Israelis plan pre-emptive strike on Iran

[Jeanette in FL]

IAN BRUCE, Defence Correspondent January 10 2006

Israel is updating plans for a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities which could be launched as soon as the end of March, according to military and intelligence sources.

The news comes as Germany yesterday warned Tehran's regime that it would face "consequences" if it removes UN seals from portions of its atomic programme and resumes enrichment of fuel which could be diverted for military use in breach of international agreements.

The Israeli raids would be carried out by long-range F-15E bombers and cruise missiles against a dozen key sites and are designed to set Tehran's weapons programme back by up to two years.
Pilots at the Israeli air force's elite 69 squadron have been briefed on the plan and have conducted rehearsals for their missions.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/53948.html - for the full article

Well it has been done before, Iraq.

[DavidDvorkin]

1. In the case of Iraq

Israel had the private approval most of the major Arab governments. Saudi Arabia reportedly knowingly allowed the Israelis to use their airspace for the attack.

Even though Iran makes many of the Arabs nervous, including the Saudis, would the same approval apply now? I kinda doubt it.

[enigma000]

3. Iranians with nukes?

I doubt the Arabs want to see this. I think the Saudis would be prepared to stand-down their air defense network for a few hours for "maintenance" if they get a call from Tel Aviv (if you know what I mean)

[tocqueville]

10. the result is that the two other countries to develop nukes

will be Saudi Arabia and Egypt. They are already queuing in Pakistan. and they have the money, at least for the Saudis and Egypt has if the US doesn't cut the funds.

The Isreali cannot destroy anything of value unless they put armed forces on the ground in a commando attack. The Saudis have to be very careful in "helping" the Isreali too. Al Quaeda would seethis as the ultimate treason and attack Saudi interests even more.

All this scenario of an attack isn't credible militarily unless you use nukes. It can be seen as a political show off to warn Iran. But the backlash would be that Iran would wreak havoc in Iraq as a retaliation. They are just waiting for the excuse.

[iconoclastNYC]

50. Annual Saudi Oil revenue = 150 billion

They have the money.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/OPEC_Revenues/OPEC.html

[JCMach1]

107. My friend, that's just the 'reported' income

EOM

The income for Shk. Zayed alone (in the UAE), not the national budget, was in excess of 11billion per year. Oil sales about 2.5x that not. So, do the math and see what you come up with.

KSA is taking in closed 1/2 trillion per year. Now, play an even more fun game and figure out where the $ is going.

[iconoclastNYC]

138. I don't see your point.

I was responding to someone who implied that the Saudi Arabia didn't have money for a nuclear weapon program. When clearly they do.

[megatherium]

79. I've read some people think that Egypt is already nuclear. nt

[SKKY]

110. Israel has by far the best pilots in the world- bar none.

And any American pilot would tell you the same. There's no measure of how much damage they could do from the air. Secondly, Al-Qaeda already thinks The House of Saud has committed the ultimate treason by working with America. Israel, at best, would merely be insult to injury. But, since the very same people working with the US are also "providing" them with "services", Al-Qaeda has been "bought", and I think Saudi Arabia can sleep with a reasonable amout as assurance. Nukes, to stop nukes? What kind of sense does that make?

[6th Borough]

118. Just curious...are you a pilot who's "war-gamed" against them?

This is strictly from an armchair general's (read: flight-simmer) curiosity.

If so...how good are they...does the stereotype of Israel being the modern day equivalent of the "flying circus" hold true? And why...do they all Israeli pilots go through the training that, say, only Top Gunners or other elite pilots in the USA receive?

Just curious...they earned a reputation in '67 and '73; don't know if they are the "Valkyries" that still capture many people's imagination.

[SKKY]

122. No, I have personally never "war-gamed" against them...

...but, by virtue of 13 years in the Navy with a good part of that working with the Aviation community, I've had the chance to get to know many pilots quite well. Plus, I went to school (Navy school) in Pensacola, where pilots are all over the place. To a man, every pilot I've ever worked with says the exact same thing. The Israelis are the best, hands down. When pressed as to why, they will say things like their flight protocol allows them more freedom and things like that. But, one pilot put it in a better light. He said, "I don't know actually. Why are Brazilians better soccer players than anyone else?".

[rustydad]

133. Yes but...

..what is your point? Best dog fighters? Sure the Israelies can defeat the Iranians in the air, better planes and pilots. But the issue is can the Israelies get to Iran? Who do they overfly to do it? And once there can they take out the deeply buried facilities and how much collateral damage will occure. And then will Iran retalliate by firing ballistic missles into Irag and Israel? Will they attack the 5th fleet with the super deadly Sunburn and Onyx anti-ship missles that we have no defense against. And if Iran retaliates what do we and Israel do in return. These fools are playing with the fate of the world. bob

[tocqueville]

150. exactly my point

it doesn't help to be the best dogfighter in this situation. This is not top gun. The Osirak attack was a cakewalk.

[tocqueville]

149. it's not the abilities of the pilots I discuss

it's a a big difference between blowing up a conventional reactor above ground like Osirak and destroying complex bunkers underground. Specially when they are located in very different places. Besides the Iranians have more sophisticated air defenses and losses cannot be avoided. All this has nothing to do with fighting Syrian migs and pinpointing the house of some Hamas dude.

You are right about Al Quaeda and the Saudis. But a too obvious ISRAEL assistance could be fatal to the Saudis. It could be the "drop" that outrages some groups inside the system and provoke a regime change in the wrong direction.

Nukes make sense militarily, specially if the target is spread and in a desertic location. Probably don't make sense politically, becauses of the risks of long term retaliation.

[rustydad]

159. I read that....

...some of the most crucial facilities are underground of a major cultural city with Mosques of world importance. Bomb that with nucs? Another point. Our Fifth Fleet is stationed in Bahrain in the Persian Gulf. They are siting ducks for a retaliatory strike by the unstoppable Sunburn supersonic cruise missile that Russia has provided Iran. Should we strike Iran or even just Israel with our support, the 5th is toast. Then the serious war will start. How the EU and russia/China will react to the ME going up in a nuc Armageddon is unclear but they have much to loose if the US *pacifies* the Arab world with nucs. bob

[MetsMatt]

163. "Unstoppable" Sunburn

DOn't forget, SUnburn has never been used in combat. Also you can't hit something you can't see. The missiles have to be targeted somehow. That means the target ship has to be positively identified at sea. You can be certain if there's an indication of threat from the Iranians our ships won't let them get close enough. As for what's in Bahrain, ships make occaisonal port visits, but the only thing stationed there are some shore support facilities and a couple of minesweepers. The only major warships not homeported in the US are stationed in Japan.

