War with the US & Israel

Great Debates
41

Put me in the camp that thinks that an Iranian-first strike against Israel would be incredibly stupid, and would lead to the decimation of Iranian infrastructure on a level that would supercede Iraq’s by a wide margin.
And that would just be the Israeli response. If we got involved jointly with Israel against Iran in such a scenario, it would be katy bar the door.

I sincerely wish that Iran would back down from it’s nuclear ambitions, at least for the purpose of manufacturing weapons. It isn’t just the USA and Israel that are nervous about it…pretty much the world is against it, and for good reason.

42

It would be the dumbest thing that Iran could do. We would love the opportunity to take them out, but don’t really have what’s known as a “good reason”.

Attack Israel, and they would bring world condemnation down on them. While France, Germany, and the like may not contribute troops to the effort, they certainly couldn’t oppose an assault against Iran for that action.

Then, while you just can’t wave the red flag in front of the troops, our effort would be wholly concentrated in one giant geographic area. Sure the preparation would take months, but that would give the air force time to soften them up (a la the 91 Gulf War).

We would lose thousands of more soldiers, but from a purely military and strategic point of view, nothing would be better for Bush’s long term view and the historical view of the War on Terror…

43

I’m fairly bewildered as to how the U.S. government can keep threatening Iran and then act all disingenuous about Iran taking measures to ramp up their defensive might.

Maybe it’s just me.

Now Israel, on the other hand, I can understand having some worry, but I see no reason why Israel should count on the support of the U.S. for a unilateral attack on Iran. They should work it out, or wait it out. They’ve already got nukes; where is the worry about that? In Iran. The best bet is to talk: “A frank and full exchange of views.” Despite the best efforts of Ahmadinejad to make it appear so, they’re not all complete idiots in Teheran.

44

[QUOTE=Frank]
I’m fairly bewildered as to how the U.S. government can keep threatening Iran and then act all disingenuous about Iran taking measures to ramp up their defensive might.

Maybe it’s just me.

Now Israel, on the other hand, I can understand having some worry, but I see no reason why Israel should count on the support of the U.S. for a unilateral attack on Iran. They should work it out, or wait it out. They’ve already got nukes; where is the worry about that? In Iran. The best bet is to talk: “A frank and full exchange of views.” Despite the best efforts of Ahmadinejad to make it appear so, they’re not all complete idiots in Teheran.
[/QUOTE]

What threat? By simply repeating the mantra of “we’re working hard diplomatically, yadda yadda, but the military option is still on the table”?

By all accounts, that’s pretty much the case and Iran is the one doing the threatening.

45

[QUOTE=xtisme]
They can’t have them because they signed the NPT…and received goodies for doing so. Also, the whole outlaw regime thingy comes into play.
[/quote]
Americans are hardly in a moral position to complain about outlaw regimes.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Seriously…do you REALLY want Iran to have nukes? Do you not feel the region is unstable enough without pumping in pure hydrogen?
[/quote]
Yes, because it would back down the biggest source of instability, the US. Despite all the raving about the fanatical evil Iranians, THEY aren’t the ones invading and occupying other countries.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
They bring in on themselves I’m afraid…least IMHO. If they would straighten up and fly right there would be no issues…unlike Israel who can basically do nothing about the fact that they are a Jewish state in a region that is inherently hostile toward them and has been since their inception. Iran though? Naw…if they opened up their nuclear program to international inspection and forswore their support for external terrorist agencies, if they played well with others in the region and in the world they would be warmly embraced by The World™…hell, the Euro’s would wet themselves with happiness if this unlikely event ever occurred. And the US would be pretty happy too, truth be known.
[/quote]
Garbage. If they don’t get nukes, we’ll conquer and slaughter them sooner or later. I’m sure they are looking at Saddam, who tried negotiations, tried cooperation and ended up executed and his country laid waste.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
The only reason they COULD or WOULD be attacked 'luci is because their nuclear program is threatening, their actions are threatening…both states they have manufactured themselves.
[/quote]
A ridiculous statement. We’ve threatened them and attacked them for decades, and we’ve never cared what they acted like.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
It makes me more edgy when what I consider an unstable regime is evasive about their nuclear program, despite repeated negotiation with multiple nations throughout the world, who makes periodic threatening statements (some of which make speeches by GW seem mild), and then decides to give a rocket demo to prove that, yeah, if they get nukes, they will in fact be able to deliver them to…yep…Israel’s door step.
[/quote]
Or against American armies massing to invade them.

If there’s a country looking to start a war, it’s America, not Iran.

