PDA

View Full Version : Isreal: We'll go alone and take out Iran Nukes



behindmydesk
12-04-2008, 09:55 AM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5284173.ece


Israel is drawing up plans to attack Iran's nuclear facilities and is prepared to launch a strike without backing from the US, it has been reported.

Officials in the Israeli Defence Ministry told the Jerusalem Post that while they prefer to act in consultation with the US, they were preparing plans that would allow them to act in isolation.

"It is always better to coordinate," a senior Defence Ministry official told the newspaper. "But we are also preparing options that do not include coordination."

However defence officials played down the reports today, telling The Times that an attack by Israeli forces alone would probably fail to take out all of Iran’s nuclear facilities, which experts say are scattered across several sites, some deep underground.

Related Links
Israel fears US will dither while Iran goes nuclear
Iran 'has enough uranium to build a bomb'
“We could not risk an operation which would only partially succeed," one defence official told The Times.

"That would leave us open to a nuclear attack from Iran’s remaining weapons stock. Israel would likely need the support, the backing, of forces from a Western ally to successfully carry out the operation,” he said.

A senior Israeli official quotes in the Jerusalem Post said that while it would be difficult, it would not be impossible to launch a strike against Iran without permission from the US.

"There are a wide range of risks one takes when embarking on such an operation," a senior Israeli official was quoted as saying.

The US Airforce controls the Iraqi airspace Israel's jets would have to cross on a bombing mission and access to codes from the Americans, would “significantly improve” Israel’s chances of a successful strike on Iran, an official told The Times.

He added that because the Iranians have been moving the bunkers deep underground, sophisticated weaponry would be needed to successfully destroy the facilities.

Responding to reports that Israel would use low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, the official said the method was largely speculative and unreliable.

Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, has reportedly asked the US for a green light to attack Iranian facilities as recently as May.

According to Israeli officials, the US denied the request, although it outfitted Israel with the X-band radar system which would shave several crucial minutes off Israel’s reaction time to an Iranian missile launch, and allow the United States to oversee Israel’s airspace.

“There is always the option of Israel going it alone. It just does not seem like a good option at present time,” an Israeli MP told the Times.

There are three central locations where experts believe Iranian facilities are producing goods for nuclear weapons.

Israeli officials named these sites as: Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges produce enriched uranium; Isfahan, where 250 tons of gas are stores in tunnels; and Arak, where a heavy water reactor produces plutonium.

Israeli officials said they were heartened that international sanctions on Iran were having an effect, but did not feel they were enough to stop Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

The most recent Israeli intelligence reports estimate that Iran will have enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in late 2009, barring any interruptions in its programme.

"There is still time and there is no need to rush into an operation right now," another Israeli official said. "The regime there is already falling apart and will likely no longer be in power 10 years from now."

On Monday, Teheran dismissed the possibility of an Israeli strike, saying it didn't take Israel seriously.

"We think that regional and international developments and the complicated situation faced by Israel itself will not allow it to launch military strikes against other countries," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi told reporters in Teheran, adding that "Israel makes threats to promote its psychological and media warfare.

Some Israeli security officials fear that the Iranian retaliation for a strike on its facilities could include a large-scale missile attack on Israel from several Iranian allies, disruption of oil supplies to the West, and terror attacks against Jewish targets around the world.




Def a test for Obama. Because he'd basically have to give the green light. Something GW hasn't done. Have Isreal bomb Iran, would def help us out, but the whole world would know that we gave them the go ahead.

SmthBluCitrus
12-04-2008, 10:11 AM
No, that would be a horrid idea, and Israel would risk another all-out war from surrounding countries. Syria would immediately invade Israel, Egypt may attack, I'm not sure we could fully realize Jordan's intentions.

The last thing that Israel needs is to appear an aggressor in the region. The best we can hope for is unanimous Middle Eastern consent (sans Iranian, naturally) and a global strike at Iran's facilities; but the very last thing that can happen -- and the absolute worst -- is a bi-lateral Israeli-American strike (even if Israel is the only nation involved militarily).

ari1013
12-04-2008, 10:12 AM
You're right that Israel is testing Obama, but this is more a show of strength to the region. In the Middle East if you don't talk the talk, you start to look weak. Israel can't afford to have Hezbullah try to test Obama's mettle.

behindmydesk
12-04-2008, 10:18 AM
No, that would be a horrid idea, and Israel would risk another all-out war from surrounding countries. Syria would immediately invade Israel, Egypt may attack, I'm not sure we could fully realize Jordan's intentions.

The last thing that Israel needs is to appear an aggressor in the region. The best we can hope for is unanimous Middle Eastern consent (sans Iranian, naturally) and a global strike at Iran's facilities; but the very last thing that can happen -- and the absolute worst -- is a bi-lateral Israeli-American strike (even if Israel is the only nation involved militarily).

I def agree with you. But heck the whole world and kuwait and SA from the ME were behind us for Iraq basically. Russia a bit no and china. But still. And that's all changed. I don't think you'd get an increased global coalition then what we had to go to Iraq, to go to Iran. Russia def won't be behind us, heck they might support Iran. Something has to be done but I agree Isreal doing it on their own would start a huge problem. It's a tough situation for Obama


You're right that Israel is testing Obama, but this is more a show of strength to the region. In the Middle East if you don't talk the talk, you start to look weak. Israel can't afford to have Hezbullah try to test Obama's mettle.
Damn skippy on the talk the talk.

jrice9
12-04-2008, 12:57 PM
Israel has a right to look out for its protection if its a non civilian target on a country with an insane leader

SmthBluCitrus
12-04-2008, 01:13 PM
That would be assuming that Ahmadinejad actually was in control of his country. But, he's just a public figurehead representing a government that is actually controlled by Ali Khamenei.

