Israel Preparing to Attack Iran - on it's own

Vinny Vincenzo · Post by **Vinny Vincenzo** » Aug 24th, '06, 13:11

Jerusalem Post

Israel may 'go it alone' against Iran

Israel is carefully watching the world's reaction to Iran's continued refusal to suspend uranium enrichment, with some high-level officials arguing it is now clear that when it comes to stopping Iran, Israel "may have to go it alone," The Jerusalem Post has learned. . .

Full Article

ski_adk · Post by **ski_adk** » Aug 24th, '06, 14:15

Well, they did just buy 2 nuclear-capable subs. It might be just to show Iran some MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) to discourage Iran from striking first, or maybe those crazy idiots really do want to spark WW3. I'm hoping for the prior, but something tells me that within most of our lifetimes, we will see the latter.

BigKahuna13 · Post by **BigKahuna13** » Aug 24th, '06, 14:51

ski_adk wrote:Well, they did just buy 2 nuclear-capable subs. It might be just to show Iran some MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) to discourage Iran from striking first, or maybe those crazy idiots really do want to spark WW3. I'm hoping for the prior, but something tells me that within most of our lifetimes, we will see the latter.

Which crazy idiots? Quite honestly, if I were running Israel, I'd be more than a little nervous about a nuclear armed Iran. The Israeli's may well be idiots - they've done some stupid ass things recently - but the Iranian President strikes me as flat out insane.

Dr. NO · Post by **Dr. NO** » Aug 24th, '06, 15:17

ski_adk wrote:Well, they did just buy 2 nuclear-capable subs. It might be just to show Iran some MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) to discourage Iran from striking first, or maybe those crazy idiots really do want to spark WW3. I'm hoping for the prior, but something tells me that within most of our lifetimes, we will see the latter.

I don't think the leaders of Iran are concerned with MAD. If they are going after the Infedels and all is destroyed, they believe they will be elevated to Heaven with Alah and Mohamed. They got nothing to lose.

Of course, the rest of the country is probably shitting bricks right now waiting for one of their reactors to be bombed into a meltdown.

Isreal is not into the PORK products thing either, but I think we should provide them with enough pork by-products to ensure any attack would cover large areas of Iran, and advertise that fact.

XtremeJibber2001 · Post by **XtremeJibber2001** » Aug 24th, '06, 15:17

BigKahuna13 wrote:
ski_adk wrote:Well, they did just buy 2 nuclear-capable subs. It might be just to show Iran some MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) to discourage Iran from striking first, or maybe those crazy idiots really do want to spark WW3. I'm hoping for the prior, but something tells me that within most of our lifetimes, we will see the latter.
Which crazy idiots? Quite honestly, if I were running Israel, I'd be more than a little nervous about a nuclear armed Iran. The Israeli's may well be idiots - they've done some stupid ass things recently - but the Iranian President strikes me as flat out insane.

As much as I don't want to see it (especially with our troops next door) a pre-emptive strike may halt any attempts by Iran to go nuclear.

Lets face it, even if the UN imposes sanctions (doubtful), Iran will still do as it pleases just like Iraq did. Look for a oil for food scandal all over again too.

On the other hand, what if Iran just wants nuclear power and really doesn't want a WMD program?

Dr. NO · Post by **Dr. NO** » Aug 24th, '06, 15:31

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
BigKahuna13 wrote:
ski_adk wrote:Well, they did just buy 2 nuclear-capable subs. It might be just to show Iran some MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) to discourage Iran from striking first, or maybe those crazy idiots really do want to spark WW3. I'm hoping for the prior, but something tells me that within most of our lifetimes, we will see the latter.
Which crazy idiots? Quite honestly, if I were running Israel, I'd be more than a little nervous about a nuclear armed Iran. The Israeli's may well be idiots - they've done some stupid ass things recently - but the Iranian President strikes me as flat out insane.
As much as I don't want to see it (especially with our troops next door) a pre-emptive strike may halt any attempts by Iran to go nuclear.

Lets face it, even if the UN imposes sanctions (doubtful), Iran will still do as it pleases just like Iraq did. Look for a oil for food scandal all over again too.