46

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
What threat? By simply repeating the mantra of “we’re working hard diplomatically, yadda yadda, but the military option is still on the table”?
[/QUOTE]
It’s “The nuclear option is still on the table.” We don’t mind threatening them with nuclear genocide , but we think they are insane fanatics for wanting to back us off. And we are supporting terrorists against them, people who are called that by our own state department. And we have a long history of unprovoked attacks on them, and others.

47

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
What threat? By simply repeating the mantra of “we’re working hard diplomatically, yadda yadda, but the military option is still on the table”?

By all accounts, that’s pretty much the case and Iran is the one doing the threatening.
[/QUOTE]

What do you call the “Axis of Evil” thing? You know, the thing that led to the current maniac’s election?

48

[QUOTE=Frank]
I’m fairly bewildered as to how the U.S. government can keep threatening Iran and then act all disingenuous about Iran taking measures to ramp up their defensive might.
[/QUOTE]

And the converse actually baffles me…how Iran can rant and threaten, disregard international opinion (as well as the NPT it signed) and continue to be evasive and unresponsive to international oversight (not US oversight, mind, but international oversight) of it’s nuclear program, secretly develop weapons that are banned to it (i.e. the missiles in question)…do all that and then get all riled when the US and Israel get a bit nervous about those actions. This of course leaves aside Iran’s support of such lovely organizations as Hamas.

As for the US ‘threatening’ Iran…well, that’s true as far as it goes, though it goes both ways, ehe? However, the US has done nothing TO Iran, and in fact has been willing to let the Euro’s take the lead in negotiations with them concerning their nuclear program…so, I’m not seeing exactly why Iran should be anxious or looking to take defensive measures (read: build missiles capable of hitting Israel with nuclear weapons and making sure everyone is aware of that fact).

[QUOTE=Frank]
Maybe it’s just me.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, I think it’s safe to say that your’s is the majority opinion, at least in these parts. My own opinion on this is definitely in the minority.

[QUOTE=Frank]
Now Israel, on the other hand, I can understand having some worry, but I see no reason why Israel should count on the support of the U.S. for a unilateral attack on Iran. They should work it out, or wait it out.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not following you here. Israel is threatened by these actions…I agree. Israel should wait for the US to, what…attack? Work things out with Iran? Trust to Iran to play nice if they get nukes?

[QUOTE=Frank]
They’ve already got nukes; where is the worry about that?
[/QUOTE]

Well…a couple of things here. First off, you ASSUME Israel already has nukes. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. Secondly, the US and the Soviet Union had nukes to during the cold war (and even today)…were you comforted during that period? I know that like me you were alive then…was it a great comfort to you that the US had nukes considering that the Soviets did to? Make you sleep easy? And here is the thing…while the Soviets were considered the enemy, afaik they never used heated political rhetoric saying they wanted to wipe us from the map.

Had they done so…well, I don’t know about you but it wouldn’t have exactly rocked me to sleep at night knowing that while a nation that wanted to wipe out not only my family but my nation from the face of the earth had nukes, at least when I was radioactive dust we’d be able to blow them away to.

[QUOTE=Frank]
The best bet is to talk: “A frank and full exchange of views.”
[/QUOTE]

You mean like we’ve been doing for the last couple of years? Like that? How’s that been working out? Iran come clean about their nuclear program to the satisfaction of the international community? Iran been taking steps forward to distance themselves from their ties to foreign terror organizations? Iran stopped the development of proscribed missile technology?

Peachy keen, to be sure. I’m sure Israel should be much relieved that things are going so swimmingly on the frank and open talks, ehe?

[QUOTE=Frank]
Despite the best efforts of Ahmadinejad to make it appear so, they’re not all complete idiots in Teheran.
[/QUOTE]

No, they aren’t. But they aren’t exactly nice, fuzzy teddy bears brimming with good will and love either. The thing is that they don’t have to be idiots to have made different calculations on what is or is not a good idea…or what they should or shouldn’t do. What worries me is I’m not sure what basis they are using to make their own calculations, or what baseline assumptions and factors they are using to make them. And the scary thing is…I don’t think the US or Israel have a clear idea either. And the REALLY scary thing is…the Iranians may not know or understand the converse either, and may be doing a Saddam and making a bad assessment of what WE will do or not do, while Bush may be doing a Bush and fucking up again by the numbers and Israel is left to try and figure out what THEY should do, who they should trust.

Scary.

-XT

49

[QUOTE=Frank]
What do you call the “Axis of Evil” thing? You know, the thing that led to the current maniac’s election?
[/QUOTE]

I for one believe that Iran is a terrorist-sponsoring nation, and therefore, evil.

50

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
It’s “The nuclear option is still on the table.” We don’t mind threatening them with nuclear genocide , but we think they are insane fanatics for wanting to back us off. And we are supporting terrorists against them, people who are called that by our own state department. And we have a long history of unprovoked attacks on them, and others.
[/QUOTE]

When did we threaten Iran with nuclear genocide? What terrorists? What are you even talking about?

51

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
I’m sure they are looking at Saddam, who tried negotiations, tried cooperation and ended up executed and his country laid waste.

[/QUOTE]

Saddam negotiated and cooperated? Are you being serious? If he had negotiated and cooperated, we wouldn’t even be there (again).

He gave the impression of cooperation.

And as far as your assertion that “if they don’t get nukes we’ll conquer or slaughter them sooner or later”…what makes you think that? There are plenty of other countries that we could do this to…why then haven’t we?

Could it be that it’s because they aren’t threatening world security by supporting groups like Hamas, funneling their weaponry and idealogy through Syria and into Lebanon, to rule it by proxy?
Making threats against Israel?
Going against the non-proliferation treaty they signed?
Attempting to build nuclear weapons?

Which is it?

52

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Americans are hardly in a moral position to complain about outlaw regimes.
[/QUOTE]

Sez you…but you are hardly an unbiased source on this topic. Here is the thing…no nation is pure as the driven snow, or has an absolute lock on a ‘moral position’. Iran however is beyond the pale.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Yes, because it would back down the biggest source of instability, the US. Despite all the raving about the fanatical evil Iranians, THEY aren’t the ones invading and occupying other countries.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but see my first response…you aren’t exactly an unbiased source and especially on the subject of the US you speak from emotion, not reason. No one (except perhaps you) thinks that unstable nations should have nuclear weapons because, you know, they are unstable. If North Korea’s government goes tits up tomorrow (something that isn’t exactly beyond the realm of possibility), then their nukes will fall into gods know who’s hands. The US, despite years under Bush, isn’t likely to fall apart tomorrow and have our nuclear arsenal fall into just anyones hands. The same can’t be said for Iran…they may last another 20 years, or their government could come crashing down next year…and if it does, the devil is in the game for sure as anything could happen.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Garbage. If they don’t get nukes, we’ll conquer and slaughter them sooner or later. I’m sure they are looking at Saddam, who tried negotiations, tried cooperation and ended up executed and his country laid waste.
[/QUOTE]

Just like we’ve already conquered and slaughtered them, right? Oh…wait, we haven’t in fact done that, despite the fact that they don’t currently have nukes. Oh yeah! And despite the fact that Bush has been at the helm for nearly 8 years now! In fact…wait a second…we haven’t even attacked them militarily in any way, shape or form! And… :eek: …they don’t HAVE NUKES!

Fancy that. Your over the top rhetoric is (as usual), over the top rhetoric.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
A ridiculous statement. We’ve threatened them and attacked them for decades, and we’ve never cared what they acted like.
[/QUOTE]

Really? Do you have a cite that we have attacked Iran for decades? I must have missed the headlines. Have we destroyed them yet? Slaughtered their men and raped their women? No? What the hell are we waiting for?

(sure is taking a long time to destroy them if we’ve been attacking them for decades now…)

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Or against American armies massing to invade them.

If there’s a country looking to start a war, it’s America, not Iran.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry…I’ll get back to you on this. I am laughing to hard right now…

-XT

53

I think Iran’s Missiles (and Nuke Drive) are to ward off an Israeli/American attack and to be seen as THE regional super-power on par with anyone in this Theater. Not necessarily in that order.

So an attack on Israel would defeat the whole point of having Missiles (because Israel will destroy those not actually hitting & exploding in Israel or misfiring & the cpacity to build them) and Nukes (which would be defanged) - most Iranians understand this.

Really only a belief that an Israeli attack is imminent does taking the first shot make any sense at all - and probably not then. Maybe if they truly believe that the Hidden Mahdi will be revealed in an apocalyptic (literally) War …

All that not withstanding, I think the odds are overwhelming that if this War happens it will be Israel or the U.S. or both hitting Iran in the next 4 months and not the other way around.

54

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
Saddam negotiated and cooperated? Are you being serious? If he had negotiated and cooperated, we wouldn’t even be there (again).
[/QUOTE]

sigh Yes, we would be there. Bush was determined to attack. Do we really have to go through this again? WMDs and all that?

xtisme, your post deserves a more thoughtful response, but I’m not able to do that right now. Sorry. Later.

55

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
I for one believe that Iran is a terrorist-sponsoring nation, and therefore, evil.
[/QUOTE]
So are we.

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
When did we threaten Iran with nuclear genocide?
[/quote]
When the Bush administration publicly refused to “take the nuclear option off the table”.

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
What terrorists?
[/QUOTE]
The terrorist groups we are supporting against their government. But of course, when we support terrorists, that’s just fine.

