Israel Preparing to Attack Iran - on it's own

[ski_adk]

I say we treat them like peers, rather than subordinates. We go to the table, talk with them, find middle ground and build an alliance and partnership. We don't want them to build nukes, then we need to offer them assurances that they don't need them. They demand the right to research nuclear power, then we assist them and negotiate for IAEA/UN inspections.

In other words, if we want to make forward strives in the Middle East then we must provide positive incentives. Punishment will only lead to resentment. Remember, resentment is exactly why Hitler was able to come to power in the first place.

And sorry for speaking for you, I just got the vibe that you advocate war/hostilities with Iran, XJ.

[BigKahuna13]

Actually, it's the allied powers preventing talks and negotiations. Iran is offering -- and quite openly if you follow foreign press -- talks, but the West refuses to unless Iran stops everything they're doing. So, what the hell does that gain?

US: We want you to stop what you're doing before we talk.
Iran: Come on over any time, we'll be happy to talk.
US: Not until you stop what you're doing.
Iran: No, we won't stop. We're a sovereign nation and can do what we want. But if you're concerned, come on over, lets talk.
US: Not until you stop.

So, basically, instead of entering into negotiations, our administration would rather play hardball, not talk, and basically is letting Iran continue their development program. And now, this administration and you feel as though we should attack their facilities, impose trade embargos and blockades through sanctions, sink their society back into poverty and you think this is going to help the situation??? You can't be serious!

Whoa, easy there! I don't think I ever said that I think we should attack and impose trade embargos and blockades through sanctions.

Iran is violating the nuclear arms treaty. They need to stop their nuclear program so they're no longer in violation and then are in a position to negotiate.

The Bush administration somehow views diplomacy as "rewarding" bad behavior and thus refuse to talk to Iran as they also refuse to talk to the North Korea. That has got to be the most completely assinine, dumb-f**k thing that I have ever heard. The point of diplomacy is not to "reward" the "evil-doers", it's to try to fix a problem without getting a shitload of people killed.

And how long to do we talk? We'll considering that Iran is nowhere near building a serviceable weapon - as far as we can tell at this point - at least for a while longer.

So ... like I asked above. What do you think we should do?

Thought I answered that. We talk to them. We negotiate with them. We offer them incentives to see things our way. Telling them to stop and then we'll talk is sheer idiocy. They have no reason to stop and we just paint ourselves into a corner where we have no choice but to go to war to get them to stop.

If - and only if - negotiations fail and when - and only when - they appear to be getting nuclear weapons in the near term, then we can start to think about military alternative. That is if we have any troops to spare at the time.

If and when it becomes

[XtremeJibber2001]

I say we treat them like peers, rather than subordinates. We go to the table, talk with them, find middle ground and build an alliance and partnership. We don't want them to build nukes, then we need to offer them assurances that they don't need them. They demand the right to research nuclear power, then we assist them and negotiate for IAEA/UN inspections.

In other words, if we want to make forward strives in the Middle East then we must provide positive incentives. Punishment will only lead to resentment. Remember, resentment is exactly why Hitler was able to come to power in the first place.

And sorry for speaking for you, I just got the vibe that you advocate war/hostilities with Iran, XJ.

I disagree. They are in violation of the nuclear arms treaty. So we reward them by allowing them to continue and stall as we talk nice with them. They have already refused alternatives proposed by Russia. They are refusing IAEA/UN inspections currently because they know what will be found ... a WMD program and not nuclear power research. Otherwise, why refuse inspectors?

Outside of what Russia had already offered, how much sweeter of a deal do you think the US and the international community could possible offer? Even then Iranian's president would probably bait and switch the entire international community. There is no amount of money, programs, incentives, and equipment that will make Ahmadejad (sp?) acknowledge Israel as a soveirgn nation.

I think we need to stay out of Iran for as long as we can. Let Israel and the international determine any pre-emptive action. It's still too early tho, IMHO.

Thought I answered that. We talk to them. We negotiate with them. We offer them incentives to see things our way. Telling them to stop and then we'll talk is sheer idiocy. They have no reason to stop and we just paint ourselves into a corner where we have no choice but to go to war to get them to stop.

If - and only if - negotiations fail and when - and only when - they appear to be getting nuclear weapons in the near term, then we can start to think about military alternative. That is if we have any troops to spare at the time.

