Israel planning a possible nuclear attack on Iran.

not really - we helped saddam against the iranians. the u.s. had a vested interested in iraqi victory - especially after the ayatollah overthrew the puppet we had installed, the shah (see above post).

when saddam used mustard gas and the iranians tried to get the u.n. to condemn it who do you think blocked the condemnation? it was saddam's allies, the united states. the reagan administration gave nothing but support to saddam while he was committing war crimes.

 

an 8 year war where millions lost their lives is a "border dispute land grab"? give me a break! you should follow your own advice and 'try to be a little credible'.

 

Do you think the OPEC embargo adversely affected our economy in the 1970's?? Do you think the risk premium on energy that is very much related to this conflict adversely affects our economy?? If higher energy prices are not a substantial drain on our economy, I don't know what is. That coupled with the negativity created has an affect on situations like this:

"Earlier this week, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Malaysian airline AirAsia would order 100 more single-aisle jets from Airbus. It's not clear if that's the order that Airbus will announce in London."

That is European Airbus over American Boeing. Though you may be correct that even with these negative effects we may still be the strongest per capita economy for quite some time, why should we help Israel at the expense of our own economy which means at the expense of our lifestyle and our future?

 

they are?

how do you feel about north korea - they are part of junior's "axis of evil". unlike iran, it is a fact that they have nukes and have tested them. unlike iran, they have threatened the united states. why dont we nuke north korea?

why do we do nothing?

how about china - remember last year when one of their generals shot their mouth off and said they were going to attack us? iran has never done that. why dont we nuke china?

why do we do nothing?

why the double standard when it comes to iran?

 

Not speculation - pure risk management. If a nation declares it's intent to destroy another nation, then the nation threatned has a right to defend itself by taking steps to ensure the nation is not able to carry out it's threat.

SInce Iran has buried it's facilities, then Israel has no choice but to use weapons powerful enough to destroy those facilities. Israel has a responsibility to its own people to protect them.

If Iran wishes to avoid attack, it should give up both it's threats and clandestine programs. Russia has offered to assist them but Iran continues to reject anything insisting on doing it on it's own - a clear cover for covert activity.

 

Nuclear strike by Israel would precipitate the end of US hegemony in the Middle East and the rise of a fundamentalist Islamic superstate.

Pakistan will go fundamentalist. Saudi Arabia will go fundamentalist. And Israel is going to be wiped off the map in a giant mushroom cloud.

It would be the greatest mistake yet by an Israel that, for the worthy cause of survival and living space, nonetheless has only consistently created enemies and hatred for itself across the world.

I frankly couldn't care less, except for the fact that, we Americans as Israel's b!tch and bodyguard, are gonna probably going to end up taking a couple of bullets for them before they go down (a couple of terrorist nukes in our metropoles), and paying all the medical bills for them and ourselves and whoever else Israel plans on destroying (think 100x Iraq reconstruction costs).

 

the proplem is that we are so tied to israel that any action they take automatically draws us in. they know this and use it as political leverage against us, as exemplified in their recent statement that if we dont get involved they will not hesitate to use nukes on their own.

as an aside, my cousin is in military intelligence (i have another who is an army ranger w/ two tours in afghanistan and about to go back for a third) and claims that israel is the worst country when it comes to hacking into our systems and the biggest thieves of info.

so what are we doing about north korea and china again? - it is a known fact that both those countries really do have nuclear power, unlike iran, and both have verbally threatened the united states, unlike iran.

 

You are skipping plenty of steps though. I think Israel and the world community should be working to keep nukes away from Iran. But there are steps to doing that, which would come long before first strike nuclear attack.

First among those steps is finding out if Iran really is getting nuclear weapons.

I'm sorry but the Iran wiping Israel off the map thing is hugely overblown. When a nation sets a priority towards something it gets mentioned frequently, repeatedly, and is driven in. Look at Bush before the IRaq war. He spoke time and time again about Saddam etc. He talked to the UN, The allies, the U.S. people, foreign leaders, news agencies etc. IT was an ongoing thing, not a phrase he mentioned in one speech with a different translation that could be attached to it.