And, it wouldn't necessarily be seen as a protective move. It would cause Israel to be an aggressor in an already unstable region that would lead to even further instability that would further detract whatever progress has been made in Iraq.

There are diplomatic routes that need to be taken before a strike of that capacity can be undertaken; and considering how Iraq was initially handled, there is a global consent that much be achieved. A consent that could likely be achieved if other means fail.

Wrigleyboy25
12-04-2008, 02:00 PM
Good! Go get it done Israel. And hopefully if they need some backup Obama will step up.

But let's let someone else do the dirty work for once.

SmthBluCitrus
12-04-2008, 02:10 PM
Wrigs -- Israel doing that would set off a crisis in the Middle East, and potentially globally, unlike one we've ever seen before.

YanksFan4Life
12-04-2008, 03:16 PM
All this talk of finding a diplomatic solution reminded me of this cartoon:

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/jlemke/papers/peace.htm

Yes, it's Arafat and Netanyahu, but it highlights the point that they'll never stop fighting in the Middle East. Ever.

Wrigleyboy25
12-04-2008, 03:50 PM
Wrigs -- Israel doing that would set off a crisis in the Middle East, and potentially globally, unlike one we've ever seen before.
I suppose a nuclear war would be less of a crisis?

SmthBluCitrus
12-04-2008, 03:54 PM
I suppose a nuclear war would be less of a crisis?

Yep, because those are the only two options. Either Israel unilaterally bombs Iran or we face a Nuclear Armageddon.

Doc Fluty
12-04-2008, 05:03 PM
this is not good. If Isreal sets this thing off then russia will defend iran and we will support israel ..russia has warships in venezuala right now... and just oh boy.. id move to um.. hmmm.. ummm mexico?

does anyone wanna carpool? lol

SmthBluCitrus
12-04-2008, 05:11 PM
Nah, Mexico's too hot. Besides, Canada's closer to me. ;)

behindmydesk
12-04-2008, 05:22 PM
Croatia for me. I think Croat women are gorgeous, it's has a great beach (from the pictures) and the cost of living seems good.

SmthBluCitrus
12-04-2008, 05:38 PM
Croatia's in Eastern Europe though -- you could be in the direct line of fire when Russia invades Central and Western Europe in an offensive thrust move.

behindmydesk
12-04-2008, 05:40 PM
Croatia's in Eastern Europe though -- you could be in the direct line of fire when Russia invades Central and Western Europe in an offensive thrust move.

Yea but the Russians could do a power grab for Alaska, after all it was just "leased to us" (according to some russians) So if that happens, Canada could be the battle ground for the war.

SmthBluCitrus
12-04-2008, 05:41 PM
Fair enough -- and I'd probably want to be in the Vancouver area.

I guess we're all screwed ...

cabernetluver
12-04-2008, 05:48 PM
Oh I am just going to go to Alaska, so I can see Russia from my porch

behindmydesk
12-04-2008, 06:07 PM
FunFact. It was actually Tina Fay who said I can see them from my porch. It was not Sarah Palin. Something like 87% of people polled actually thought Sarah herself said it. Sarah was asked by Charlie Gibson of ABC. This is the exchange

IBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.



It's amazing how many times people knock her on that and she never said it (no offense Cab, you might be joking, I have no idea). If you are one that thought she did say it, dont' feel bad, like I said a poll was done and 87% said it was her not tina fay

Randy West
12-04-2008, 07:04 PM
Nuking Iran would not send the middle east into turmoil

It is already there

I know I know Israel should wait until Iran has a nuke and actually uses it

But no not really

SmthBluCitrus
12-04-2008, 08:21 PM
Nuking Iran would not send the middle east into turmoil

It is already there

I know I know Israel should wait until Iran has a nuke and actually uses it

But no not really

Wow ... I don't even know how to respond to this.

-------------------------------

First, nobody is advocating "nuking" Iran. I am so sick of people saying that we should just "nuke" the Middle East, turn it into a sheet of glass, and be done with it ... as though their life is any more important than the random Iranian, Saudi, Kuwaiti, or Iraqi civilian life.

Second, I love the immediate conclusion that there are only two options on the table -- either Israel bombs Iranian nuclear facilities or Iran gets the bomb. That's basically the short view extent of it. Option A or option B.

Understand this: There is middle ground. Believe it or not, it's true. And, surprisingly (to some), the best available option isn't nuclear war. We've avoided it thus far and we can continue to do so.