[rustydad]

167. Well....

The 5th Fleet homepage says they are on station in the Indian Ocean and are now in Bahrain. The Sunburn is a fire and leave guidance system. It is programed to seek out it's target. Russia has just launced the first of several Iranian satellites that will look down on the ME and be able to give co-ordinates to the Sunburn controllers. Once launced they will seek their tarket and hit it at mach 2.5. One or two at most can take down a carrier. And even worse is the latest model, the Onyx that travels at mach 3. It is rumored that Russia has supplied Iran with a few of these. Any warships that inter the Persion Gulf to attack Iran are toast. bob

[greblc]

183. China would have oppourtunity to take back Taiwan....

WW3

[KDLarsen]

184. Which is the reason for all the sabre-rattling as of late..

The primary reason that most governments don't want Iran to join the Nucelar Club, is that it would most likely lead to either Saudi Arabia or Turkey trying to obtain one of their own to even out the odds. Which would in turn set off a new nuclear arms race - except that it would be few weapons spread over many countries, unlike the race between the US & the USSR.

[MidwestTransplant]

14. I think you are right but this time the path would be over N. Iraq I think

[6th Borough]

119. They could always swing through the Med.

Hell, they hit Uganda while overpassing virtually no Arab land...Kenya was down wit' it, but for some reason I don't think their airspace would be required in any potential attack on Iran...

[enigma000]

18. What are the Israelis' in-flight refueling abilities?

Sounds like the Israeli mission might be a one-way flight. Not that this would stop them from getting volunteers.......

[bananas]

36. They won't need to refuel

"The F-15E is especially configured for the deep strike mission, venturing far behind enemy lines to attack high value targets with a variety of munitions."
"Range 3,450 miles (3,000 nautical miles) ferry range with conformal fuel tanks and three external fuel tanks."
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15.htm

[Vickers]

123. Yup, and Jerusalem is approx. 1000 miles from Tehran

Plenty of range, hell, they can even drop the external fuel tanks over Baghdad.

[katty]

142. Israel will blow/attack Iran, U.S. will follow/explanation: We had to

[Media_Lies_Daily]

74. Americans with nukes? Herr Busch with his finger on the button?....

...That is a lot more frightening to me than the idea of Iran EVENTUALLY developing nukes in 10 or more years.

[katty]

143. bush is the most dangerous middle 'finger' on any nuke button, he

embraces a'pre-emptive' Armageddon and the Rapture-bush&co are just as fanatical as the Islamist fundies he is trying desperately to wipe out-he is fighting a mirror image of his own deceptive, dangerous fanatical behavior.

[ECH1969]

4. The Arab world is Sunni

They have a deep seated hatred of Shia dominated Iran in a way that they never did with Saddam. The only Arab regime that would be against such an attack would be Syria because of their allience with Iran.

[superconnected]

77. Are you sure they won't unite against a common enemy?

[JCMach1]

106. Not for Iran... not the regimes here anyway

They are far too pragmatist for that.

The street will be PISSED, but there will be little that can be done.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

179. You might be surprised at what might happen if yet another....

....Middle Eastern sovereign nation is attacked without cause.

[tocqueville]

8. look at a map

the Isreali didn't have to fly over Saudi Arabia to strike Iraq. Jordan wasn't at that time able to put anything against it. To hit Busher in the south, a flight over northern Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait would be necessary and they'd probably will have to refuel in the air. This will never get the approval of anybody. Besides the Iranis are waiting for them...

if there is an attack it will be from cruise missiles launched from submarines. It will probably have little effect.

[Canuckistanian]

81. Do cruise missiles need overflight approvals?

They're going to need permission from Jordan or Syria for this.

Not bloody likely.

[QuettaKid]

115. look CLOSER at a map

they could just take off from a US base in Iraq and no one is the wiser.

[Barkley]

175. Israel has ballistic missiles that leave the atms. and can reach Iran

and there by circumvent the whole fly-over problem.

Iran has no defense against ballistic missiles because they
travel several times faster than the speed of sound.

[StrafingMoose]

43. Even the US would oppose to such pre-emptive attacks IMO...

Remember, the US-UK *needs* to "catch" Iran with these weapons before going in... I doubt the warmongering US-UK clique will do the same mistake as they did with Iraq.

[shadowknows69]

76. oops

[Media_Lies_Daily]

92. Oh, please. Are you talking about the same NeoCon Junta?

[6th Borough]

113. Sunni...Shiite? Shiite...Sunni? Uniformed postulation in my post follows

Could that be a possibility in regards to some Arab countries' tacit approval of Israeli strikes against Iran?

After all, Iran has a larger population than any Arab county (with the possible exception, though I doubt it, of Egypt).

...and a stronger armed force...though possibly not as technologically advanced as the equipment of Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

One other thing...I can't confirm this 100%, but I do recall reading, from several sources, that Oman, with it's knowledge, allows Israel to "park" it's ballistic missile subs in Omani waters (very close to Iran, and for that purpose), even though Oman doesn't "officially" recognize Israel.

[bee]

2. pre-emptive strike.....

nice door you opened there george. :sarcasm:
thanksafuckinglot.

[cantstandbush]

57. Guess where the F15s came from? n/t

[0007]

85. Guess where the nukes came from?

[Pavulon]

114. South Africa (nt)

[6th Borough]

120. The other way around /nt

[Centered]

94. actually

Israel could have given him the idea... they are the masters of the pre-emptive strike.

[Tom Joad]

5. Remember, Israel introduced Nukes to the Middle East.

We have this knowledge in part because of the courage of Mordechai Vanunu (yes, it was known before his going public, but the extent of it was unknown... most believe that Israel has the 3rd or 4th largest nuclear weapons stockpile on the planet).

What needs to be done is to push for a nuclear-free Middle East, and ultimately a nuclear-free world. Military strikes would make things much, much, worse.


"Mordechai Vanunu is the preeminent hero of the nuclear era. He is the one who consciously risked all he had in life to warn his own country and the world of an existing, ongoing addition to the nuclear dangers of the era. And he is the one who has actually paid that price, a burden in many ways worse than death, for his heroic and prophetic act, for doing exactly what he should have done and what others should be doing. He is a prophet who deserves honor in all the world."
Daniel Ellsberg, author Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers

[Zhade]

104. Vanunu is a hero.

NT!

[Pavulon]

126. There will NEVER be a nuclear free world.(nt)

[mitchtv]

6. Let me guess..

We will be outraged when Iran counterattacks.

[iconoclastNYC]

51. Right...

How many sleeper cells do you think are in Isreal right now?

Traditional warfare is really quite quaint.

[wakeme2008]

7. All remember before Bush invaded Iraq

the govt in Iran was going moderate. Once Bush invaded, the hardliners won out over the moderates. Thanks Bush for all you have done.

[iam]

41. Right!

Right!Right!Right!Right!Right!Right!Right!Right! Armageddon is the goal from the fundie bush cabal.