If and when it becomes

See above. I think it's foolish to think some incentive and money will change this mad mans mind. He stands strong with his aggression towards Israel, I don't think anyone can change that.

[BigKahuna13]

See above. I think it's foolish to think some incentive and money will change this mad mans mind. He stands strong with his aggression towards Israel, I don't think anyone can change that.

Until we actually try, that's just so much speculation.

I for one, don't want to get any more of our people killed based on guesses. Enough of that's happened already.

[XtremeJibber2001]

See above. I think it's foolish to think some incentive and money will change this mad mans mind. He stands strong with his aggression towards Israel, I don't think anyone can change that.

Until we actually try, that's just so much speculation.

I for one, don't want to get any more of our people killed based on guesses. Enough of that's happened already.

I agree, but unfortunately, I don't think incentives is what Iran wants. Iran wants power and wants Israel wiped off the map.

[ski_adk]

I agree, but unfortunately, I don't think incentives is what Iran wants. Iran wants power and wants Israel wiped off the map.

mmm...propaganda strong with this one it is.

[XtremeJibber2001]

I agree, but unfortunately, I don't think incentives is what Iran wants. Iran wants power and wants Israel wiped off the map.

mmm...propaganda strong with this one it is.

We haven't seen otherwise, have we

[ski_adk]

I dunno man, I just don't want to see more war. The hotter things get over there, the closer to all-out war we get. Don't forget, China and Russia have HUGE oil contracts with Iran. If we or Israel attack Iran, things get a whole lot more interesting. Alliances have been formed that are very reminiscient of WW1. An attack on Iran will very likely mobilize those alliances and bring a war that could dwarf WW1 & WW2 combined.

Is risking such a disaster really worth it? Will history look kindly upon us if our direct actions lead to WW3?

[XtremeJibber2001]

I dunno man, I just don't want to see more war. The hotter things get over there, the closer to all-out war we get. Don't forget, China and Russia have HUGE oil contracts with Iran. If we or Israel attack Iran, things get a whole lot more interesting. Alliances have been formed that are very reminiscient of WW1. An attack on Iran will very likely mobilize those alliances and bring a war that could dwarf WW1 & WW2 combined.

Is risking such a disaster really worth it? Will history look kindly upon us if our direct actions lead to WW3?

No it's certainly not worth it. I see what you mean and I don't want WW3 either. We were lucky enough to be liberators in WWII, we shouldn't be ignitors of WWIII.

Pakistan and India have nukes and they seem to be tempered. I wonder if a WMD holding Iran is THAT dangerous ... both NK and Iran seem to be developing WMD's not to attack the world, but to protect themselves. If that's the case, it doesn't really bother me. I don't think Iran would nuke anyone without facing total destruction.

[ABushismaDay]

Why is it that Isrsael is allowed to develop weapons of mass destruction, but it's neighbors are not? Mordechai Vanunu blew the whistle on them, but the UN doesn't sanction them. No one seems to care that Israel did sign on board to the treaty. The world seems to have forgotten that inconvenient thruth. Currently Iran is excersing it's right , as a signatory state of the NPT, to the development of an uranium enrichment program, for its civilian nuclear energy program. There has yet to be concrete proof that they are doing anything else but that. This is similiar to the sh*t stories we were feed before the Iraq war. I agree with ADK

"I say we treat them like peers, rather than subordinates. We go to the table, talk with them, find middle ground and build an alliance and partnership. We don't want them to build nukes, then we need to offer them assurances that they don't need them. They demand the right to research nuclear power, then we assist them and negotiate for IAEA/UN inspections. "

[XtremeJibber2001]

Why is it that Isrsael is allowed to develop weapons of mass destruction, but it's neighbors are not? Mordechai Vanunu blew the whistle on them, but the UN doesn't sanction them. No one seems to care that Israel did sign on board to the treaty.

I think Ohmert and Ahmadinejad are on two different pages. Ahmadinejad states time and time again he wishes to destory Israel. I think he and Iran is more a threat than Ohmert and Israel. Israel is on the defensive, but it seems Iran wants or could go on the offfensive. Those are the two big differences, not to mention Iran's ties with several Islamic Militant (terrorist?) groups.