It is time to understand that there is a world bigger than you and bigger than America itself.

cambovenzi
12-04-2008, 08:28 PM
i know "nuking" isnt the best option.
but RW raised a good point.
they cant wait around waiting for themselves to get nuked before they do anything.

jrice9
12-04-2008, 09:23 PM
The problem is Israel has given up and wants peace so badly while the Arabs (or at least their leaders) want to wipe them off the planet. Israel shouldnt have to wait for Iran to get nukes and then kill them. Israel has never iniated a war and this would be a fair one to start. Unless the US guarentees the safety of Israel and will do all actions to protect it from Iran etc Israel must take the matter in their own hands

ari1013
12-04-2008, 10:06 PM
The problem is Israel has given up and wants peace so badly while the Arabs (or at least their leaders) want to wipe them off the planet. Israel shouldnt have to wait for Iran to get nukes and then kill them. Israel has never iniated a war and this would be a fair one to start. Unless the US guarentees the safety of Israel and will do all actions to protect it from Iran etc Israel must take the matter in their own hands
Kind of... Lately we've looked for excuses to start conflicts when we need them.

But as I said, it's all about matching rhetoric. There's no way either country is serious about their nuclear threats.

You all are thinking about this from an American perspective. You gotta take off those red, white, and blue shades and think about it from the Middle Eastern perspective. Talk is cheap -- and so it gets thrown around a lot.

Game_Over
12-04-2008, 11:01 PM
Isreal isn't planning a Nuke of Iran incase some have forgot Isreal has bombed Iran with planes before and didn't lose one plane!! Of course they are American made lol.. They are going to try and take out any Nuke plant in Iran.. I am all for it and here is why, if Iran gets a Nuke they will use it and they will use it on Isreal and Isreal has plenty of Nukes and will Nuke them back.. The president of Iran already has said he wants to whipe Isreal off the map!! Is that a guy you want in control of Nukes?? That is why Isreal is going to do this and I am all for it!! It didn't lead to WWIII last time and it won't this time, yeah the US will help with letting them go through Iraq but we won't bomb anyone and it will be a safer place!! Untill Iran gets a decent person in office who doesn't want to whipe out any other country and just wants to improve his country, you MUST keep Nukes out of their hands!!!

jrice9
12-04-2008, 11:48 PM
Israel helps the USA along with itself by basically being the lone voice of reason within a region of radicals who hate the USA. The USA should back up Israel on almost all of its endeavors. This is something I feel very strongly about despite living in Canda and never going to Israel

YanksFan4Life
12-04-2008, 11:55 PM
FunFact. It was actually Tina Fay who said I can see them from my porch. It was not Sarah Palin. Something like 87% of people polled actually thought Sarah herself said it. Sarah was asked by Charlie Gibson of ABC. This is the exchange

IBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.



It's amazing how many times people knock her on that and she never said it (no offense Cab, you might be joking, I have no idea). If you are one that thought she did say it, dont' feel bad, like I said a poll was done and 87% said it was her not tina fay

Even more fun fact: Bush never said strategery until after Will Farrell said it on SNL, and even then, he made it clear that he was joking when he used it.

jrice9
12-05-2008, 12:01 AM
Even more fun fact: Bush never said strategery until after Will Farrell said it on SNL, and even then, he made it clear that he was joking when he used it.
I am a complete centrist based on those politcal tests and I supported Obama but I actually dont think Bush was that bad a president. He had a pretty crappy situation and he wasnt the best candidate but he did a fine job and history will appreciate him as time goes on much like the earlier years of Rosevelt and even guys like Nixon etc

SmthBluCitrus
12-05-2008, 12:42 AM
Isreal isn't planning a Nuke of Iran incase some have forgot Isreal has bombed Iran with planes before and didn't lose one plane!! Of course they are American made lol.. They are going to try and take out any Nuke plant in Iran.. I am all for it and here is why, if Iran gets a Nuke they will use it and they will use it on Isreal and Isreal has plenty of Nukes and will Nuke them back.. The president of Iran already has said he wants to whipe Isreal off the map!! Is that a guy you want in control of Nukes?? That is why Isreal is going to do this and I am all for it!! It didn't lead to WWIII last time and it won't this time, yeah the US will help with letting them go through Iraq but we won't bomb anyone and it will be a safer place!! Untill Iran gets a decent person in office who doesn't want to whipe out any other country and just wants to improve his country, you MUST keep Nukes out of their hands!!!

I just wanted to clarify this.

Israel hasn't bombed Iran ... ever. They did bomb a Baghdad (Iraqi) nuclear reactor June 7, 1981. But, that is certainly not Iran. I also believe that the Iranian leadership council (at that time) praised that specific bombing raid. One of those "the enemy of my enemy" things.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad more than likely has zero control over any Iranian weaponry programs. That would fall under the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's authority, and the senior leadership council (consisting of two others). Not that I'd want that type of weaponry in his hands, either. However, Khamenei has a stated opposition to nuclear weaponry -- he claims that Islam "forbids them."

Game_Over
12-05-2008, 01:52 AM
My bad I was going off memory and thought it was Iran, either way its the same thing.. Didn't lead to a WW and this won't either.. Iran needs to be stopped!!

behindmydesk
12-05-2008, 08:54 AM
I'm going off memory just for fun without looking it up. I think Isreal has bombed, Iraq, Syria, and Egypt?

behindmydesk
12-05-2008, 09:23 AM
I just wanted to clarify this.