[QuettaKid]

116. Aramgeddon is ALSO the goal

from the currennt Iranian prez...he sincerely thinks his messiah, the Mahdi is about to return.

[Thor_MN]

152. Yup, Bush cabal is nothing but a bunch of end-timers...

I'm waiting foe the day that they are dead-enders...

[Centered]

95. excellent point

I had all but forgotten. Thank you

[Betsy Ross]

9. Israel must be slipping

Secrecy is so important to Israel's defense that I am surprise SO much information is available about a future strike. Could cause one to question the validity of the information.

[EuroObserver]

12. This is pre-Security Council posturing

at the moment, Yes.

Of course, a preemptive attack-authorising Security Council Resolution doesn't look very likely, does it?

One step at a time...

[Jeanette in FL]

13. Israel is in a state of flux at the moment

With Sharon in his dire medical condition, a temporary Prime Minister at the helm and Netanyahu wanting to take over and advising Israel to make the preemptive strike, who knows what is going on. Someone might want to get the word out.

[Colorado Blue]

40. Indeed. Especially since, in his last speech before being

stricken, Ariel Sharon advocated diplomacy as the best means for dealing with Iran.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

180. Funny how quickly he was "stricken" after that, isn't it?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[enigma000]

16. Certain people on this earth should never have been born?

Sounds like you and the President of Iran have been trading notes. What about the potential of Iran having deliverable nukes?

[peacetalksforall]

29. What about the potential? Will Iran be ready in 10 days, 10 weeks, or

will it be 10 years as I asked in my post and as reported over the past year. 10 years? Or not? Why nuke them in two months if there is time to talk peace in two years or less? War is stupid and final.

[greblc]

186. Iran could have a nuke by 2009. This is an estimate...

I read this evening.

[EuroObserver]

38. What about the potential of BFEE

having deliverable nukes? (ed: not to mention that madman BLiar).

Ever heard of "defensive weapons"?

Aren't our "Ministries of War" these days called "Ministries of Defense"?

¿Who's complying with the hard-hammered-out Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty these days? Partial Answer: Iran, possibly. USA: certainly not.

[No Exit]

44. Bush and Cheney come to mind...

and remember, some guy, I think it was one of those suspected in the lobbying scandal, said that Abramoff "should never have been born". Kind of harsh, even for sleazeball Abramoff...

[High Plains]

47. What about the potential of Iran having deliverable nukes?

Well, then, I imagine people would think twice about attacking them. Seems like Iran is acting in its own national interest, no matter how ludicrous the comments of its leader.

[stepnw1f]

86. Potential is all a Paranoid Schizophrenic Needs

Get a grip... we don't need another Iraq, ok?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

181. Sounds like you've been drinking the NeoCon Kool-Aid....

...how's it taste?

[Xithras]

32. Iran could probably do it in 1 or 2 if we left them to it.

Building atomic weapons really isn't that hard, but there's a cost and time investment involved in gathering the materials and fabricating the bomb construction equipment. Iran has been working on their atomic program for a decade now, and even the UN has said they're only a year or two away from finishing it. I don't give a lot of credence to intelligence reports from our government, but if they actually have been working on it since the UN seals were put into place, they probably have even less time than that.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

182. Only if you believe what the NeoCons have been telling you.

[EuroObserver]

34. Last (Spanish) interview I read, Mohammed ElBaradei said

5 - 10 years, if Iran wants to develop its own deterrent, Yes.

Certainly not 48 hours, or whatever.

[Colorado Blue]

39. WOW. And of whom do you speak? I'm afraid to ask. nt

[Tom Joad]

15. Axis of Fanatics... Iran, Israel, United States

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=9478
Axis of Fanatics -- Netanyahu and Ahmadinejad
by Norman Solomon

With Ariel Sharon out of the picture, Benjamin Netanyahu has a better chance to become prime minister of Israel.

He’s media savvy. He knows how to spin on American television. And he’s very dangerous.

Netanyahu spent a lot of his early years in the United States. Later, during the 1980s, he worked at the Israeli Embassy in Washington and then became Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations. By the time he moved up to deputy foreign minister in 1988, he was a star on U.S.
networks.

The guy is smooth -- fluent in American idioms, telegenic to many eyes -- and good at lying on camera. So, when Israeli police killed 17 Palestinians at Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque in October 1990, Netanyahu led a disinformation blitz asserting that the Palestinians were killed after they’d rioted and pelted Jewish worshipers from above the Wailing Wall with huge stones. At the time, his fable dominated much of the U.S. media. Later even the official Israeli inquiry debunked Netanyahu’s account and blamed police for starting the clash.

[AntiFascist]

48. I have read that Netanyahu met with Jerry Falwell in '98...

to "conspire-at a critical time-to trip up President Bill Clinton and specifically use the pressure of the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to force Clinton to abandon pressure on Israel to withdraw from the occupied West Bank."

I wonder if this is true?

[cantstandbush]

58. Israel is good at using the RW fanatical Christians to feed their bear. n

[stepnw1f]

88. What an Unholy Alliance They Are (nt)

[HuffleClaw]

17. more agitprop

but i doubt israel will do bush's dirty work for him on their own. the MIGHT join in, real quiet-like.

[bemildred]

21. Equine rectal extrusion artifacts, I was thinking ... nt

[apple_ridge]

19. Think about what an easy sell it is for this attack.

Nobody in their right mind would want a nuclear armed Iran, particularly with Ahmadinejad at the helm. He's a raving lunatic and has been quite vocal about his desire to remove Israel from the planet.

I think most of the world will give tacit approval of the action.

The problem will be when we use tactical nukes in the attack. Now that is going to piss the world off to no end.

[meganmonkey]

20. But most of the world will look at ALL the facts

particularly after Bushco's lies about Iraq, and they will realize that, according to experts, it would still be around 10 years before they have enough for a nuclear bomb.

Edited to add link:

Experts familiar with Iran's centrifuge efforts believe they can be made ready within days, but it could take many years for Iran to produce a sufficient amount of enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb, given its existing centrifuge capabilities.

The amount of time Iran will need to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb depends on several factors, including the enrichment level of the uranium gas used in the cascade and the power of the centrifuges. According to a report published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, it could take Iran more than 10 years to produce 25 kilograms of 93 percent enriched enriched uranium using the 164 centrifuges it has currently at Natanz.


http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=1488020

[apple_ridge]

24. Most of the world will

think, "Why wait?"

You're naive if y ou think that the world will look at all the facts. Facts don't carry much weight in the real world.

[meganmonkey]

25. Please point out to me

where the 'the world' is talking about military intervention in Iran. The only countries I have seen beating these drums is the US and Israel. The rest of the world is pursuing diplomatic solutions.
My world is bigger than the US and Israel.

:shrug:

[apple_ridge]

28. Please point out to me where

I ever said "the world is talking about military intervention in Iran".

[meganmonkey]

30. Sure

Your words:
"I think most of the world will give tacit approval of the action."