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
Saddam negotiated and cooperated? Are you being serious? If he had negotiated and cooperated, we wouldn’t even be there (again).
[/quote]
Garbage. Bush intended invasion from the beginning; it didn’t matter what Saddam did. And he did cooperate; as many have pointed out, that was why there had to be an attack as soon as possible, so inspections couldn’t show that he was telling the truth.

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
And as far as your assertion that “if they don’t get nukes we’ll conquer or slaughter them sooner or later”…what makes you think that? There are plenty of other countries that we could do this to…why then haven’t we?
[/quote]
Because they aren’t Iran. And we HAVE done that to some; Iraq, rather obviously.

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
Could it be that it’s because they aren’t threatening world security by supporting groups like Hamas, funneling their weaponry and idealogy through Syria and into Lebanon, to rule it by proxy?
[/quote]
No. We’ve never cared about world peace.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Iran however is beyond the pale.
[/quote]
No more so than America. We’re just stronger is all.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
The US, despite years under Bush, isn’t likely to fall apart tomorrow and have our nuclear arsenal fall into just anyones hands.
[/quote]
And if we decide to nuke Iran, I’m sure that the fact that is was done by this government and not another will be a BIG consolation. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Just like we’ve already conquered and slaughtered them, right? Oh…wait, we haven’t in fact done that, despite the fact that they don’t currently have nukes. Oh yeah! And despite the fact that Bush has been at the helm for nearly 8 years now! In fact…wait a second…we haven’t even attacked them militarily in any way, shape or form! And… :eek: …they don’t HAVE NUKES!
[/quote]
And we are bogged down in Iraq, which we expected to fall on it’s face and grovel like a good slave. If they had we’d have invaded Iran years ago.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Really? Do you have a cite that we have attacked Iran for decades? I must have missed the headlines. Have we destroyed them yet? Slaughtered their men and raped their women?
[/quote]
Plenty. Remember the Shah ? Our puppet Saddam ? I’m sure they do.

56

[QUOTE=jimmmy]
…All that not withstanding, I think the odds are overwhelming that if this War happens it will be Israel or the U.S. or both hitting Iran in the next 4 months and not the other way around.
[/QUOTE]

If it happens, it will most likely be because somebody fucked up, because we are prepared for and anticipating it. One fanatic, one hothead, or one screwup, is all it takes for the ball got start rolling. Or, an Iranian torpedo boat attack in the Gulf…

57

You do know, Der Trihs, that while the Shah certainly was a client of the United States, Saddam was not?

It’s true that during the Iran-Iraq war Saddam was viewed as a useful co-belligerent against the Ayatollah. But he was never our puppet, any more than Stalin was Roosevelt’s puppet.

As proof, remember the first Gulf War? Now, try to remember what sort of equipment Iraq had. Was it American equipment, or Soviet bloc equipment?

If we had ended up fighting against Iran, we would have face American equipped and American trained forces. That wasn’t the case with Iraq.

58

[QUOTE=Frank]
sigh Yes, we would be there. Bush was determined to attack. Do we really have to go through this again? WMDs and all that?

xtisme, your post deserves a more thoughtful response, but I’m not able to do that right now. Sorry. Later.
[/QUOTE]

I’m sorry, my recollection must be fuzzy but if there was clear evidence presented by the inspectors (not partial evidence, not incomplete evidence, completely convincing evidence that was contrary to the views of the admin) then no, I do not believe that we would be there. There wouldn’t have been a compelling enough reason fabricated or otherwise for this admin to overcome such a collection of globally agreed upon facts in order to initiate the conflict.

59

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
I’m sorry, my recollection must be fuzzy but if there was clear evidence presented by the inspectors (not partial evidence, not incomplete evidence, completely convincing evidence that was contrary to the views of the admin) then no, I do not believe that we would be there. There wouldn’t have been a compelling enough reason fabricated or otherwise for this admin to overcome such a collection of globally agreed upon facts in order to initiate the conflict.
[/QUOTE]

Apparently: yes, we do need to go through all this again, if I could be bothered, which I can’t, being in a state where I can’t even answer a thoughtful disagreement, let alone a disagreement from someone whose arguments were blown out of the water years ago. Enjoy your fantasies.

Does anyone want to take one for the team, or should this be accepted as another “landing on the moon was faked” or “Karl Rove was on the grassy knoll” post?

60

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
As proof, remember the first Gulf War? Now, try to remember what sort of equipment Iraq had. Was it American equipment, or Soviet bloc equipment?
[/QUOTE]
That probably had something to do with him using up his American supplied weapons, like the poison gas we gave him. And we DID help fund his war against Iran. Iran is well aware of this I’m sure, no matter how much we like to pretend it never happened .