Israel hasn't bombed Iran ... ever. They did bomb a Baghdad (Iraqi) nuclear reactor June 7, 1981. But, that is certainly not Iran. I also believe that the Iranian leadership council (at that time) praised that specific bombing raid. One of those "the enemy of my enemy" things.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad more than likely has zero control over any Iranian weaponry programs. That would fall under the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's authority, and the senior leadership council (consisting of two others). Not that I'd want that type of weaponry in his hands, either. However, Khamenei has a stated opposition to nuclear weaponry -- he claims that Islam "forbids them."

This is purely my opinion, but I really think Ahmadinejad (thanks for spelling that because I would have no shot at spelling it correctly) is gaining a lot of actual power.

As much as i'm a hawk. I don't think striking Iran right now is the right thing to do. We need to contain them, and make sure they dont' get nuclear reactors. But that means working with Russia to make them stopping helping Iran. I think they are helping Iran, for one they need the money, and 2 in retaliation to our defense system in Europe. While doing that, keep trying to get western culture to flood the streets of Iran. Their is starting to become unrest in the people of Iran. That I think is the best solution.

SmthBluCitrus
12-05-2008, 09:48 AM
This is purely my opinion, but I really think Ahmadinejad (thanks for spelling that because I would have no shot at spelling it correctly) is gaining a lot of actual power.

As much as i'm a hawk. I don't think striking Iran right now is the right thing to do. We need to contain them, and make sure they dont' get nuclear reactors. But that means working with Russia to make them stopping helping Iran. I think they are helping Iran, for one they need the money, and 2 in retaliation to our defense system in Europe. While doing that, keep trying to get western culture to flood the streets of Iran. Their is starting to become unrest in the people of Iran. That I think is the best solution.

I think he's just better known globally. But, as far as actual authority within Iran, I believe he has very little say so. At least when it comes to the 'important' issues.

The President of Iran is really just a figurehead and a representative of the controlling government. Both of which are subject to the Supreme Leader -- and the Assembly of Experts (which is kind of similar to a Parliament with the exception that I don't believe they're elected officials; I could be wrong). But, the Supreme Leader is the one at the front of the decision making process, program oversight, and appointments of officials.

As to your second point, I (mostly) agree. I'm not so sure we can actually get Western culture "flooding the streets" or Iran--they're pretty big on the idea of Westoxification, the idea that Western culture is diminishing Islam. But, we do need to work with the world, including Russia, in order to deter Iran. That means getting to the table with Syria and driving a wedge between that relationship.

If the path ultimately dictates military intervention, than so be it. But, I really believe that has to be the last resort. The United States can not afford to go the route of direct nation building in another Middle Eastern state.

Game_Over
12-05-2008, 12:32 PM
I'm going off memory just for fun without looking it up. I think Isreal has bombed, Iraq, Syria, and Egypt?

,,l,, Hey atleast I admited I was wrong, I am sure you have never been!! Once again ,,l,,!!!

ari1013
12-05-2008, 12:39 PM
I'm going off memory just for fun without looking it up. I think Isreal has bombed, Iraq, Syria, and Egypt?
IsrAEl (A before E) has bombed/taken out targets in several Arab nations preemptively when there were threats of ballistic missiles and other weaponry being built. Egypt in 1967; Jordan in 1967; Lebanon in 1973; Iraq in 1981; Syria in 2007.

But all of those were real threats.

If Iran was anything more than rhetoric, you can be sure something would have happened already.

behindmydesk
12-05-2008, 01:02 PM
,,l,, Hey atleast I admited I was wrong, I am sure you have never been!! Once again ,,l,,!!!

Oh I wasn't saying anything for you, I was just saying without looking it up seeing if I could remember, mostly for my own amusement. Didn't mean any ill to you Game Over.


IsrAEl (A before E) has bombed/taken out targets in several Arab nations preemptively when there were threats of ballistic missiles and other weaponry being built. Egypt in 1967; Jordan in 1967; Lebanon in 1973; Iraq in 1981; Syria in 2007.

But all of those were real threats.

If Iran was anything more than rhetoric, you can be sure something would have happened already.
Woops sorry on the spelling. Forgot Jordan damn't.

Also I think Iran is a real threat, and it's more then rhetoric, or atleast is fastly becoming more then Rhetoric.

Game_Over
12-05-2008, 01:43 PM
Oh I wasn't saying anything for you, I was just saying without looking it up seeing if I could remember, mostly for my own amusement. Didn't mean any ill to you Game Over. .

Sorry I thought you were talking crap lol, usually in the political forums people talk crap so my bad:cheers:

jrice9
12-05-2008, 01:49 PM
IsrAEl (A before E) has bombed/taken out targets in several Arab nations preemptively when there were threats of ballistic missiles and other weaponry being built. Egypt in 1967; Jordan in 1967; Lebanon in 1973; Iraq in 1981; Syria in 2007.

But all of those were real threats.

If Iran was anything more than rhetoric, you can be sure something would have happened already.
Look I agree with you but Israel shouldnt wait to strike we know they are buiding reactors we know they have a crazy leader who wants to destroy Israel and "wipe them off the map" why should Israel have to wait untill its very close or too late. Why cant the leaders of a democratic and westerb like and peaceful state guarentee their citizens safety and attack a non civilian target.

Randy West
12-05-2008, 02:39 PM
Wow ... I don't even know how to respond to this.

-------------------------------

First, nobody is advocating "nuking" Iran. I am so sick of people saying that we should just "nuke" the Middle East, turn it into a sheet of glass, and be done with it ... as though their life is any more important than the random Iranian, Saudi, Kuwaiti, or Iraqi civilian life.

Second, I love the immediate conclusion that there are only two options on the table -- either Israel bombs Iranian nuclear facilities or Iran gets the bomb. That's basically the short view extent of it. Option A or option B.

Understand this: There is middle ground. Believe it or not, it's true. And, surprisingly (to some), the best available option isn't nuclear war. We've avoided it thus far and we can continue to do so.

It is time to understand that there is a world bigger than you and bigger than America itself.

So a leader of a nation that has advocated wiping Israel off the planet should first get a nuke and then what?

Who said Iran needed to be nuked???

They will end up bombing the nuclear facilities just like the Iraq situation and set the Iranian nuclear program back a decade or so.

We as in America does not need to do anything...........I have said it before and I will say it again Israel can handle the problems in the region.......America just needs to butt out.

So I guess you of all people know for a fact Iran is not building a bomb?? The fact is you don't have any idea what Iran is or is not planning so give me a break with all your grandstanding.

SmthBluCitrus
12-05-2008, 02:50 PM
So a leader of a nation that has advocated wiping Israel off the planet should first get a nuke and then what?

Who said Iran needed to be nuked???

In all fairness, it was you.


Nuking Iran would not send the middle east into turmoil

It is already there


They will end up bombing the nuclear facilities just like the Iraq situation and set the Iranian nuclear program back a decade or so.

We as in America does not need to do anything...........I have said it before and I will say it again Israel can handle the problems in the region.......America just needs to butt out.

So I guess you of all people know for a fact Iran is not building a bomb?? The fact is you don't have any idea what Iran is or is not planning so give me a break with all your grandstanding.

Grandstanding? How is it grandstanding to believe that there are better options?

You're right -- I have no clue as to whether or not Iran is in the weaponry phase of their nuclear program. But, neither do you. So, advocating an Israeli bombing raid of Iranian nuclear capabilities is obviously unwise and, frankly, reckless.

Israel's ability to "handle the problems in the region" is moot. Avoiding war and coming to a peaceful resolution -- one that does not allow an Iranian bomb -- is the ideal solution. And, all means necessary to create such a circumstance should be undertaken in order to make that so. This does not take any sort of strike or military action out of the equation, but it offers alternatives to warfare.

Randy West
12-05-2008, 03:43 PM
In all fairness, it was you.





Grandstanding? How is it grandstanding to believe that there are better options?

You're right -- I have no clue as to whether or not Iran is in the weaponry phase of their nuclear program. But, neither do you. So, advocating an Israeli bombing raid of Iranian nuclear capabilities is obviously unwise and, frankly, reckless.

Israel's ability to "handle the problems in the region" is moot. Avoiding war and coming to a peaceful resolution -- one that does not allow an Iranian bomb -- is the ideal solution. And, all means necessary to create such a circumstance should be undertaken in order to make that so. This does not take any sort of strike or military action out of the equation, but it offers alternatives to warfare.

So I said it needed to be nuked??? Or that nuking Iran would not send the region into turmoil.........because it is already pretty bad or no??

And how are all the alternatives working right now??? The country is still enriching uranium last I checked.

Israel spends a ton of money figuring out what it's neighbors are up to.......they will know better than you or I or the CIA for that matter if the facilities need to be bombed or not.

And yes I would call another country or person trying to tell Israel how and what it can do to defend itself grandstanding.

Yes peace is always the best solution........some people do not understand the concept of live and let live........those folks are not the Israeli's they are in the countries that surround Israel.

Look at history........Israel is hardly the aggressor in the region when it comes to full scale war..........but when something starts they sure put their all into it.........as they should

never again.........as it should be

SmthBluCitrus
12-05-2008, 04:02 PM
So I said it needed to be nuked??? Or that nuking Iran would not send the region into turmoil.........because it is already pretty bad or no??

And how are all the alternatives working right now??? The country is still enriching uranium last I checked.

Israel spends a ton of money figuring out what it's neighbors are up to.......they will know better than you or I or the CIA for that matter if the facilities need to be bombed or not.

And yes I would call another country or person trying to tell Israel how and what it can do to defend itself grandstanding.

Yes peace is always the best solution........some people do not understand the concept of live and let live........those folks are not the Israeli's they are in the countries that surround Israel.

Look at history........Israel is hardly the aggressor in the region when it comes to full scale war..........but when something starts they sure put their all into it.........as they should

never again.........as it should be

I apologize if I took your comment out of context. The way I understood it what that allowing Israel to detonate a nuclear weapon in Iran wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

As for the alternatives ...

We haven't been actively engaging Iran in diplomatic discussions. That is one of the key characteristics of the sitting administration. I think it was less than 18 months ago that the administration was beginning to beat the drums for a military incursion.

With the changing of the guard in Washington we can begin an effort of global diplomacy (not appeasement) with Iran. Sticks and carrots.

But, my larger point is that we've taken it upon ourselves to be the leaders of the world. And, as leaders, we have to take an active role; especially when it comes to Israel. They are certainly our biggest ally in the region, but they should be--given the amount of financial and military aid that we send their way yearly. When it comes to Israeli action in the region we do need to play a major role.

**In 1991 we all but forbid them from striking Iraq when SCUDs were lauched into Tel Aviv and other major metropolitan areas.