I should have added the word "support" to my sentence, as in: "...show me where the 'the world' is talking about supporting military intervention in Iran..."

But my overall point is that "the world" will NOT support this action. You clearly say it will, and I would like to see where you have any evidence of that.

[greblc]

187. The EU3 is very concerned as well.

I imagine they are drawing War plans and forming coalitions as we speak. No sane leader can think their country would be safe with a nuclear Iran.

[DemonFighterLives]

59. I don't think so

Most of the world would rather live and let live. No one needed to end the nuclear non-proliferation, but dubby wanted too. Israel was allowed ot stock up and Pakistan. The world is becoming a powder keg thanks to dubby's careless policies.
:peace:

[centristo]

37. ?

so we should wait until they have the ability to launch nuclear weapons before we do anything about it? I'm dismayed to see so many Democrats support Iran's dictator. Ahmadinejad is a belligerent hate-monger elected by a hostile nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad


We should not let Bush's folly in Iraq prevent us from doing what we have to do against our true enemies, if it comes to that. We are doing the right thing in pursuing a diplomatic solution. I think Israel is just posturing right now, but a few months from now, maybe not.

[meganmonkey]

49. Actually I don't support Ahmadinejad

I have no idea what makes you think I do. I am very concerned about Iran. But that certainly doesn't mean I think we need to attack Iran with bombs this spring, or support Israel in its potential attack on Iran. We need to stick with the rest of the international community on this, and I don't see any evidence of an international consensus. What are we going to do - punish the citizens of Iran for the actions of it's dictator like we did with Iraq? No thank you.

I also think it would be easier to encourage other nations NOT to produce nuclear weapons if Israel and the US had smaller arsenals. I think it is terribly hypocritical for Israel and the US to tell other countries that they can't have nuclear weapons. We have NO credibility in that regard.

edit for clarity

[DemonFighterLives]

60. I agree completely

:thumbsup:

[centristo]

130. by advocating we "wait and see" what happens

you are supporting Ahmadinejad and his strategy to make Iran a nuclear player in the region.

So far, it appears Israel is only interested in bombing the nuclear facility, not the homes of the women and chidren of Iran. I don't think Israel has much to gain from arbitrarily killing a bunch of Iranian civilians.

Finally, it is true that the US has very little credibilty to delegate another nation's nuclear ambitions. That being said, we still can't just sit on our hands and let Iran or North Korea develop said weapons while not doing anything about it. Make no mistake, these people want to kill us (along with Israel and South Korea respecitvely). Do not let the mistakes Bush made in Iraq convince you otherwise. This is exactly why Bush's Iraq war is so dangerous - it is making our foreign policy options very limited.

[rustydad]

160. Not bombing homes???

Some of the most important Iranian facilities are buried under towns, town with very sacred mosques in them. And why so hard on the Iranians because they elected a radical president? Check out our unelected radical nutwing president. The Iranians are good people, by the way they are not arabs, they love their children and families as do we. They are scared of Israel and should be given the record of war crimes committed by the Israelis over the decades. And Israel does have several hundred nuclear weapons. The best deterrence against an enemy is MAD as the cols war showed. Iran would never use nucs against us or any other nation in a first strike. It would be suicide. They are not stupid. Bob

[centristo]

164. clearly they're not stupid

they put all of their military targets underneath their religious centers and homes of their citizens. Apparently you don't consider the use of those innocent human shields to be a "war crime".

Iran is not scared of Israel. Iran wants to burn Israel into the ground. They just don't know how to do that without facing reprisal from America and Europe. Practically every speech I've seen off of Memritv.org by an Iranian ends with "Death to America, Death to Israel." Do you think "Death to Israel" is just idiomatic to certain Iranians or perhaps they actually mean it? It goes without saying that every Iranian does not act or feel this way, but there are certainly thousands who do.

Maybe you are ok with the Holocaust denials Iranian officials publicly make on a regular basis. Maybe you're ok with the fact that Iranian officials prefer Israel move to any other region of the world but the middle east. Frankly, I find your moral relativism disheartening.

I have no doubt you are well aware of Israel's transgressions and I agree there are plenty. But you do everyone on this forum an disservice when you paint Iran as a hapless victim of Israeli aggression. I guess when it comes down to it, I know that there are thousands of Iranians that want to see me dead simply because I'm an American, but there are no Israelis who would do the same. So my question is: how much do you really know about Iran?

http://memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
http://www.iran-e-azad.org/stoning/women.html
http://www.ncr-iran.org/index.php (<-- an anti-Iranian site, by Iranians. some interesting articles though)

[rustydad]

170. Israel's aggression?

I never claimed that Israel as been aggressive with Iran. They have not. But the US has wreaked havoc in Iran sense the 50s when the CIA installed the Shaw and his torturers. Iranians have many reasons to hate the US as do many other countries. But they have neither the will or means of striking us militarily. Nor will they have if they develop a nuclear weapon. On the other hand we are threatening to bomb them because their elected leader has a big mouth? Or spouts off about the Holocaust being fiction? I find their leadership to be deplorable but find that ours is no better, perhaps worse. And Israel's Sharon, well think on his history of gross inhumanity. bob

[centristo]

171. if you feel our government is morally on par

with Iran's than we have nothing left to debate. I wouldn't even know where to begin proving you wrong.

Bush is certainly taking steps in their direction, but we are still worlds apart from that kind of oppresive religious totalitarianism.

Iran and the Bomb - NYT editorial
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/13/opinion/13fri1.html?hp

I HIGHLY recommend you read this:

Who Runs Iran?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/default.stm

[rustydad]

172. Our record...

...of killing and destruction around the world is so demonstrated that all I can say is that Iran has never been close to us in acts of inhumanity. They do allow their religion a place in government. Do you not think the religious right does not influence our government? The big difference is that the Muslim extremists believe that man needs to be tightly controlled by religion working through government or else he will fall to the evils of western materialism. As I look at what the US has become, a nation of obese morons falling all over themselves to buy cheap chinese trinkets at Wall Mart I really wonder if our system is *better* than theirs. bob

[centristo]

173. a few quick points

In our country, the religous right influence the government. In Iran they RUN the government.

Western materialism is bad. Islamic (or any religous) Fundamentalism is worse.