The phrase used by Ahmadinejad is better translated to ""Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel0

So because Ahmadinejad says the current regime should collapse, in a Speech in 2005 doesn't lend any proof to Iran developing nuclear weapons.

It does mean that he should be watched, have pressure from the entire world community put on him to make clear nuclear weapons are not a good idea.

There is no doubt that Ahmadinejad hates Israel, that is different from a legitimate threat to wipe them off the map.

Israel is running Apartheid. I hope that the Israeli regime does collapse, or at least that part of their policy just like the Apartheid collapsed in South Africa. It is only just, fair, and right that it does.

I hope Ahmadinejad's leadership doesn't last and it crumbles as well. It would be better for Iran, and probably the world if it did.

 

What do million of lives have to do with the discussion? Did Saddam invade Iran to try and overthrow it's government and occupy (as he did in Kuwait)? No. It WAS a land grab that escalated completely out of control and neither side would stop fighting, no matter what the cost. I didn't say Saddam was justified. He had no idea the dispute would last 8 years. Nobody did. Like a good many egomaniac dictator/despots, he way overreached.

I'm not downplaying that war. While it happened, I was disturbed by how the western media paid it little (or not enough) attention despite the free-flowing bloodshed. From the U.S. standpoint, it was downplayed because Saddam held his own and most of the bloodshed was Iranian (who was considered our enemy). At that time, most American citizens didn't even know Saddam's Iraq was a radical dangerous state.

The Iran/Iraq war shows just how dangerous "limited" incursions can turn out to be. The discussion in this thread has been good but the implications of Israel striking Iran with targeted nukes are bigger than most people think. It could permanently set some very bad things in motion.

 

It was pretty much all the arab countries and the west attacking Iran via Saddam Hussein. In all the mess that was the Iraq-Iran war, the Iraqis attacked the USS Stark, which killed many Americans, however we didnt give a crap because we wanted Iraq to win. However when the USS Samuel B. Roberts was damaged by an Iranian mine (with no loss of life btw), we commenced Operation Praying Mantis in which we bombed the hell out of the Iranian Navy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer Im pretty sure its safe to say we attacked Iran via Saddam as well as via our own military.

 

i was responding to your rediculous assertion that the iran-iraq was as a "border dispute landgrab" rather than a war, when millions of people were killed. your statement is even sillier in light of the fact that you tell others to be a little more credible when describing the conflict.

so by your criteria, the only way something is a war is if a country invades another with the explicit purpose of overthrowing its government? if something starts out as a "border dispute" it cannot by definition become a war?

who said he was?

sounds familiar...

if saddam' iraq was such a "radical dangerous state" than why was our government supporting them? if they were so evil than why did our government block a u.n. condemnation against saddam for using chemical weapons against the iranians?

i fully agree with this - it will start a full on world war.

 

jo mama, I don't know what has you so much on edge about my comments on Iraq invading Iran. Why do you think Saddam did it if it wasn't to flex his muscles and grab some land? It obviously developed into a war, one that didn't merit U.S. intervention like the Kuwait invasion (which was my whole point). And why are you asking me why our government supported Saddam when I already said I didn't support him? Ask Rumsfeld.

Chill out.

 

that was part of it, but to dismiss the war as a border dispute is a gross oversimplification, which was my main point in responding to you.

there had been a long standing dispute over territory. also, the ayatollahs calling for the overthrow of saddam and were threatening iraq by trying to export the revolution. not trying to defend saddam, but that was his rationale, imo.

we had a border dispute w/ mexico over the texas boundary that escalated into war, but we dont call it the mexican-american border dispute of 1848. it is the mexican-american war.

so was it a war or a border dispute?

any my point is that the u.s. did intervene in iraq vs. iran.

you had stated that american citizens didnt even know what a dangerous rogue state iraq was - i guess my point was that we didnt know b/c our government didnt want us to, as support for saddam would seem a bit hypocritical.

 

Anybody who actually believes preemptively attacking Iran will accomplish anything positive is highly dillusional.