**At the beginning of this current Iraq War they asked if we needed their assistance and we declined.

Israel cannot be seen as an aggressor otherwise it will set off a much larger regional conflict that encompasses not only Israel and our de facto enemies in the region (Syria and Iran), but even our allies in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, et al. We cannot allow this to happen unless we truly want to engage in a Third World War. Because, once an episode like that erupts, we will see proxy wars spring up and dominoes fall. The current leadership in Pakistan (being an Islamic country) could very likely strike India, and with both countries nuclear it could end in a disastrous outcome.

It's not about telling other countries how they should function. But, we have to act reasonably and responsibly in order to avoid damage to our interests and assets.

jrice9
12-05-2008, 04:32 PM
Why will Iran negotiate is my question?. What makes you believe they will negotiate with President Obama about their nuclear weapons program without basically a "stop or we will bomb you" on the table. Sanctions they wont give a **** about. They will just let China and Russia buy their oil and help them out. Again I state why should Israel have to wait for Iran to decide their fate.

jrice9
12-05-2008, 04:33 PM
If mexico or venezuala was developing a nuclear program with the intnetion of hitting the US this would not be a debate whether the US should go in. Why should it be one now with Israel

SmthBluCitrus
12-05-2008, 05:05 PM
Why will Iran negotiate is my question?. What makes you believe they will negotiate with President Obama about their nuclear weapons program without basically a "stop or we will bomb you" on the table. Sanctions they wont give a **** about. They will just let China and Russia buy their oil and help them out. Again I state why should Israel have to wait for Iran to decide their fate.

What makes you think they won't negotiate with Obama? I'm fairly certain that the sitting administration hasn't even attempted to bring them to the table. Iran is rogue, but I doubt they're stupid.

And, nobody said anything about taking the military option off the table. I believe the overwhelming majority of Iranian crude is sent to Southeast Asia (China in particular). With OpB prices dropping to about $50 per, Russia will begin to hurt as well.

Russia doesn't buy their oil, by the way. They don't need what Iran has, they have their own that they export to Europe.


If mexico or venezuala was developing a nuclear program with the intnetion of hitting the US this would not be a debate whether the US should go in. Why should it be one now with Israel

This isn't about engaging in hypotheticals and what-if scenarios. We don't know what steps would be undertaken if either country decided to develop a nuclear program--for energy or otherwise.

My thought, however, would be that it wouldn't be an immediate strike. Not without serious negotiations.

------------------

It's really time to stop with the idea that it's either option A or option B. There is a much broader choice than one strictly between Bomb Iran or let Iran get the bomb.

Nobody is letting Iran decide Israel's fate. And, that's absurd to even accuse.

jrice9
12-05-2008, 08:21 PM
What incentive does a rogue Iran have to negoitate though. I dont get it. Their goal is to kill Israel and promote Jihad. Why would they negotiate?

cambovenzi
12-05-2008, 09:53 PM
What incentive does a rogue Iran have to negoitate though. I dont get it. Their goal is to kill Israel and promote Jihad. Why would they negotiate?

Free donuts?

your right they have no reason to. other than to get other things they may want as well. but at he end of the day they still want to take out israel.

LAKERMANIA
12-05-2008, 10:10 PM
Good! Go get it done Israel. And hopefully if they need some backup Obama will step up.

But let's let someone else do the dirty work for once.

Um.. if something happens in the ME, we are obliged to go in there by force.

Israel should not do this, it would be a horrible idea.

SmthBluCitrus
12-06-2008, 12:51 AM
What incentive does a rogue Iran have to negoitate though. I dont get it. Their goal is to kill Israel and promote Jihad. Why would they negotiate?

Money, naturally. Access to the global free market sans international sanctions. Iran sits on reserves that they probably want to be able to sell to everybody--not just Southeastern Asia. There's a world of demand out there.

Their economy also is predicted to need to rely on tourism, specifically to Tehran. It would be difficult for visitors to travel to Iran if the world shuts their borders from the outside.

I also believe that they've begun development on their tech industry. I'm sure they'd like to expand that globally as well.

ari1013
12-06-2008, 11:21 AM
Look I agree with you but Israel shouldnt wait to strike we know they are buiding reactors we know they have a crazy leader who wants to destroy Israel and "wipe them off the map" why should Israel have to wait untill its very close or too late. Why cant the leaders of a democratic and westerb like and peaceful state guarentee their citizens safety and attack a non civilian target.
Just like how we "knew" Saddam was hoarding WMDs?

Americans have such a blind eye to how politics work elsewhere in the world. Arab nations (and I'm going to include the Persians in this as well) are not democracies -- even when their ruler has a title like president. There is so much political instability out there that the most important thing to those rulers is to keep the public attention off of their own corruption and focused on something else -- like Israel and the Great Satan (i.e. the US).

For 60 years, Israel's had to deal with the majority of that attention. For 60 years, Shin Bet and the Mossad have learned what threats are real and what threats are just rhetoric coming from a leader trying to control his street.

Real threats are met with in-kind destruction.
Rhetoric is met with more rhetoric.

In the Middle East, appearance is everything.

ari1013
12-06-2008, 11:28 AM
Just as an FYI, even after the Ayatollahs took over in Iran, Iran was Israel's closest "friend" in the region (as close as that could be possible) -- and that's even with the peace treaty Israel had just recently signed with Egypt. Almost all the oil that Israel was importing came from Iran back in the 1970s.