[rustydad]

174. Yes

I agree that having clerics running the government is worse than our system with the priviso that our government is so infested by corruption inspired by rampant materialism that no one knows how bad it is. As I said the truth is in actions not words. Our actions over the last several centuries speak volumnes about our respect for democracy and humanity. An interesting comparison of Musslim fundamentalism with Christian Fundamentalism is at this link;
http://www.antiwar.com/utley/?articleid=8376

January 12, 2006
Their Armageddonites,
and Ours
Iran's president and Pat Robertson more alike than you think
by Jon Basil Utley

<snip>
"It is indeed an irony that today, at the beginning of the 21st century, America, Iran, and Israel all have governments heavily influenced by fanatical religious fundamentalists. The rest of the world should be aware and wary."
<snip>
A side by side comaprison of religions is here;
http://www.contenderministries.org/prophecy/eschatology.php
Bob

[iconoclastNYC]

53. Folly? True enemies?

Trouble is buddy that it's the same neocons who told us that Saddam was our enemy, was reconstituting it's nuclear program, had sough significant quanties of uranium from africa, had functional ties to al Qaeda, was complicit in 911, and had stockpiles of banned WMDs.

None of those were true. But we should just believe them when they say that Iran is about to get nuclear weapons?

And tell me if we can take care of Iran's WMD plans with air strikes, why coudln't we do that with Iraq?

The Neocons have weakened national security. This is not about threats. This is about empire and war profiteering.

[centristo]

131. Saddam was our enemy

or were we imposing sanctions on a friend of ours? The other stuff the neo-cons got way wrong of course, but please - Saddam was no ally.

And its not the neo-cons who are saying Iran wants to rebuild its nuclear facilities, its Iran. The weapons point is obviously debatable.

As I've said in other posts, the Iraq War was weakened us considerably. I agree with you. It will be very difficult for the US to do anything to stop Iran from making weapons.

[iconoclastNYC]

137. I think the issue is

The sanction contained Saddam. He wasn't an ally, and he was an enemy, but he was not a threat. I should have said "threat" in my previous post, instead of enemy.

Why does Iran want NUKES? Is it for offense or defense? The reason to have nukes is as a defense against a strike from another nuclear nation. In this case it's Israel who has them. Iran would be completely wiped off the face of the planet if they tried to screw with us. It's not to use against the USA, its that they want to have what the USA had with USSR...the prospect of mutually assured destruction if nukes were ever used.

But the neocons are going to lie to us, hype the threat, sell fear, stovepipe and manipulate intelligence into getting the American people to think that Iran is now a huge threat to us. Then they'll further endanger our credibility and our national security by engaging in another middle eastern misadventure.

At no point has the Bush administration considered the idea of getting Israel to eliminate it's nuclear program.

[HuffleClaw]

65. "a belligerent hate-monger"

hmmmmm. so is bush. and sharon.

this crap about nukes is a smokescreen to hide the TRUE reason for this sudden march to war. the iranian oil bourse. just as 'wmd' was an excuse to invade iraq and steal its oil.

[Disturbed]

23. Is the Iraeli Govt. Suicidal?

Iran will strike back.

[iconoclastNYC]

54. Not just Iran, IMHO.

Hammas, Islamic Jihaad, Al Qaeda.

[Centered]

55. not if there isn't an Iran left...

:nuke:


Even if Iran had 2x it's military they would be no match for Israel, the Israelis get way too much practice shooting and blowing stuff up. That's why Israel is still on the map. US weapons, and lots of training and real combat practice. Israel isn't afraid to take on the other Arab nations... they did it before. Not saying the Israeli's are hardcore gung-Ho for war or anything... just pointing out that Iran's military is not prepared for Israel if War broke out.

The whole situation needs to be handled very carefully and personally... I get a little scared thinking about it. So many people dying because a few people don't like each other or their ideals... it's sad really.

[JohnstownDEM]

132. exactly

Israel, despite it size, is a formidable foe. The only reason the remain on the map is because they are not as hesistant to use their military might as other countries are. Arab nations fear them because Israel has the bomb, and they are not afraid in the least bit to use it. Their finger is on the button, and they have an itchy trigger finger.

[LivingInTheBubble]

161. They are the nuclear catalyst in the region.

"Arab nations fear them because Israel has the bomb, and they are not afraid in the least bit to use it."

Yet they go ape shit at the thought of anyone around them defending themselves in the same way.

[oblivious]

26. Most of the world would NOT give tacit approval of the action.

Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has been working closely with the IAEA to assure the world that its nuclear research and development is for peaceful purposes only.

Why would the rest of the world approve of Israel, a country with nuclear weapons that has never signed the NPT, bombing Iran, a country that has guaranteed that it wants only to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes? The IAEA is in Iran to supervise all research activities to guarantee this.

This is the way the world is supposed to work.

[apple_ridge]

31. Have you read much about Iran's new president?

Do you really think other nations are going to want an Ahmadinejad led Iran to be a member of the club?

The only reason other nations might not approve of the action is the problems that would result in the oil market.

[oblivious]

42. No, the 114-nation non-aligned movement supports Iran in this.

Security council members China and Russia, along with current members Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and Algeria do not appear to have any objection to Iran's research into the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

The main objections appear to be from countries with weaponised nukes -- the US, UK, France and Israel -- along with Germany.

An attack on Iran for its desire to use nuclear energy peacefully, while rewarding countries such as Israel, Pakistan and India who have developed nuclear weapons, and ignoring N Korean nuke developments will be a signal to Iran and the rest of the non-nuclear world that it is better to develop nuclear weapons outside the NPT - a disaster for the world.

[Hermosa Beach Dem]

70. How can anyone be so sure....

...that Iran is really only looking into the peaceful use of nuclear energy? I do think that the rest of the world needs to fully exhaust diplomatic channels to ensure "peaceful use" only, but if Iran is hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons then that is a frightening prospect indeed.

Do you remember Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent remark that called for "Israel to be wiped off the map"....the same remark that was condemned by the UN Security Council? Should the rest of the world put its faith in the old Cold War idea of Mutually Assured Destruction in the event that Iran comes to possess nukes? I'm not so sure I'd sleep well at night if I was living in Israel with a nuclear-armed Iran not so far away. If diplomacy fails, I say warm up the bombers......there is no other logical choice and time is of the essence.

[DemonFighterLives]

83. No other logical choice

Therein lies the dilemma.
Welcome to DU!
:peace:

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rustydad]

135. Exactly right

Iran is clearly seeing nuclear as necessary for two reasons. One is they need energy and cash. They have a very young population, high birth rate and rely on imports of goods. They have huge oil and gas reserves and realize that with Peak Oil and Gas it is far better for them to sell oil and gas and use nuclear for home power. That said they also do not want to be dependent on another country for nuclear fuel rods. Look at the recent natural gas confrontation between Russia and Ukraine. He who has the energy has the power in a world running out of fossil fuel energy.

On the other hand Iran knows that the best deterrent to a superpower is the threat of nuclear retaliation. Look at North Korea. We threaten but do not attack. Why? Because they have nucs. Iran with nucs would be safer than without. Would they ever use them for a first strike? That would be unthinkable, they would be reduced to a wasteland. The only real fear is that they may make small nucs that could be shipped into the US or other countries secretly and detonated. But this threat already exists with Pakistan nucs and nucs left over from the fall of the USSR. Bob

[greblc]

188. Huh? They signed a treaty so it's ok?

Iran has said it will kick the IAEA out should their program be question by the U.N.! They care little about International Organizations. They are just looking for a seat at the table and will manipulate, lie and fight to get it.

