Yeah - persuade them by bombing and telling them that might is right. Good plan that. I wonder why somebody would respond by trying to increase their might so that maybe they’re right more often
If I had a dime for all the times someone has predicted that now the USA will attack Iran, now Israel will attack Iran, no now, next week, in May, no soon, no now now soon. Then I’d have myself a respectable pile. I supposed if you cry wolf often enough, year in year out, some day it will come true. If for no other reason, then because the rest of the world got fed up with all the bullshit and sitted the bloody wolf on you just to shut you the fuck up.
I think the demographic bomb has been defused. Let’s leverage the good demographic news, Birthrate up for Jews, down for Muslims. Turns out Muhammed and Fatima are just the same as Mark and Britney. They want to watch lousy Hollywood movies and cheap British reality TV, to party up, drink Bacardi Breezers, wear sexy clothes that reveal too much skin, and have quick and drunken sex they regret the next day. 14 kids and a fat ugly husbands 35 years their senior. Not so much.
True enough. But then, Israel flat out saying “We’re going to attack Iran” is kind of a new and more direct sort of hint, isn’t it ? 
If I had a dime for every time someone has predicted Iran would attack Israel or the USA I’d have a bigger pile than yours.
Israel would need the firepower to scare their neighbours out of wiping out them.
I think Israel would not give a damn if Iran has nukes or nor IF Iran was not so hostile to them, defusing the tensions is the way to solve this dilemma, IF Iran can recognize the state of Israel and tone down its rethoric, Israel can accept them having nukes (I think) and we all can continue to live in the MAD world we have, however I think its hard to ask the Israelis to sit easy where a state who does not recognize them, funds and arms attacks against its citizens and considers the mere existence of their state a bad thing gets nuclear weapons.
Yes, Israel has had nukes for years. And during those years, how many times has Israel or its surrogates attacked Iran? Has Israel used those nukes on Iran?
Exactly what thread does Israel pose to Iran? Is Israel massing its allies on Iran’s borders, funding terrorism against Iran, making speeches predicting the comming destruction of Iran, havins some sort or ideological fixation on wiping out of Iranians and replacing them with non-Iranians?
Just what is the terrible existential threat that Iran faces from Israel?
The problem here is that the situation of the two countries is by no means the same. Israel is a tiny country with many enemies who would like nothing better than to wipe it off the map. Iran’s leadership plays the dangerous game of whipping up anti-Israel hatred, mostly as a means of distracting its population from its own (horrible) leadership; the unknown quality is how much that leadership actually believes its blather, which mixes religious and ethnic hatreds with religious and millenial themes - that is, whether they are cynical-but-sane or actually nuts.
The two country’s situations are not analogous, and insisting on “fairness” in this situation is crazy. Who would want to bet that the guy going on about your religiously-ordained destruction and about how your very existence is racism and working hard to get nuclear weapons is actually just playing to the audience and harmless - in the name of “fairness”? It boggles the mind.
The point here is that the Iranians have nothing whatsoever to fear from the Israelis - if they would just stop with the aggressive (and crazy sounding) rhetoric, funding aggression against them, and developing weapons to exterminate them. Sadly the reverse appears to not be true.
The recent performance of Iran’s leader at the Durban conference is not a heartening sign: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's attack on Israel triggers walkout at UN racism conference | World news | The Guardian
Iran may have nothing to fear from Israel but **Der Trihs ** is right in that they do have reasons to fear the USA, not in with its present administration, but what if (god forbid!) Palin is elected in 2012?.
It’s probably because Iran does have a history of attacking US forces and collaborating with Al Quaeda, both fairly recently.
It does? Really?
I do not know what you call “attacking” but America has been attacking Iraq for decades. Most recently using Iraq as their proxy. So don’t give me this bullshit that Iraq has attacked America. It has not. The most it has done is defend itself. When Iraq tries to invade New York then we’ll talk. In the meanwhile it is America who is attacking in that region.
“Attacking” probably means “attacking”.
I think that’s a pretty good translation.
Here’s an exercise for you. Ask yourself “Is Iraq the same word as Iran?”
As I pointed out to Alessan (posts 134 and 135), the Israeli nuclear arsenal is sufficient to deter an Iranian attack.
But the preemptory attack posited in the leaks to the Times isn’t a deterent. It is precisely the kind of attack that Alessan had asserted the Israeli people had no stomach for. That’s quite different from deterence.
What are we to make of that difference is the real point of this thread, it seems to me. I make it to be part of the political rhetoric as the new Israeli government and the new US adminstration feel each other out.
Is the hypothetical planned attack a nuclear one? if not, my point stands, the nuclear arsenal is for deterrence, but it works as a better deterrent if the other side does not have nukes, so the conventional arsenal may be used to stop hostile nations that attempt to get nukes.
Actually it doesn’t. The deterrent factor is the same whether or not the deterrent is mutual. You’re getting vitrified if you attack a determined nuclear nation, whether or not you have nukes and whether or not you send nukes at it.
The Israeli are nothing if not determined.
Umm not not the same, if i have nukes and you dont you can not harm me (any conventional attack can be stoped simply by vaporizing it/you) if we BOTH have nukes you can do all kind of things and the worst that can happen is that we BOTH get vaporized, to you is the same thing, but not to me.
Yes, but that doesn’t matter. If I attack you with conventional weapons and you have nukes, I lose. If I attack you with nukes and you have nukes, you may lose, but I still lose too. I don’t gain anything from either situation, thus have no incentive to get my nuke on in order to attack you. What would be the point for me to vaporize us both ?
M.A.D. works. If it didn’t, the Cold War would have seen the missiles flying at some point. But outside from Hollywood Soviets, no one was ever prepared to pay the price of a nuclear exchange. Why do you think Iran is, when a long string of jingoistic and full of “they are the enemy of everything we stand for !” rethoric Soviet and US presidents never were ?
[quote=“Frodo, post:153, topic:493495”]
Is the hypothetical planned attack a nuclear one? /QUOTE]
According to the Jan, 2007 story in the Times, it’s a nuclear attack. The April, 2009 story makes no characterization either way.
We are not going to attack Iran. Why would anyone think so? We’re in a different presidential administration that is attempting to embrace diplomacy over force, and we’re stretched to the limit anyway, militarily speaking.
So Amerika would be deterred by some loss of soldiers in the field with a first use of anuclear weapon that used in that context would hurt the user more than it would hurt us? Kinda reminds me of the scene in Blazing Saddles when he held the gun to his own head …
Even though this might be true, should they only plan four years ahead? Nobody knows who will be in control of the USA then, maybe it’s another Bush? When it comes to defense not many countries take such a short term view on the threat picture. Especially the USA is good at spending on the military even though there is hardly any threat large enough to justify the current level of expenses.
Iran might want something to deter a similar situation from happening in the future. The Bush regime is gone, but next time a similar threat for them appears they probably want to have a better deterrent.