It wasn't until Israel went into Lebanon to root out the PLO in 1982 that Iran backed off from any and all cooperation with Israel.

It's not a far cry to assume that Persians and Israelis wouldn't be able to rebuild that relationship. There is far more historical animosity between Persians and Arabs than between Persians and Jews.

jrice9
12-06-2008, 02:19 PM
Just like how we "knew" Saddam was hoarding WMDs?

Americans have such a blind eye to how politics work elsewhere in the world. Arab nations (and I'm going to include the Persians in this as well) are not democracies -- even when their ruler has a title like president. There is so much political instability out there that the most important thing to those rulers is to keep the public attention off of their own corruption and focused on something else -- like Israel and the Great Satan (i.e. the US).

For 60 years, Israel's had to deal with the majority of that attention. For 60 years, Shin Bet and the Mossad have learned what threats are real and what threats are just rhetoric coming from a leader trying to control his street.

Real threats are met with in-kind destruction.
Rhetoric is met with more rhetoric.

In the Middle East, appearance is everything.
Their is no doubt though unlike Iraq that Iran is enriching Uraniam and there is substantial evidence that they plan on making a nulear weapon. Clearly the leader (figurehead of Iran) doesnt like Israel which means the real leaders dont like Israel, they plan on destroying it. Waiting doesnt seem like a good option to me because it gives Iran all the cards

ari1013
12-07-2008, 10:38 AM
I'm talking to a brick wall here...

SmthBluCitrus
12-07-2008, 10:59 AM
I'm talking to a brick wall here...

It would appear that some people are absolutely convinced that either Israel unilaterally bombs Iranian nuclear facilities or Iran will develop a weapon with the express intent of blowing Israel off the face of the Earth.

They obviously assume that Iran is evil, terror loving, and cannot be negotiated with because they're on a specific path of destruction. So, the choice is to either blow them up, or be blown up.

It's incredibly short-sighted, Americentric, and egotistical.

lilboytwister99
12-07-2008, 04:26 PM
Good! Go get it done Israel. And hopefully if they need some backup Obama will step up.

But let's let someone else do the dirty work for once.

I agree with letting someone else do the dirty work for us. I mean its enough that we lost no telling how many soldiers in Iraq. Obama said that he will find Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, and take them all out. So yeah we already have our plate full.

However, as much as I'd hate to say it, all hell will break loose and World War 3 is definitely on the horizon.

SmthBluCitrus
12-07-2008, 06:03 PM
Iran: Talk Tough With Tehran
How to stop Iran from getting Nukes
by Dennis Ross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Ross)

Everywhere you look in the Middle East today, Iran is threatening U.S. interests and the political order. One Arab ambassador told me recently that the Iranians are reminding Arab leaders that America didn't help Fuad Siniora, the prime minister of Lebanon, or Mikheil Saakashvili, the president of Georgia, when they got into trouble—that in fact Washington left them high and dry. Iran, by contrast, is close by and not going anywhere. If the Iranians are throwing their weight around now, imagine what will happen if they go nuclear.

It's not too late to stop Iran from getting the bomb. Tehran clearly wants nukes for both defensive and offensive purposes. But it's not clear the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would sacrifice anything to get nuclear weapons. In fact, history shows that his government responds to outside pressure, restricting its actions when it feels threatened and taking advantage when it judges it can.

In 2003, for example, after the U.S. military made short work of the Iraqi Army—something Iran hadn't managed in eight years of war—Tehran quickly reached out to Washington, sending a proposal through the Swiss ambassador in Tehran that sought to allay U.S. concerns about Iran's weapons program and its support for Hizbullah and Hamas. (Sadegh Kharrazi, the main drafter of the proposal, said last year that fear among the Iranian elite led to the overture.) By contrast, when the U.S. government released a National Intelligence Estimate a year ago concluding that Iran had suspended its weaponization program, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad quickly crowed that confrontation had worked and the Americans had backed down.

Iran has continued to pursue nuclear weapons because the Bush administration hasn't applied enough pressure—or offered Iran enough rewards for reversing course. The U.N. sanctions adopted in the past three years primarily target Iran's nuclear and missile industries, not the broader economy. Hitting the economy more directly would force the mullahs to make a choice. Iran has profound economic vulnerabilities: it imports 43 percent of its gas. Its oil and natural-gas industries—the government's key source of revenue, which it uses to buy off its population—desperately require new investment and technology. Smart sanctions would force Iran's leaders to see the high costs of not changing their behavior.

The way to achieve such pressure is to focus less on the United Nations and more on getting the Europeans, Japanese, Chinese and Saudis to cooperate. The more Washington shows it's willing to engage Iran directly, the more these other parties, will feel comfortable ratcheting up the pressure. Europeans have also complained that if they reduce their business with Iran, the Chinese will pick up the slack. But having the Chinese onboard will allay that fear.

Sharp sticks, of course, must be balanced by appetizing carrots. We need to offer political, economic and security benefits to Tehran, on the condition that Iran change its behavior not just on nukes but on terrorism as well. Sticks will show Iran what it stands to lose by going nuclear; carrots will show its leaders what they would gain by moderating their behavior. Smart statecraft involves wielding them together. It's needed now to avoid two terrible outcomes: living with a nuclear Iran, or acting militarily to try to prevent it.