[oblivious]

190. Since 2003, Iran has respected the terms of the NPT.

It has allowed IAEA supervision of its activities and voluntarily suspended research into uranium conversion while talks were ongoing with the EU-3. Everything it has done since it opened up its program to inspection is legal. Breaking the seals this weak was legal.

If the IAEA and the SC fail to respect the NPT, it is a message to Iran and other countries that want to develop a peaceful nuclear program that they should not join the NPT.

Far better to have IAEA inspectors supervising the work to ensure it is peaceful and transparant than to have Iran outside the NPT.

[IA_Seth]

35. It's not an easy sell!

As evidenced by the lack of support worldwide that we (or Israel) have for any sort of military action against Iran.

The world was more than willing to wait out Saddam Hussein and use containment and sanctions to stop him from obtaining WMDs.

The world will be more than willing (especially in light of our Iraq fiasco) to work out much more diplomatic solutions than bombs and guns. Containment and sanctions, combined with regional diplomacy, will be the easy sell.

I don't think there is ANY proof of any nation other than US or Israel of giving any approval, tacit or otherwise, for military action.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

80. Nobody in their right mind wants a nuclear armed NeoCon America.

[Barrett808]

22. The Iranian Oil Bourse starts in March

Coincidence?

[Poll_Blind]

27. I'm so glad you caught that too. No, it's no coincidence. n/t

PB

[formercia]

45. It wouldn't have anything to do with euro based oil sales?

for shame the don't use the dollar. Wonder why. Get a brain Bush.

[No Exit]

46. THANK YOU.

Hell no, it's not a coincidence.

[TroubleMan]

61. Exactly what I was thinking....also the Fed Reserve stops reporting the M3

in March.


So they're trying to cover their asses both ways. Either we'll get dragged into Iran using Israel as an excuse/proxy to stop the oil bourse. Also, if the war doesn't happen and the bourse is a done deal, they'll just print a bunch of money to try to prop up the economy - and nobody will know because the M3 will no longer be reported.

The end of February and beginning of March should be very interesting.

[megatherium]

84. No that's not what's going on here.

If anything, the fact that Iran is a major oil producer is lessening the chance of an Israel/US attack. If we did attack, do you think we would control that oil? Hell no. It would be far too expensive to occupy the country than the oil is worth. Really -- it would be a lot worse than Iraq, constant suicide bombings, guerilla warfare. Indeed, if we had to attack, doubtless it would take the form of a long air campaign, leading to a failed state. We would trash Iran. Then nobody gets the oil, probably.

on edit: deleted warlike second paragraph.

[bpilgrim]

96. that didn't stop then in IRAQ

i think they are willing to take the 'short-term' hit if it means getting our troops in position of occupying and control of the oil producing nations of the ME before the shit REALLY hits the fan, PEAK-OIL.

peace

[megatherium]

112. Is the saber-rattling actually an attempt to get the Iranians to

be more forthcoming with their oil and gas? The Iranians need to maintain protective friendships, so they pump more oil or do so for less money. Thus we play bad cop and the Europeans end up playing good cop but everyone wins out as the supply of low-priced oil increases.

I don't doubt oil enters into the equation; my fear is that Iranian anti-Semitism is being viewed as a real danger, one that requires pre-emptive action by Israel/US to prevent them from getting the bomb.

[katty]

147. Iran has given no indication of backing down-more a ramping up

of antagonistic behavior.

[bpilgrim]

154. 'antagonistic behavior' your ass

they are responding to 'antagonistic behavior'

baybus

peace

[katty]

145. Saddam was trading in Euros before bush attack Iraq

Saddam is not doing that now.

[daleo]

33. This would require American involvement

"Sources say one, possibly two airfields in Kurdish northern Iraq have been earmarked as launch-points to reduce flying time over Iran."

The article skips over that fact.

[superconnected]

71. This totally would require American involvment.

Interesting they do it while Sharons practically brain dead.

[katty]

146. No coincidence there..NUT-tanyahu is on his runway already

[Pavulon]

127. Nope.

Israel has the ability to organize, arm, and fly jets equipped with drop tanks over Iran without our help.

[daleo]

134. I meant the comment in the article

That said Kurdish airfields in Iraq would be used. Assuming that was the case, it would mean U.S. involvement by virtue of them being the occupation power (in a legal sense).

[lovuian]

52. When its all said and done this was in the plans

all along ... So sad... Iran is under madman and we have our ours...

nuclear is not the way to go...:nuke:

[Redstone]

56. Well, of COURSE they're updating their plans!

You think they're stupid enough to wait around until the Iranians nuke them first?

I'm no Zionist, but those people in charge of Iran want to kill Jews, and lots of them. And they'll do it the SECOND they have the capability.

Don't kid yourself about those people's intentions.

Average Iranians (and I've known plenty of them) are wonderful people, and really like Americans, and couldn't care less about Israel.

But the people in their government are fucking maniacs, much like the people in charge of the US government right now, and they're just as dangerous as bushyboy and his crowd.

Redstone

[acmavm]

62. There's an interesting sentence in your post there bud...

<snip>

I'm no Zionist, but those people in charge of Iran want to kill Jews, and lots of them. And they'll do it the SECOND they have the capability.

<snip>

And the Likud party? They don't want to kill arabs? And lots of them? And if Netenyahu gets control? You think they won't?

That's what's wrong with this picture. No one ever says "Hey, both sides are wrong, they both need to straighten up and fly right."

Nope. Just justification for getting out them bombs and loadin' 'em onto those fighter jets and letting loose in some Strangelovian-like nightmare scenario.

[Redstone]

68. Yes, I said "I'm no Zionist." That means, if you'll pay just a TINY bit

of attention, that I don't favor having the Israelis kill a bunch of Arabs, either.

What part of that didn't you understand?

Redstone

[megatherium]

87. selfdelete

[acmavm]

98. I understand English perfectly. It's my first language. And I didn't

misunderstand a thing.

You have this grudging justification for the Israeli's dropping bombs, ever so reluctantly (so you make it sound).

So don't get snarfy with me. I don't want to see anyone bombed out of this life. And I don't see any justification, none at all, for the Israelis or Washington to do just that.

[DemonFighterLives]

64. I think you are overstating the situation - IMHO

So it would be ok to kill many civilians worldwide instead of entertaining some peaceful route. I could just as easily stat that Israel is intent on whacking Iranians off the Earth. It seems war is the only option on the table.
:hide:

[Redstone]

69. No, God dammit, Israel doe NOT have a bradcast, stated policy of

"Whacking Iranians off the Earth."

But Iran DOES have a stated, and broadcast policy of doing the dame to the Israelis.

