Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Attacking another country because of what they MIGHT do in the future

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
BushOut06 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 12:38 AM
Original message
Attacking another country because of what they MIGHT do in the future
Let me get this straight - Israel wants to attack Iran because it's convinced that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. These nukes present an imminent threat to Israel's survival, therefore preemptive action must be taken to ensure that it doesn't happen. Yet there is no concrete proof that Iran is actually developing nukes. All we have to rely on is the combined intelligence agencies of the world - among whom there is plenty of disagreement.

Does this sound familiar to anyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
breakaleg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 12:42 AM
Response to Original message
1. If nothing else, they should learn from the US' mistakes. Look what a mess
Iraq turned out to be, and they didn't even have any WMDs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tsuki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 12:42 AM
Response to Original message
2. Yes, it's called "preventive war," and it's a crock. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poll_Blind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 12:43 AM
Response to Original message
3. Actually this was the same "defense" used when they bombed Osirak...
...nuclear reactor in Iraq back in 1981.

From the Wiki on Operation Opera:
International political reaction

At the time, the attack was widely criticized. Israel responded that its actions were self-defensive and thus justifiable under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Many critics, however, rejected the idea of "pre-emptive self-defense". France, in particular, was outraged over the loss of a French national as a result of the attack, and since the raid diplomatic ties between France and Israel have remained strained.

The United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 487, calling upon Israel "to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards", and stated that Iraq was "entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it suffered". Israel has not complied with these requests.

The United States supported the resolution condemning the Israeli action, and, temporarily, withheld a contingent of aircraft already promised to Israel.

Since that time, opinion has altered somewhat. Most notably several prominent US politicians now that the United States is engaged in her own conflict with Iraq have "retroactively supported" the operation. Those who believe that Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons in the 1980s view Operation Opera as necessary action, even if the legality of such action under international law is a contested point. However, as no WMDs to present are found in Iraq, it has been criticized that the attack is baseless as a self-defensive act.


PB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PA Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 12:45 AM
Response to Original message
4. Yes, but its being taken up a notch this time around.
Israel is reportedly planning to use tactical nukes.

And it seems that there are some members of DU who don't have a problem with that.

I must say that I feel sick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Anyone who entertains Nukes are neanderthals
The blowback would hurt Israel as much as it did their neighbors. It's all hype or stupidity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal hypnotist Donating Member (391 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 03:20 AM
Response to Reply #6
18. Bunker busters
If they used such a bomb, it would explode deep within the earth. Maybe this makes sense to anyone thinking of using nukes. Remember, not to long ago, Young George floated the idea of using nukes against Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Superman Returns Donating Member (804 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. if nukes are necessary
than they should be used. Considering that would be the first use of an atomic weapon since 1945, making Israel the second nation in history to use them, it would create so much backlash, hatred, and anti-semitism against Jewish people, in both the Muslim world and internationally that I am deeply afraid. It would also create a dangerious precedent in terms of using nukes, further radicalize the Muslim world, and probably create more global violence, especially with our troops next door in Iraq. That is why it should be a last last last resort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Israel is not being threatened.
It would be seen as an act of aggression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cubs4life Donating Member (93 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Brilliant comment.
Israel is threatened every day of its existence.

Day after day Israel's right to exist is questioned on this very website. Israel's existence is not even recognized by the majority of the Islamic world. Tell me how that doesn't equate to a threat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 02:26 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. And if Israel
is in fact planning on using nukes, then Iran is justified in believing that their very existence is endangered.

See how that works?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal hypnotist Donating Member (391 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 03:29 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. A good point
Israel is a complex and highly emotional situation. It is an area that has the potential to change the world as we know it. We need to become informed and inform others with facts and employ critical thinking. Our government started the ball rolling with the "axis of evil" comment.

How can we influence good sense in the mid-east?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Humor_In_Cuneiform Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. Hard to influence anything when you are not actively involved in
any kind of middle east peace process.

The US should become actively engaged in seeking the 2 state solution. Like Carter did, like Clinton did, and others.