Ross, A former U.S. Middle East envoy, is a Distinguished Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the author of “Statecraft: And How to Restore America’s Standing in the World.”

Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/171256)

Dennis Ross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Ross)


Dennis B. Ross (born November 26, 1948 in San Francisco) is an American author and political figure who served as the director for policy planning in the State Department under President George H. W. Bush and special Middle East coordinator under President Bill Clinton. The envoy and chief negotiator under both Republican and Democratic presidents, Ross was integral in shaping U.S. involvement in the Middle East peace process during his tenure.

For more than twelve years, Ross played a leading role in shaping U.S. involvement in the Middle East peace process and in dealing directly with the negotiations. Ross was responsible in both the George H. W. Bush and Clinton administrations for exploring ways to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As an architect of the peace process, he helped the Israelis and Palestinians in reaching the 1995 Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and brokered the Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron in 1997. He facilitated the Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace and also worked on talks between Israel and Syria.

In other words ... somebody that understands the region. Nowhere does he advocate a direct strike on Iranian tech.

Dennis Ross on why he's working for Obama. (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1030931.html)

ari1013
12-07-2008, 08:33 PM
I'm so glad that Obama's got Ross on his team. Dennis Ross is the only person who even got Israel close to peace with the Palestinians and the Syrians.

SmthBluCitrus
12-07-2008, 08:44 PM
The man has a knack for the region. If anybody can get some positive progress region-wide, it would be Dennis Ross.

Randy West
12-09-2008, 12:54 PM
Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/171256)

Dennis Ross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Ross)


In other words ... somebody that understands the region. Nowhere does he advocate a direct strike on Iranian tech.

Dennis Ross on why he's working for Obama. (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1030931.html)

And he is also not an Israeli living in Israel.........so why is what he is saying even important?

ari1013
12-09-2008, 01:22 PM
And he is also not an Israeli living in Israel.........so why is what he is saying even important?
Dennis Ross got us within 6 inches of peace. Literally.

Someone should have bumped Arafat into the table and then hoped his pen scrawl could count for a signature.

Randy West
12-09-2008, 01:28 PM
Dennis Ross got us within 6 inches of peace. Literally.

Someone should have bumped Arafat into the table and then hoped his pen scrawl could count for a signature.

I understand that he has done some good for the region.

The fact remains we have nothing to throw at this but money.......we can't control the goods they import/export we have no say with the countries they do business with on a day to day basis........so what exactly is Americas leverage???

ari1013
12-09-2008, 02:57 PM
I understand that he has done some good for the region.

The fact remains we have nothing to throw at this but money.......we can't control the goods they import/export we have no say with the countries they do business with on a day to day basis........so what exactly is Americas leverage???
The benefits of economic development go far beyond GDP growth. Once we can show them that there is a better way of life, they'll start transitioning.

Look at China. They liked capitalism so much in the 1970s that they became better at it than we were.

Randy West
12-09-2008, 03:10 PM
The benefits of economic development go far beyond GDP growth. Once we can show them that there is a better way of life, they'll start transitioning.

Look at China. They liked capitalism so much in the 1970s that they became better at it than we were.

Yes but Iran is already trying to develop that dynamic with China and Russia as partners.

Iran is not as concerned with the approval or financial gains they could get from America. We are involved in two wars and huge financial problems at home. We don't have nearly as much sway with Iran as people would like to believe.

ari1013
12-09-2008, 03:40 PM
Yes but Iran is already trying to develop that dynamic with China and Russia as partners.

Iran is not as concerned with the approval or financial gains they could get from America. We are involved in two wars and huge financial problems at home. We don't have nearly as much sway with Iran as people would like to believe.
Maybe, but unlike the Arabs, the younger generation of Persians are much more moderate than their parents' generation.

There's a lot of hope for the future in Iran.

Randy West
12-10-2008, 02:27 PM
Maybe, but unlike the Arabs, the younger generation of Persians are much more moderate than their parents' generation.

There's a lot of hope for the future in Iran.

Well it is kind of like the US in the sense that most of our populous is moderate.......those folks don't run the country though.

And really Iran becoming more moderate in the next 5-10 years is highly unlikely imo

ari1013
12-10-2008, 04:00 PM
Well it is kind of like the US in the sense that most of our populous is moderate.......those folks don't run the country though.

And really Iran becoming more moderate in the next 5-10 years is highly unlikely imo
A US attack in the next 5 years isn't going to help that at all.

As I said before, Iran was the most pro-Western nation in the Middle East for a good number of years until the Ayatollahs took over because of how awful the Shah was. If we can show them that it doesn't have to be Shah or Ayatollah -- rather it can be each individual in charge of his/her own decisions (a la capitalism) -- there's a good chance we could see a second revolution in Iran.

niners395
12-18-2008, 10:02 PM
You guys don't seem to understand, Ahminmydinnerjacket called for israel to be "wiped off the map". Seriously if someone said that about another country, that entire country would go into fallout shelters for 40 years. But not israel. I have family and friends in israel, and trust me, its the last thing on their minds right now. All they care about is the kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, the beach, and their water pipes. And if the time comes, they'll be more willing than anybody to fight bravely for their country, and for the best army in the world