Does anyone wish that Israel would destroy Iran's nuclear facilities?

[INDIA]

I'm not talking about a full out assault on anything with loss of civilian (or even non-civilian) lives. A coordinated air strike much like they did against Egyptian and Syrian forces back in the 60's and 70's. Just stop their ability to manufacture nukes, and get the hell out. Also, leave U.S. forces the hell out of it.

I don't know if Iran's new president is just posturing for his constituents or what, but that wacko has me pretty scared with some of his recent comments. Bring our troops home NOW and get them as far away from that nut job as possible!!!

I hate war and violence, but if it could be done without loss of human life, wouldn't it be okay?

I'm torn....Any comments?

[jackbourassa]

1. These facilities are deep underground

You'd need nuclear weapons to destroy them.

[arcane1]

2. I'd prefer someone get rid of Israel's nukes as well

NO country should have fucking nukular weapons, IMHO

[INDIA]

6. I certainly agree with that...

But Israel has been attacked again and again and has repeatedly shown restraint with their WMD's, both nuclear and non-nuclear. I'm not sure I trust Iran with their "wipe Israel off the face of the earth" comments. I'm pretty sure the UN will be agreeing with me in the next couple of months. Iran having nuclear weapons is just plain more frightening then Israel, Britain, France, or whoever else.

[arcane1]

the idea of Israel, Britain, France, and the US having nukes...

is terrifying to Iranians

[ABaker]

10. Right on!

Get rid of all nuclear weapons everywhere

[La Lioness Priyanka]

3. what makes israel and america so special

that its ok for them to have nuclear weapons.

lets not forget till date america is the only country to have abused the atomic weapons. so what makes us so specially responisble that its ok for us to own them?

[rockymountaindem]

25. Abused?

How so? (man I know the arguments we've had at DU on this topic :evilgrin: )

[arcane1]

34. ANY use of nukes = abuse

unless there is an asteroid headed towards Earth that needs to be destroyed

[La Lioness Priyanka]

59. because whenever thousands of civilians are killed....its abuse

[madeline_con]

4. Israel should dismantle its nuclear capabilities.

We should not tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of states that sponsor terrorism in that region.

[Don Claybrook]

5. But how can you bomb a country that has broken no laws?

I know that such things aren't a real problem for smirky McWarpig, but Iran has not been caught doing anything illegal whatsoever. Bush is always talking about "sending a message". What sort of message would this bombing send? How will it look to see 3 contiguous countries all attacked by the US in the space of 5 years?

Reap the whirlwind.

[INDIA]

9. I never said for the US to be involved or bomb anything...

and believe me, if I could snap my fingers and make Nukes dissapear...I would.
BUT, I DO feel a LOT more comfortable with the U.S. having nukes considering we had many chances to use them in Korea and Vietnam and didn't.

[Karmakaze]

23. They wanted to though...

If I remember correctly many in the Pentagon were calling for the dropping of a nuke on North Vietnam... Also, the US is the country now trying to make nuclear weapons useable by creating micro-nukes. The idea is if the nuke is small enough, then we won't be worried when they drop half a dozen of them on Iranian (or whoever is the boogey man at the time) bunkers.

Personally, I hope Iran DOES get nukes. Why? Well if Iran joins Pakistan in the Muslim nuke club, then there will be far more reason for other nuke nations to agree to dismantle their stocks in return for the dismantling of Iranian and Pakistani nukes.

[Don Claybrook]

26. do you not see the screaming irony in your statement?

You feel more comfortable with the US having nukes, when the US is the ONLY country on the planet that has attacked with nuclear weapons. There's just no way to get around that one, I3.

And as to Israel, they would never in a million years unilaterally attack Iran. It would require more than acquiescence on the part of the US; it would require a partnership. Israeli airplanes can only make it to the near-side of Iraq before having to turn around and go home, unless of course they refuel in-air, which would be a US operation, and likely over Iraqi (US) airspace. In other words, this would be an American operation, and the entire planet would see it as such.

[earthside]

7. Don't give-in to the Bush warmongering.

As far as I know, Iran has not violated any international law or treaty.

They are signators of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and what they have done so far has been in accordance with that treaty.

It is only the Bush regime's warmonger and fearmonger that has created this "crisis".

Indeed, if we don't want Iran to have a nuclear bomb someday, the appropriate thing to do would be for there to be an international summit called to arrange for the nuclear disarmament of ALL countries with nukes -- including the U.S. and israel.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

8. seconded

[INDIA]

12. I agree with you on several points BUT...

Although Iran has not violated any laws as of yet, they will probably face UN sanctions soon. Not US, UN. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Iran completely denied that they are trying to attain nuclear weapons and only want electricity? I mean come on. At least N. Korea admits it. They scare the crap out of me too by the way.

[Boojatta]

17. "As far as I know, Iran has not violated any international law or treaty."

Maybe the world needs some international law or treaty to prohibit murdering translators and to prohibit offering money to incite the murder of a writer.

[sabbat hunter]

60. they are

dangerously close to breaking or renouncing the NPT. what then? is that enough to go to war with Iran?

[MadHound]

11. First of all, what nuclear facilities?

The Iranians haven't built any,either for power or war. What are you going to do, bomb the labs with the centrifuges?

And say they actually manage to get a reactor going within ten years if they're lucky. Bombing is about the stupidest thing you could do. It would result in civilian death, possibly for decades due to the radioactive fallout. And gee, if the winds are right, Israel would get some of that fall out.

Besides, what gives Israel, the US, or any other country the right to dictate terms to a sovereign nation? We certainly wouldn't stand for it. But given our penchant for illegal, immoral wars, and our stockpiles of WMDs, by the critieria we are applying to Iraq and Iran, somebody should have taken us out long ago.