Either they are SO lazy, and/or they want everything to get worse as they wait for the rapture and/or the opportune moment to make the PNAC nightmare a reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal hypnotist Donating Member (391 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. I think it is about the rapture.
I want to laugh when I think it is about the rapture but, there is one guy that may really believe it. Boy George could be serious about talking to god.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PA Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Nukes are NOT necessary
Using nukes in today's nuclear world is tantamount to committing murder/ suicide on a mass scale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 12:45 AM
Response to Original message
5. Certainly negates the Christian Golden Rule
I heard the W adminstration is being torn between Chile and Mozambique as the next target.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 12:48 AM
Response to Original message
7. we live this way in our nation and many are in agreement of it.
prosecute for what might have happened. seems to be becoming more and more popular. no wonder our govt can get this past the american people. seems to be close to the heart for many.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
8. Gee, this sounds so familar to another stupid plan - oh wait!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Humor_In_Cuneiform Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 01:54 AM
Response to Original message
13. See "The One Percent Doctrine" by Ron Suskind n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #13
24. So Iraq turned out to be a mistake, but out of the next 98 invasions....
...we're bound to end up attacking somebody who plans to attack us. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the more countries we attack, the more likely we are to find people who mean to do us harm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
driver8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 01:56 AM
Response to Original message
14. I got into a huge argument with my father-in-law last weekend about this.
He is VERY, VERY Pro-Israel and, when forming opinions, how issues will affect that country greatly influence him.

Anyhow, I have learned to avoid talking politics with him because he pisses me off and it's not worth the hassle. However, last weekend he started talking about bombing Iran because we had to protect Israel. I aske him, "Who made the US the 'nuclear police'? What right do we have to attack a country because of what they 'might do'." He told me that we had to protect ourselves at all costs; If Iran developed nuclear weapons they would use them. I asked him about North Korea -- They have been developing a nuclear weapons program, why aren't we bombing the shit out of them? They must certainly be seen as a threat. I told him that there was no oil sitting under North Korea so we don't give a shit about them. He said, "I don't think oil has anything to do with it."

His pro-Israel stance gets a little old sometimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shanti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 02:27 AM
Response to Original message
16. it's all in the PNAC
Edited on Sun Jan-07-07 02:28 AM by shanti
read up. it's part of their plan, and they have every intention of completing their plan before *ush is out of DC on his ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 02:38 AM
Response to Original message
17. "Mommmm, he's gonna hit meeee".. "Daaaaad, she's looookin at me" n/t
no grown ups in DC, apparently :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 07:14 AM
Response to Original message
20. If you assumed that logic was cogent and sound, then wouldn't Iran be
justified in attacking Israel because it MAY attack it in the future before Israel attacked Iran because it MAY attack Israel in the future?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Humor_In_Cuneiform Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
21. Ron Suskind really does present a compelling and sobering
discussion of the doctrine that underlies the administrations policies in his book "The One Percent Doctrine."

He describes the Chainyman saying in public they were going to have to go to a dark side.

If there's even a one percent chance someone might be thinking about doing something, then per their doctrine, you strike pre-emptively.

Very dangerous thinking.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
23. There are plenty of examples in history of preemptive strikes against potential invaders
France wisely invaded the Saar Valley in 1923 and destroyed Germany's economic infrastructure, preciently foreseeing that Germany might pose a threat to them later (and history proved them right!).

Japan continually stanched the tide of Chinese Communism throughout the modern era--in 1894, 1914, 1931, and 1937--launching devastating attacks against China, where a young communist insurgency was developing. Although China fell under Mao's sway, Japan today is thankfully free of the Red Menace.

In 1846 the United States invaded Mexico, due to incredible foresight of General Zachary Taylor and President James Polk, a full 68 years before the bandit Pancho Villa attacked us. Indeed, had Taylor not invaded Mexico, Villa would have ended up invading lands that were part of his own country!!

So don't tell me that preemptive invasions are counterproductive bloody messes! History's lessons on the need for militarism are perfectly clear. Hitting them first, whether they can hit you or not, clearly solves problems that don't even exist! I'm series!!1!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Humor_In_Cuneiform Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. Attacking everyone on the planet could indeed hold solutions to many of the problems that
plague our world.

1 Overpopulation, nothing like a good chaotic invasion to decimate a population of local peoples.
2 Global Warming, after a while there will no longer be that many vehicles left to burn fossil fuels anyhow.
3 Imperialism, if we take over the planet then Imperialism becomes a mere memory of days gone by. Oh for the good old days of seeking hegemony will be the lament of the neocons.


Add your own.

;)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
27. Israel is a leading military and nuclear power. They can take care of themselves.
It is time to end the "joined at the hip" status with the United States.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
28. Actually, this sounds like Bush is trying to outsource the Iran invasion.
He sure as hell knows this country can't afford another war, let alone the current mess we're in. If Isreal attacks Iran, it gets Bush off the hook. Of course, it'd also be the start of World War III, but still....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Humor_In_Cuneiform Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-08-07 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Yep, I'm afraid you are correct. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Apr 20th 2014, 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC