Well, read the OP, I guess. It makes this a thread about a preemptory strike by Israel.
By the way, how often is it that an Israeli source senior enough to have a significant newspaper quote them admits to Israeli nuclear weapons?
First, I never said a thing about Iran being “noble and peaceful”. I’m not fond of Iran, America OR Israel.
As for nukes, they’ll deter an American invasion for fear of them being used on our soldiers or nearby military facilities.
Your quoted article noted that Mr. Cole and Mr. Steele dispute the translation. The statement has also been clarified by Iran’s foreign minister as well as Ahmadinejad himself to not be a call for genocide, war, or anything of that kind. His translators seem to be the ones who disagree with this, but why would you rather take their word that he calls for genocide or something of that character? Even in the case where their translation is the more proper one for the Persian quote, I think it still isn’t clear that it means war or genocide. I don’t think the translators have much credibility in that question, and I don’t think they have made any statement about the actual intended meaning.
You and I… we’re not really on the same page here, are we?
Nobody has the right to harm me. Period. This isn’t philosophy, this is policy. I can’t afford philosophy - only well-fed dilettantes from powerful, secure Western democracies have the luxury to play little games with the concept of “fairness” in international relations. I don’t care about the Iranian’s government’s right to do me harm. Form my completely relativistic point of view, that right does not exist. The Iranians have a right to freedom, happiness, prosperity, and peace with my nation and with all the nations of the world. They do not have the right to hurt me.
As policies go, I think it’s a good one. Giving my enemies the opportunity to harm me? Not good policy.
As I’ve said before, all things being equal, I’d rather do the smart thing that do the right thing. You can’t be a moral person if you’re dead.
If Ahmadinejad isn’t credible then why take his threats seriously? In any event it’s perfectly clear even from the original translation that he wasn’t talking about the physical destruction of Israel. He was reiterating Iran’s long-held stance of a single Palestinian state where Israel and the occupied territories now stand . This would indeed “wipe Israel off the map” in a political sense but wouldn’t involve its physical destruction; physically destroying Israel through a nuclear attack would obviously destroy most of the proposed Palestinian state as well. Not to mention destroy Iran as well through retaliation.
In other words, just like Bush and Iraq you think you have the right to attack another country just because of the theoretical possibility that at some unspecified date they might become a danger. Well, THAT sure turned out well.
You say you’d rather do the smart thing than the moral thing ? Looks like you actually want neither.
How could this possibly be accomplished, outside of actual physical destruction? Is he going to ask all the Jews to leave Israel politely, and they’ll just comply, pack their bags, and leave?
I think the idea Ahmadinejad has presented in answer to this question is to have a referendum where the palestinians also have a say about the governing of the state, and thus it won’t be a Zionist regime anymore. Some kind of one state solution? I can’t say I understand how that would work though, as I don’t see Israel wanting to give them a vote. The idea is possibly impossible in practice, but it’s far from physical destruction which people seem to believe they are calling for.
How would a single Palestinian state be achieved by physically destroying it first either? Iran doesn’t have any practical policy for achieving its stated goal. Possibly it hopes that long-term demographic changes will make Israel an Arab-majority country some time in the very distant future. The point is that contrary to what some claim, Iran has never threatened the physical destruction of Israel.
That’s because the invasion of Iraq was stupid. It was from the beginning, from a risk/benefits point of view.
The thing is, it’s not always black and white. There is a point when theoretical possibility becomes near-certainty, and when an unspecified date becomes right now. Sometimes, the guy giving you dirty looks becomes the guy with a gun pressed against your temple. The trick is to stop him before it gets that far, while avoiding needless fights.
With Iraq, there was a very low chance that Iraq would attack the U.S. sometime in the future, and therefore the invasion was bad policy (as well as being morally questionable). With Iran, I don’t really know. I believe that matters have progressed much further, but neither of us has all the information, both regarding the threat and regarding the risks involved in eliminating it, if eliminating it is even possible. I hope my government does the smart thing, but I’m not sure what the smart thing is. Unlike you, I have faith in my country. I know that if we attack there will be major, deeply unpleasant repercussions, be they political, military and economic, so I trust that if we do attack, it’ll be because there is absolutely no other choice.