It's easy to understand Israel's paranoia with Iran to an extent. I agree that Ahmadinejead is a lunatic and potentially dangerous, but I don't think he has Saddam potential. In the grand scheme of things he has no real power, and only uses his fiery rhetoric to distract feeble minded Iranian's from their woeful domestic circumstances. As time passes we're seeing that more and more attention is being brought to his lack of problem solving to issues that are affecting Iranians on a daily basis. But of course him saying he'll wipe Israel off the map resonates with a nation surrounded by enemies.

At the end of the day I do think Iran is developing nuclear weapons, but that doesn't mean they'll turn around and use them on Israel. If anything they'll be used as a counter to Israel's U.S. provided nuclear arsenal, and far superior conventional military.

Despite Iran's portrayal in the media as an apacolyptic-minded state little attention is paid to the large, but marginalized moderate public voice in Iran. These people are the key in this situation, and it would be wise for the U.S./Israel to not envoke Iranian nationalism. We lose this group then the situation becomes ALOT more dangerous, because then the Mullah's have a blank check to cash. They don't have that at the moment because they and Mr. Ahmadinejad understand that those people are key to their power base.

The more dangerous idea of Iran and nuclear weapons is their connection with Hezbollah, and their traditional support of terrorism. Would Hezbollah use such a weapon on U.S. interests or Israel, I'm not sure. Would they sell a weapon to the highest bidder namely Al-Qaeda more likely.

How do you avoid a conflict? Sounds crazy to some but I never understood why. Put extreme pressure on Israel to dismantle their nuclear program and sign the NPT. You can't have such hypocrisy as telling Iran that they have to be a part of the NPT when Israel isn't. Can anyone tell me why Israel actually needs nukes? In any conflict they have such an advantage conventionally, and they always have the U.S. to back them as well. It just doesn't make sense, and isn't worth this kind of trouble.

 

they already have the nuke, why would we mess with them??? it would be much wiser to go after the weakling.


a pretty interesting twist:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_daniele__070109_an_attack_against_ir.htm



this could be simplistic and may have holes in this plan... but maybe it has been considered.

the iranian government (president, and ayatollahs) aren't liked very well by the people of iran. if we, or anyone else attacks the will look past that and rally around the government as we did on 9/11. the reason the people are pacified in iran is due to the social programs that the government is able to provied such as 35 cent gasoline, and giving everyone a car. if we take away the ability to provide these services then perhaps a revolution will begin from within. i saw somewhere that iran is now having to import gasoline due to the low subsidized rate, and the amount that is being consumed.

so, how do we accomplish this? iran has a very weak navy, and its oil platforms are not that heavily defended. if we were to take control of these and stop production, the life blood of the iranian country would stop.

 

I did provide a fact in support of speculation that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. They were offered nuclear energy technology that could not be waeponized and they turned it down in favor of continuing programs that could lead to weapons. FACT. That it isn't photos of nuclear weapons with Ahmadinejad standing in front of them is no reason to ignore that at least one credible fact has been provided in support of the Iran is developing nukes side. Where are the facts supporting the Iran is not developing nukes side? Nowhere (probably because that is exactly what they are doing).

I was talking about speculation for the purposes of an internet message board. You are arguing against a straw man. No one is suggesting that Israel should just take a wild guess on the status of a possible Irani nuclear weapons program and base their decision to launch a first stike upon that guess. Like I said earlier, this discussion (at least from my point of view) was about the appropriate response to Iran trying to make nuclear weapons. As such, Iran making nuclear weapons is assumed FOR THE PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION. I thought that was obvious before, but I guess some people needed it spelled out for them.

We are all entitled to our opinions. I for one am less concerned with the means by which a weapon brings about an effect and more concerned with the effect itself. If the Israelis have a nuclear weapon that will anihilate a nuclear weapon lab and have little to no effect on anthing else, I think they should use it, regardless of the fact that the effect is achieved through fission or fusion instead of combustion. Likewise, I don't think the devestation caused by the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was worse than that caused by the bombs dropped on Dresden.

That is a far cry from TreeRollins' assertion that equated the relationship between Saddam and the US with that between Hizballah and Iran.