On the other hand, what if Iran just wants nuclear power and really doesn't want a WMD program?

you don't required enriched uranium and Plutonium to run a reactor for power.

ski_adk · Post by **ski_adk** » Aug 25th, '06, 09:06

1. It was Israel that bought the subs. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... e/ShowFull

2. If I was Iran, I'd feel that I had a right to nuclear power. When other countries say "no, you can't" or say "only if you do it OUR way" I'd think my sovereignty was greatly threatened. The West's unilateralist approach to Iran is only going to embolden their "f*ck you" mentality. Now, with the threat of crippling sanctions, allied troops on both the Iraq and Afghani borders and a newly militant Israel, I can understand why they're feeling threatened. Plus, they witnessed first-hand what happens when you really don't have the WMD -- your gov't is toppled and the people suffer severely under an incompetent occupation.

BigKahuna13 · Post by **BigKahuna13** » Aug 25th, '06, 09:47

ski_adk wrote:1. It was Israel that bought the subs. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... e/ShowFull

2. If I was Iran, I'd feel that I had a right to nuclear power. When other countries say "no, you can't" or say "only if you do it OUR way" I'd think my sovereignty was greatly threatened. The West's unilateralist approach to Iran is only going to embolden their "f*ck you" mentality. Now, with the threat of crippling sanctions, allied troops on both the Iraq and Afghani borders and a newly militant Israel, I can understand why they're feeling threatened. Plus, they witnessed first-hand what happens when you really don't have the WMD -- your gov't is toppled and the people suffer severely under an incompetent occupation.

While I agree we've done a horrible job of managing the Iran situation, don't be deluded into the fantasy that they only want nuclear power plants. Make no mistake about it, they want nuclear weapons. And we cannot afford to let them have them.

ski_adk · Post by **ski_adk** » Aug 25th, '06, 09:53

Well, if we or Israel attack Iran, then we'll be at war with yet another country...the second time we've done this on the concept of pre-emptive war. Are you saying we should start a war with yet another middle eastern power? And on what basis? Because you were scared?

BigKahuna13 · Post by **BigKahuna13** » Aug 25th, '06, 10:02

ski_adk wrote:Well, if we or Israel attack Iran, then we'll be at war with yet another country...the second time we've done this on the concept of pre-emptive war. Are you saying we should start a war with yet another middle eastern power? And on what basis? Because you were scared?

No, although it may ultimately come to that. We need to try diplomacy first, which is something the current administration refuses to do.

Dr. NO · Post by **Dr. NO** » Aug 25th, '06, 10:12

BigKahuna13 wrote:
ski_adk wrote:Well, if we or Israel attack Iran, then we'll be at war with yet another country...the second time we've done this on the concept of pre-emptive war. Are you saying we should start a war with yet another middle eastern power? And on what basis? Because you were scared?
No, although it may ultimately come to that. We need to try diplomacy first, which is something the current administration refuses to do.

wait a minute. You mean the 14 years of ignoring the UN and the nations was not trying diplomacy? And, what of the UN resolutions and the agreements attempted to be reached by members of the UN security council? This is not diplomacy? We talk and they say NO. We make offers (don't forget the offers we GAVE Korea) and they say F YOU. At some point you can't keep talking while they continue to arm.

Hitler talked for about 6 to 8 years, the entire time building his weapons and armies. But the US, France, Russia and GB just kept on talking to him.

XtremeJibber2001 · Post by **XtremeJibber2001** » Aug 25th, '06, 10:18

BigKahuna13 wrote:
ski_adk wrote:Well, if we or Israel attack Iran, then we'll be at war with yet another country...the second time we've done this on the concept of pre-emptive war. Are you saying we should start a war with yet another middle eastern power? And on what basis? Because you were scared?
No, although it may ultimately come to that. We need to try diplomacy first, which is something the current administration refuses to do.

How much more diplomatic do you want the admin to be? I think they're doing a great job, but Iran refuses to cooperate. What do you suggest the admin do differently to negotiate the end of Iran's nuke program?

ski_adk · Post by **ski_adk** » Aug 25th, '06, 11:31

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!

BigKahuna13 · Post by **BigKahuna13** » Aug 25th, '06, 12:18

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
BigKahuna13 wrote:
ski_adk wrote:Well, if we or Israel attack Iran, then we'll be at war with yet another country...the second time we've done this on the concept of pre-emptive war. Are you saying we should start a war with yet another middle eastern power? And on what basis? Because you were scared?
No, although it may ultimately come to that. We need to try diplomacy first, which is something the current administration refuses to do.
How much more diplomatic do you want the admin to be? I think they're doing a great job, but Iran refuses to cooperate. What do you suggest the admin do differently to negotiate the end of Iran's nuke program?

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.

XtremeJibber2001 · Post by **XtremeJibber2001** » Aug 25th, '06, 12:34

ski_adk wrote: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.

BigKahuna13 wrote: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?