This isn’t some enemy half way around the world, for us, and we’re not fighting with a professional military. The stakes are much higher than the America’s ever with with Iraq. We won’t be watching this war on Fox News, we’ll be feeling it on our flesh.
By Alessan:
“Nobody has the right to harm me. Period.”
Exactly right. No question. There are lots of other rights that one might think about in terms of humanity, too, as I’m sure you’ll agree.
I’m still waiting, however, for you to answer my earlier question: If, as you say, the Israelis aren’t “the kind of people” to launch a nuclear attack (the subject of this thread), then why possess nuclear weapons?
If one won’t launch an unprovoked first strike, what use does one have with nuclear weapons?
For serious?
That is the point I have been trying to make also.
About the proposed solution and demographics, it doesn’t seem too far fetched. Apparently some believe that Arabs might reach a majority around 2035, which isn’t that far into the future.
Netanyahu seems to subscribe to the idea that this is a problem as well.
We’re not the kind of people who’ll *initiate *a nuclear attack. Responding to one is a different matter.
I suppose we’d also use nukes if our country was completely overrrun by conventional forces, but really, who wouldn’t?
You know, Alessan, that’s what I expected, and what makes sense. What you’re saying is that Israel won’t initiate a nuclear exchange, but will respond to any attack with nuclear weapons if necessary. It’s called deterrence. It works now, and has for the last almost 60 years.
That’s why this issue of a preemptory strike against Iran is at issue. Israel has nuclear weapons to deter an attack against it. So, there is no reason for a preemptory attack. Just as there was no reason for the US to attack the USSR with nuclear weapons, given the sure response.
But remember that the leaks to the London Times are about an initiation of a nuclear attack by the Israelis. I believe it is all political rhetoric, as my earliest post in this thread says. But it is different from what you’ve just asserted.
Iran believes exactly the same thing. Funny dat. And that’s why they’re getting nuclear weapons. Because they have seen what happened to their neighbors who didn’t have them.
They’re welcome to try. I bear no ill will against them for seeking nuclear weapons. I just hope to persuade them that it isn’t a good idea.
And bombing them is supposed to do that how ? Why don’t you just stamp every bomb with “GET NUKES !” to make your message clearer ?
That may be one reason not to bomb them.
However, if they’re already well on their way, then they alreay have all the incentives they need, and bombing won’t make things worse.
Besides the fact that I’m not a “well-fed dilettante from a powerful, secure Western democracy”, the only problem with your reasoning is that if the other side uses the same reasoning.
We all know Iran can’t foot it with Israel militarily, so why shouldn’t they want to be in a position of greater power such that if they need to they can take action? Why is that only reserved for Israel.
If I was sitting in Iran and seeing this attitude I sure as hell want to beef up my strength to combat you. Sure, today Israel has not taken any action against Iran, who says that is to continue into the future? Why shouldn’t Iran, or any country for that matter develop the ability to deter Israel when you are quite happy to sit there and say that you are more interested in being smart than being moral. That is simply another code for “once you have something I want enough I’m going to come and take it”
I remember some time ago entering into a business negotiation where I was asked to sign over all my voting rights in a company I was part owner of to someone else. I was laughed at when I opined that I trust no-one, given the right motivation everyone will double cross you.
Well given the right moitivation (or risk reward analysis) I am sure that Israel would attack Iran, why shouldn’t Iran protect against that. After all, Israel already has by possessing their own nukes right?
Your attitude time and again, demonstrates a level of, not sure of the right adjective here, am tempted to use bigotry, but selfishness or arrogance, even egoism may be better - at all times you proclaim that your needs and rights trump those of your neighbours. Again, if you attitude is even halfway representative of the average Israeli then Iran has every right to develop the bomb and I wish them the very best of luck in doing so.
I can understand where you are coming from, it is a huge temptation to act this way when you feel threatened - but dude, dial it back a bit (both personally and as a country) and maybe you will get better results.