A proxy is not someone who you give a hand to after they do something on their own, it is someone who is acting for you under your authority. The US didn't tell Saddam to go fight a war in Iran for us. That was more a case where we felt our interests were served by Saddam fighting Iran, so we pitched in a little here and there.

I agree that those things adversely affect our economy, nor did I ever say otherwise. My contention was only that they will not so adversely affect our economy that we should change our policies to avert these situations. As for why we should continue our policies in the face of these effects, I believe I already answered that.

I wish we would have done something about North Korea before they got nuclear weapons, as Israel did with Iraq and may do with Iran. Now we have allowed our enemies to acquire nuclear weapons, so our situation is much more difficult. We are helped by the fact that they have not shown an ability to strike us with their weapons, though in an age of terrorism, that is not guarantee of our safety. If we knew the precise location of all of their nuclear weapons, I would say that our best course would be to destroy them. Of course, in the case of North Korea our position is further complicated by the involvement of China as well as the precarious position that South Korea is in vis-a-vis North Korean artillery. This is a situation that should have been handled decades ago, and our position is only worse now than it was then.

China is an even tougher situation for us that North Korea. In their case they do have the technology to attack the US directly with nuclear weapons of devastating power. At this point nuking China is a first class ticket to nuclear holocaust. It helps that our relations with China are quite a bit better than those with Iran and North Korea (hence their not being in the Axis of Evil©).
In the end conflict with China is most likely as a result of their trying to forcefully reunify with Taiwan. I would hope that they continue to progress toward capitalism and that with these economic reforms we see political reforms that bring them democracy. One day soon, I could see China as our most powerful ally. If that day does not come, we should have plans in place for both conventional and nuclear war against China.

I disagree. Right now, the United States is basically a global hegemon. The entire middle east could unite under common purpose and it would not be able to drive out American influence. Beyond that, I don't see the middle east uniting anyway, especially based on a tactical strike against Iran. To expand that to a gigantic Muslim superstate is preposterous. That would be like predicting the rise of a humongous Christian superstate following the attack on the WTC. We couldn't even rally the UN to attack Iraq.

Possible, but Pakistan is pretty much entirely counterbalanced by India. Those two contries are locked in too much of a stalemate for me to see Pakistan projecting much power. At most they could take total control of some backward central asian country like Afghanistan.

A bit late to worry about that. Who do you think is exporting Wahabbism?

Highly unlikely. Pakistan has enough to worry about with India, and there is nobody else to provide the weapons to wipe out Israel. Israel's biggest concern if they take out any nuclear weapon facilities would be a pan-Arab conventional war along the lines of the 1948 war. They have consistantly shown an ability to be successful in such wars, but that is no guarantee of future success. Such an attack is not guaranteed as a result though.

 

The explicit rationale defined under the UNSC resolution authorizing Desert Storm stated that Iraq had invaded another soveriegn country in violation of UN principles. How come Iraq invading Kuwait counts as an invasion of a soveriegn country but not Iraq invading Iran?

I didn't write the UNSC resolution or advocate it for the UN so its not my credibility on the line then but GH Bush's UN ambassador.

 

No offense but your response to my comment sounded pretty much on edge considering you called out my credibility when I was relaying the official justification (as stated in both the UNSC resolution and Congressional resolution) for Gulf War 1.

 

I agree there are lots of facts that would support the assumption that Iran is developing nukes but I think the problem is that you just stated the assumption and used that as the basis of your argument. As I said we do a lot of speculating, and that includes myself, but it would be nice to back that up. As for there being no facts regarding that Iran isn't developing a nuclear weapon that I would say is an incorrect assumption. There is the fact that Iran has stated it isn't doing so. While you may not choose to believe it that is a fact they said it. There is also the fact that the IAEA inspectors have yet to find evidence that would lead to a definitive conclusion of weapons development as opposed to just energy development. It is an assumption either way whether Iran is or is not developing nuclear weapons.

 

I know what you were saying. I said applying that same rational for Iraq vs. Iran was ludicrous, which stands true. That's why it sounded on edge. Sorry, no offense was intended at all. I'll be more "civil" next time.