way he [Paul] preached Christ in the synagogue, that he is the Son of God." So Christianity is not a teaching of Jesus but of Paul.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
bubba24 months, 1 week ago
I give up - Propeller is acting CRAZY. I've been trying to post a reply to aniokly, NOT to lfergie812!!
ani --
Carter is much less senile than you may ever be.
No one knows for sure how many nukes Israel has because they won't TELL anyone.
EVERYONE knows that Israel has nukes, even though they refuse to acknowledge it.
Israel is NOT a signer of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Iran IS a signer of that treaty.
Reply-
0%
DropkickaLib4 months, 1 week ago
Isreal has had nuclear weapons since before the 1973 Yom Kippur War and has never used or threatened to use them. Iran is already threatening Isreal and hasn't even finished weapons development.
Reply-
0%
antibrainwasher4 months, 1 week ago
So we should declare war and destroy Iran, as an Israeli proxy.
The intersection of evangelicals and zionists and the super rich and their faux news murdock controlled brainwashed brown shirt facists.
The zionist believes that the jews were "chosen" by "god" to form a racially pure jewish religious state.
A christian zionist believes that by securing the "holy land", the jews are preparing the way for the rapture.
Israel does'nt need to or want to talk about its nuclear capacity, since it's completely indefenceable and hypocritical for them to have nukes and Iran not. Besides, the christians just love a holy war against muslims, why should they sacrifice their chosen children when they can have the brown shirt evangelical christians fight their wars?
Reply -
0%
bubba24 months, 1 week ago
Does Israel have to SAY they may use them before you think they may be a threat?
Iran is threatening Israel, but Iran has no nuclear weapons, and there is NO proof that they are even trying to build any.
Reply-
0%
DropkickaLib4 months, 1 week ago
Looks like the experts disagree with you.
"The International Atomic Energy Agency, in an unusually blunt and detailed report, said Monday that Iran's suspected research into the development of nuclear weapons remains "a matter of serious concern" and continues to need "substantial explanations."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/27/africa/2...
Reply-
0%
bubba24 months, 1 week ago
"concern" is not proof. Someone is worried about whether or not they are trying to create any nuclear weapons, but as yet there is NO proof.
Reply-
-
0%
bubba24 months, 1 week ago
You want to bomb Iran for being "uncooperative".
Bush wanted to invade Iraq because he said Saddam was being "uncooperative". Oh, wait ... Bush DID invade Iraq.
And, the invasion occurred even though there were no WMDs, and even though the inspectors WERE still in Iraq and Iraq WAS still cooperating with them.
No wonder you love Bush and Cheney so much ... you apparently subscribe to there agenda instead of the truth and instead of diplomacy.
Reply-
ScrimshawComment removed: User banned.10 Replies
-
0%
wtagg4 months, 1 week ago
Has it been demonstrated that our continuing presence has kept the price of oil down?
Reply -
0%
bubba24 months, 1 week ago
How many hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have DIED because of our invasion?
Over 3 million Iraqis are displaced - over 2 million in other countries and over 1 million inside the country. Too many can't or won't go back because of the violence and no security, FIVE years later.
There is little to NO electricity, clean water, sanitation, medical care, education, jobs, the mortality rate for children under 5 is the highest in the history of the country, and women's rights have gone down the toilet right back to the stone age.
Saddam was a ruthless dictator. But his was a secular regime. There were no religious factions fighting each other in the streets. Children were being educated, women had jobs and careers, and there was plenty of clean water and electricity.
We F-ed up everything after Saddam was tossed out - we even let his ENTIRE army go and then sat back and let people loot the hell out of the country. It went downhill from there.
Reply-
0%
Endoscopy4 months, 1 week ago
LOL
How many dead and displaced are because of Hussein?
You are one of those who believes everything against our troops and nothing good. Another one who can't understand what is taking place there now. General Petreas is lying to us. The statistics of terrorism is being shut up.
White flag Harry is your hero.
Reply-
0%
bubba24 months, 1 week ago
I am NOT talking about the troops, and you know it.
I am talking about Bush and Cheney and their cronies that spawned an unjustified invasion and occupation of a country that was NO threat to us whatsoever.
I understand EXACTLY what is taking place over there. Petraeus is the latest in a long line of generals that has to say what Bush wants them to or they lose their jobs.
The only "terrorism" in Iraq is the Shia and the Sunni fighting each other. Any al Qaeda or 'foreign' terrorists make up less than 10% of the insurgency.
There was NO al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded, and there is only a small number of them there now. Even the Iraqis want al Qaeda OUT of their country, just like they want the U.S. OUT of their country. The Iraqis want their country back from ALL of the outsiders.
MOST of the terrorists are in Afghanistan and Pakistan - Pakistan harbors al Qaeda, Bin Laden, and the Taliban. But we are 'friends' with Pakistan. How F-ed up is that??
Reply -
ScrimshawComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
-
0%
DropkickaLib4 months, 1 week ago
Wait, Iran has been conducting nuclear research and its behavior is of great concern to the international community. Well, we haven't seen any mushroom clouds over Isreal yet, so we should wait for that to happen.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Thinker224 months, 1 week ago
> Iran is threatening Israel, but Iran has no nuclear weapons, and there is NO proof that they are even trying to build any...
...and I'm still waitning for you to explain how will Iran possibly use those hundreds of medium-range (about 3200 kilometers) missiles it acquired during the last several years. These missiles cost about $3 Million a pop and are completely unuseable without warheads.