Read the news, would you, before making illogical comparisions?

Redstone

[DemonFighterLives]

73. Thanks for that rant

You read! How many Palestinians have been killed compared to Israelis?
I know this type of thread is flamebait, but thought it may be worth the effort.
I truly believe that is a faction that supports your policy and not all Iranians. Just like my statement would not include all Israelis but a certain faction that calls everyone who debates their policy anti-semitic and thinks the world is out to get them.
I guess what I am saying is they haven't tried Peace enough---- IMHO

[Redstone]

93. Your post borders on gibberish. After you've had some rest,

and can outline your thoughts in something apporaching a linear fashion, maybe we could have another discussion.

But not tonight. I'm too tired to translate whatever it was that you said into English.

Redstne

[DemonFighterLives]

121. I would say great comeback

but you really presented nothing but flamed me and basically stated the same old stuff that is floated all the time. I think is is not entirely true that all muslims or Arabs or whoever are tying to push Israel into the sea.
In a perfect world the elements of Israel and Iran that wish for peace and are not dreaming of Armageddon would get together and solve this instead of saber rattling.

My post was not entirely coherent, but I am willing to explain my position if you quit God Damning.
I haven't changed my post, but hope to have explained it to you here.

Edit for spelling and coherence. :-)

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

109. Indeed...Give me a break.

What a ludicrous and completely erroneous set of words strung together!

[Name removed]

177. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pavulon]

128. Yep.

They could have rounded up every palestinian and deported them. They could have bombed the funeral of the hamas nuts, where they dance around with suicide vests and machine guns.

They could target women and children like hamas and the rest of the "freedom fighters".

The world would not care. A few more UN resolutions later and that would be that. The palestinians are a pawn in an ongoing war that started in 1946. Read up.

Wiping Israel off the map is the quote.

[rustydad]

136. As far as I know

Iran as never initially attacted another county in modern times. Actions dear friend speak louder that words. BTW what is Israel's track record for attaking neighbors? And why did Israel secretly build the worlds third largest nuclear arsenal and missles that can reach Europe? Bob

[HuffleClaw]

67. have you have fallen for the flood of agitprop about this?

really, what he spouts is no different than the over the top propaganda that emanates from north korea, but in that case, every word out of kim jong il's mouth isn't being repeated ad nauseum on fox and msnbc. that's not to say he isn't as hateful as sharon or bush, but even he isn't stupid enough to USE nukes if they get them. people said the same thing about india and pakistan too. that they'd use theirs the moment they could. hasn't happened yet.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

82. Incredible. We were all told Iraq was dangerous, too.

[bpilgrim]

97. just imagine how they feel about Israel and the U.S.

exactly the same way and history tells them they are right to be frightened.

peace

[katty]

148. Yes, Iran has made it perfectly clear they want to wipe Israel away

[Media_Lies_Daily]

178. You don't think Israel would do the same if they thought they could....

...get away with it?

[Coastie for Truth]

63. Civilians - Listen up CIVILIANS

The military always has "contingency plans" for everything - even to invade Quebec if requested by the Dominion of Canada in the event of Quebecois Secession.

Coastie

Lieutenant, United States Coast (Honorable Discharge)

[superconnected]

72. contingency plans that include a strike date?

[Earth_First]

66. raids would be carried out by long-range F-15E bombers and cruise missiles

Planning? Sounds like the plan is already set, and they're telling us, not warning us.

All set to coincide with the opening of the Iranian Oil Bourse on March 20, 2006.

ANOTHER oil war.

[JCMach1]

105. No doubt refueled by US over Iraq...

[Pavulon]

125. Drop tanks would allow for a round trip(nt)

[Megahurtz]

75. Whoopeeeee!!! Here we go!!!

:woohoo::evilgrin::party::smoke::toast::smoke::party::evilgrin::woohoo:

:sarcasm:

:hide::yoiks::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:

[kineneb]

89. Theme song for 2006:"So Long, Mom, I'm off to drop the bomb..."

Where is Tom Lehrer when you need him?

Please end the insanity.

[megatherium]

91. Hope the Iranians cooperate in that. nt

[shadowknows69]

78. is it any comfort to anyone else?

knowing when WWIV and the probable end of civilization is going to start or would you rather be ignorant like the brainwashed masses?

[IndianaGreen]

99. Just before his stroke, Sharon spoke of negotiations

It was Condi Rice who spoke of war (and Bibi Netanyahu).

Could the US strike Iran and point the finger at Israel? I wouldn't put it past them!

[bpilgrim]

100. if Iran did not actually begin enriching uranium for nuclear fuel

Sharon: Iran nukes may require military response

By Joshua Brilliant
UPI Israel Correspondent
Published December 1, 2005

TEL AVIV, Israel -- Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Thursday Israel and other countries couldn't accept an Iran with a nuclear bomb, adding Tehran's program could be stopped by military means.

Iran has been Israel's main foe since 1979, when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini deposed the Shah. Iran has vowed to eradicate the Jewish state.

The nuclear issue came up Thursday at an annual meeting with the Israel Editors' Committee in Tel Aviv.

Sharon stressed Israel and other countries "cannot accept a situation in which Iran will have a nuclear weapon. That is clear to us, known to us and we are also making all the preparations necessary in order to be ready for such situations."

more...
http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20051201-035746-1007r

Could the US strike Iran and point the finger at Israel? I wouldn't put it past them!

Could the Israel strike Iran and point the finger at US? I wouldn't put it past them!

but the real question is would it matter?

peace

[IndianaGreen]

101. Sharon: 'Iran Could be Stopped with Sanctions'

'Iran Could be Stopped with Sanctions'

By Anadolu News Agency (aa), Jerusalem

Published: Saturday, January 07, 2006
zaman.com

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said in his last interview before becoming ill that if the international suppression over Iran continues Tehran's nuclear studies may be prevented.

Sharon giving an exclusive interview to Japanese newspaper, Nikkei Shimbun, recalled Israeli Prime Minister Menahem Begin ordered to attack Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1981. To a question about a possible Israeli offensive against Iran, Sharon responded, the conditions are different now.

"I was in the cabinet in 1981 and played an important role in the operation decision. The conditions were different then. I believe that we are still in the negotiations period and we can stop Iran with sanctions."

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20060107&hn=28378

[bpilgrim]

102. yeah, but he saw their enrichment program as intolerable and

a military response as a requirement if they crossed that red line.

the double standard is what is truly intolerable, imho.

peace

[Pavulon]

129. There is only one reason to enrich uranium beyond 50%(nt)

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[meganmonkey]

158. Double standard indeed

Funny that the US and Israel are telling everyone else they can't make nukes. Frankly, if I were an Arab country in the ME I'd want them too!!!