Reply-
0%
bubba24 months, 1 week ago
-
0%
Thinker224 months, 1 week ago
Proof... of what? Your inability to answer my simple question? It's the absense of a comprehensible answer.
Reply-
-
0%
bubba24 months, 1 week ago
I hate the crap that Propeller keeps pulling with trying to post any COMMENTS ....
I AM the one that asked the question.
WHAT proof is there that Iran has any of those "$3 Million a pop" missiles?
Reply-
0%
Thinker224 months, 1 week ago
> WHAT proof is there that Iran has any of those "$3 Million a pop" missiles?
Here:
A senior commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the largest component of the Islamic republic's armed forces, chose this moment to outline the capability of his country's ballistic missiles.
Gen Koussechi added: "We have reached capacities that allow us to hit the enemy at a range of 2,000 kilometres."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/15634...
Are you suggesting that General Koussechi, a senior commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the largest component of the Islamic republic's armed forces, is A LIAR and that YOU know better? If so can you show your credentials?
Reply-
0%
bubba24 months, 1 week ago
According to the URL you provided, the U.S. had said that they had identified 2000 targets in Iran. I expect that Koussechi wanted to counter that threat.
I believe, as the article put it, he engaged in a response in the "war of words" between Iran and the U.S.
I don't know that Koussechi is lying, nor do I know that he is telling the truth - and neither do you.
If you think he is telling the truth, you have to take his word for it, because him SAYING that they have those missiles is not proof that they do have them.
Reply
-
-
0%
Thinker224 months, 1 week ago
> WHAT proof is there that Iran has any of those "$3 Million a pop" missiles?
Here:
A senior commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the largest component of the Islamic republic's armed forces, chose this moment to outline the capability of his country's ballistic missiles.
Gen Koussechi added: "We have reached capacities that allow us to hit the enemy at a range of 2,000 kilometres."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/15634...
Are you saying that General Koussechi, a senior commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the largest component of the Islamic republic's armed forces, is A LIAR and that YOU know better? If so can you show your credentials?
Reply-
-
0%
Thinker224 months, 1 week ago
> They're completely useable with conventional warheads.
Yes, of course. The question is who will be willing to pay $3 million to deliver some conventional explosives over 2000 kilometers hoping to damage a building within a radius of 10 kilometers at best... especially considering the tremendous success of such missiles Saddam used against Israel during the first Guld war.
Reply
-
-
0%
bubba24 months, 1 week ago
Per to the URL you provided, the U.S. had said that they had identified 2000 targets in Iran. I expect that Koussechi wanted to counter that threat.
I believe, as the article put it, he engaged in a response in the "war of words" between Iran and the U.S.
I don't know that Koussechi is lying, nor do I know that he is telling the truth - and neither do you.
If you think he is telling the truth, you have to take his word for it, because him SAYING that they have those missiles is not proof that they do have them.
Reply-
0%
Thinker224 months, 1 week ago
I do not have any reasons to think that General Koussechi is lying considering HUNDREDS(!) of reports supporting his claims. You may, of course, pretend to know nothing about anything if you wish giving me a reason to support MY claims... like this one, for example:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename...
Reply-
-
0%
Thinker224 months, 1 week ago
As I've said there are HUNDREDS of articles about Iranian missiles and their capabilities. It is pretty boring, however, to continue this process of arguing an epitome of denial. In addition, I do not think that YOU believe your own claims about Iran not having missiles.
You know how they call people that do not believe their own claims, don't you?
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Thinker224 months, 1 week ago
Let us suppose for a moment (LOL...) that General Koussechi DID NOT lie and that those hundreds of reports and TV documentaries about Iranian missiles are NOT fake...
... HOW will Iran possibly use these missiles without nuclear warheads considering that conventional warheads are about as usable with such missiles as concrete blocks? Are Iranian leaders SO DUMB that they're willing to send hundreds of Millions to be able to destroy a couple of random buildings in larger Tel Aviv triggering massive Israeli (and, probably, American) response?
Reply-
-
0%
Thinker224 months, 1 week ago
> Those missiles are completely useable with conventional warheads.
Yes, they are. As I've explained on multiple occassions one has to be pretty dumb to use them this way considering Saddam's experience with SCUD missiles during the first Gulf war. You see, such missile is capable of delivering up to one ton of conventional explosives over a pretty long distance. The best one can hope to achieve with such action is to damage a random building within a 10-kilometer radius, possibly killing one or even several people. Is it worth paying $3 million for it?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Daylight4 months, 1 week ago
DropkickaLib
Isreal has had nuclear weapons since before the 1973 Yom Kippur War and has never used or threatened to use them. Iran is already threatening Isreal and hasn't even finished weapons development.
Any Muslim country has the right to threaten Israel or even go to war with Israel because Israel doesn't belong here and Israel is an illegal entity supported by Zionists of the US and Europe. They are sitting on the land of the Jews, Christians and Muslims and over 7 million Palestinians are refugees and they have no been allowed to return home.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
ETproductions4 months, 1 week ago
aniokly, Seems to me that even though Israel's nuclear secret is among the worst kept secrets on earth, having Jimmy Carter validate it serves to curb Israel's enemies, not embolden them.
I take it you just hate Democrats in general and Jimmy Carter in particular. You can't be bothered to think through what the impact of ether's actions might actually be.
Reply
-
-