[Clara T]

103. kick for info

[leesa]

111. Yes, and as always, US soldiers will do their fighting for them.

Only Israel may have nukes. And only Israel may violate UN sanctions.

[Pavulon]

117. Has anyone linked to Rense

yet? You know the Iranians have these 10 year old super missiles that they will use to attack and destroy the entire entire surface fleet. A wonder weapon like the v-1. A missile with no counter measure. You know the most powerful surface fleet in the world has had 10 years and not developed any counter measure, right? No way to effect its telemetry or tracking system.

Iran also has a massive distributed command and control system with multi point of failure integrated air defense network. A blue water navy, a modern air force, with awacs, and decentralized command structure allowing mid level officers to act.

Iran has no capability to inflict serious damage, land sea, or air against us. If they did lob a nuke first, god help them. The israeli defense system maybe. Iran is a soviet model. If israel attacks them they would be wise not to attack the US. They are a hollow shell like saddam was in 91 and would just end up like they were in 93. Squished.

Any attack against us would not result in a land based, nation building, lets make friends operation fuckup like we are in now. It would be a traditional we use black jets to blind you and then break your toys plan. You know the war we have trained to fight for 20 years.

[DemonFighterLives]

124. You bring some interesting aspects to the table

Just Israel flying in and possibly getting the plane shot down could start the whole conflagration. Who would be the agressor? The plane flying to Iraq for pre-emptive strike or the Iranians for shooting them down.
Who then will be the most pissed off?
Israel?
Iran?
dubya?
The whole scenario no matter how it plays out means death and much bloodshed and less hope for bringing the world together in my lifetime.
:nuke:
:scared:

[Clara T]

151. Who's 'us'?

who's 'them'?

"and after all we're only ordinary men"

[oneoftheboys]

139. Well, one thing can be said with respect to our support for Israel.

At least we are backing a winner.

Another thing to consider--better them than us.

[meganmonkey]

140. A winner?

Meaning what - you think they will have a 'successful' bombing campaign in Iran? They will quite certainly do it with our assistance, so the whole 'better them than us' thing doesn't fly, IMO. And what will happen when the rest of the Arab nations in the ME react to Israel bombing Iran? No thanks!

I have no idea where you are coming from on this. But I, for one, don't wish to see another nation of innocent civilians destroyed by us or our ally because of the actions of its dictator.

Not to mention, we are hardly one to criticize a nation for wanting nuclear energy, or even nuclear weapons for that matter. Terribly hypocritical.

[oneoftheboys]

141. Yes, a winner.

When (1) nation kicks (4) others in the ass within (6) days, they are winners.

What is Israel supposed to do? Wait until the nukes are on the launch pad before striking?

[meganmonkey]

144. Well, for starters

Israel is the only one with 'nukes on the launch pad' in that region. In fact, Iran is likely 10 years away from having enough nuclear material for a bomb(source: http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=1488020).

I am NOT defending the gov't of Iran, so please don't think that I am.

I am more concerned with the bigger picture of what will happen in that region if Israel strikes, and the effects of our inevitable involvement in any conflict there.

We learned the lesson of pre-emptive war without significant international support in Iraq, and I for one do not want to go down that road again.

Peace.

[Name removed]

155. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[meganmonkey]

157. A lot of people said "better safe than sorry" about Iraq

Do you think the Iraq war has been worth it? Knowing what we know now...the Bush admin deliberately led us to war on false pretenses. I am NOT falling for that again. Look what happened in Iraq - the Bush administration and other right-wing sources claimed that Iraq had all these weapons and they clearly didn't. Meanwhile, we bypassed the UN inspectors, we kicked them out of Iraq (not Saddam - the US kicked them out) before they could finish the job. And all along Iraq had virtually no weapons, let alone the elusive 'WMDs'. Now Iraq is a wreck, we are spending tons of money and far too many lives there, and tens of thousand INNOCENT Iraqis have dies (even Bush admits that).

And guess what - WE ARE LESS SAFE NOW!!!

The situation with Iran is starting to play out exactly the same way as Iraq did. I certainly don't trust bushco's propaganda, nor the blatantly biased source you cited.

There are other, less violent, avenues to pursue. In fact, they are being pursued already. Why don't we let that play out first?

And again, an unprovoked, pre-emptive strike would undoubtedly unleash a HUGE mess in the Middle East. That will most certainly not make ANYONE safer.

[Strelnikov_]

156. "Designed To Set Tehran's Weapons Programme Back By Up To Two Years"

This is the most worrisome part of this article for me. It adds credibility to the report since it represents a realistic goal for an 'air-strike' option.

Worrisome in that if Iran is struck, and this article makes it more plausible, it could be lighting a match near an already unstable powder keg.

Never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter.

The statesman who yields to war fever...is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.

~Sir Winston Churchill

[fujiyama]

165. It's interesting that it says only two years though

This almost leads me to believe it's inevitable that Iran will develop nuclear weapons.

[wrate]

162. Tell us General, is it party time? And if it is, can we all come? n/t

[noonwitch]

166. Iran can't be allowed to have nukes-targeted bombing raids would work

1. The situation in Iran can change-there are a lot of people who are sick of the mullahs.
2. If the mullahs get their hands on a nuke, they will use it on Israel. Allah will tell them to. They are insane. We don't let Pat Robertson play with nukes, we shouldn't let the current Iranian regime.
3. The Israelis always have good intel. They will hit the places that the Iranians are using to develop the weapons, and leave civilian populations alone. That's what Clinton did to Iraq in 1998 (it's all in the Duelfer report), and why there were no WMD when the US troops got there in 2003. Neither us nor the Israelis need to piss off the civilian population there and alienate potential future allies.

Invading Iran would be even more problematic than Iraq or Afganistan, but they can't be allowed to have nukes.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

185. Funny, but the only country that has publicly stated that they have a....

...policy of preemptive strike using nuclear weapons is the U. S.

Who scares you the most? Iran, a country that has no nukes currently, and will likely only have a small number in ten years, if any, or the United States with thousands of nukes led by the NeoCon Junta?

Be honest.

[Maggie_May]

168. I am scared to death

I new this was going to happen. If Israeli gets involved in this its a all out Muslim war. Bush at this point is trying to get backers on a attack on Iran. I know some of you will laugh but my gut feeling is we are going to war again. I have a son thats turning 18 in August and I know they are going to take my baby. I just won't be able to handle it I am just sick to my stomach.

[mmonk]

169. Hang onto your seats

and watch China, the dollar, and Russia as we enter the 2nd phase of the neocon plan.

[PhilipShore]

176. Does not surprise me...

at all the Bush team is pro nukes regardless of the political environment. My guess is the Repukes will say publicly, they are anti-nuke --but privately they want Iran to obtain nuclear technology.

[rman]

189. Israelis plans to violate international law;

"pre-emptive" strike is defined in international law (UN), and it is not "attacking a nation because you think the might attack you in the future".