Inspections yes, monitor, yes. But no bombing, no sanctions, none of that. After all, the last time the nuclear spectre was raised it was about Iraq, and we've all seen how that turned out:eyes:

[Spinzonner]

13. Then what ?

What about the blowback ?

It's dangerous to light a fuse if you don't know how much explosive there is. And I'm talking about the political explosion, not the attack itself.

[INDIA]

16. Very true..

What would you do in this situation? not counting UN sanction since that is already occuring from what I understand.

[Cleita]

14. *cough* *cough*

You can't be serious? Look to the past for your answers. The only way to end nuclear proliferation is with diplomacy and treaties. We were almost there a few decades ago and it looks like we are back at square one again thanks to the idiots running the world today.

Israel certainly shouldn't do any agressive actions in any country no matter how important it may seem. For that matter no country should act aggressively in this.

[INDIA]

18. Where has diplomacy worked?

Libya seems to be the only example I can think of. There are serious sanctions against N. Korea and all it is doing is starving their rural population to death. and they are STILL trying to get nukes.

I think the major theme of this thread is that there is no foolproof plan. Yes a bombing would create tremendous backlash politically and possible militarily, but I don't think the "wait and see" approach is good either.

[leesa]

20. Most everywhere. Where has force worked NOWHERE.

[centristo]

55. diplomacy worked with Hitler?

What was that treaty called? Diplomacy worked with Emperor Hirohito? Do you mean before or after the bombs were dropped? What treaty stopped the ethnic cleansing in Darfur or Serbia? Sorry, but you're simply wrong to say diplomacy works everywhere, although it would be nice to think so.

[Cleita]

28. No one has dropped a nuclear bomb since WWII except

for testing. Diplomacy has kept us from nuclear war for sixty years. Up until now the nuclear powers kept uneasy truces because they knew how grave this situation is. There was times we were close but truces were negotiated at the table not on a battle field. For any nation to drop a nuke on any other nation would undo all these protocols. It's not even thinkable.

[oasis]

33. Our "Wait and see approach" worked with the USSR. (eom)

[INDIA]

48. I wouldn't

call the Cold War a "wait and see" policy.

[wuushew]

36. South Africa did have a nuclear weapons program

although it could reasonably be argued it was abandoned out of racist fears prior to the end of appartide.

[Tom Joad]

39. Yes, they were helped by ...Israel.

Maybe when Israel dismantles its apartheid regime, Israel will also dismantle its nukes.

[Coastie for Truth]

57. How about A.Q.Khan

- not exactly a non-proliferator (North Korea, Iran, Libya).

Certainly the only conflict where nuclear powers face each other - India/Pakistan.

[kurth]

15. Just let the morons screw up and give themselves a nice China syndrome

deep down under...

[leesa]

19. WHAT nuclear facilities??? Why do you believe this propaganda?

This is so fucked up on so many levels. Your brand of stupid fear is what makes this endless nonsense war possible!@!

[INDIA]

49. Do you really believe

That Iran truly is only constructing these nuclear reactors for electricity? Some of it is BUSHBOT propoganda, I believe that a good portion of it isn't, hence the UN investigation.

[TankLV]

21. Absolutely NOT - that is INSANE talk!

[tkmorris]

22. Tell me something

What exactly do you believe the Iranians have to bomb? If you were the Israeli (or whoever) mission planner what do you target and why?

[RB TexLa]

24. Doesn't look like you will have to wish for too much longer n/t

[PDJane]

27. The US has shown no restraint

In using depleted uranium weaponry in places like Kosovo and Iraq. The stuff is causing more damage to the civilian population......and to US servicemen. It's insane. It is only slightly less damaging than full nuclear fallout.....as it stands, Iraq is going to be virtually uninhabitable.

There is no way to use nuclear weaponry in a closed system with no lingering effects, and Iran has the treaty ability to use nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes.

I would also point out that Iran is NOT Iraq; it is stronger, and has the ability, if it wishes to do so, to damage shipping and cut off the oil coming from the region.

Bombing them is not the answer. In fact, the fallout, both literal and figurative, from such a move could well destroy our world.

The biggest bully on the block needs to learn diplomacy.

[alcibiades_mystery]

29. Oh for fuck's sake

If you want to be a totalitarian douchebag, just go ahead and fucking endorse something. These namby-pamby "nobody gets hurt in the strategic illegal and amoral airstrike so its A-OK" bullshit is depressing in the extreme.

[DemonFighterLives]

30. No the only answer is to bring all the parties to the table

including US, Israel and others and renew the test ban and non - proliferation treaties. Stupid a*s is the one who dropped out of them and started his axis of evil bullsh*t.
:nuke:

[wuushew]

31. There would indirect economic deaths in Amerika

If you believe that such an act of violence would not result in fatalities then Iran at the very least would stop selling oil to the West. The increased costs would force many to choose between medicine, heat or food. Many would die prematurely or outright.

Its really not Iran's fault the the wealthiest nation on Earth cannot meet the basic needs of its citizenry.

[doublethink]

32. No.

Does anyone want to start World War Three? No. But if you continue to spew this shit, then get ready to sign up and go fight. Cause that is exactly what you will have, unnecessarily out of unfounded fear, terror terror terror, and booga, booga, booga. An attack on Iran will unleash so many more consequences that you could not obviously comprehend. "Blessed are the Peacemakers" and back away from the Kool-Aid. x(

[me b zola]

35. **Impending mushroom cloud**

Good God. When was the last time that we heard this shit?!!!

Step away from the propaganda :D

[wuushew]

37. This topic should be moved back to the GD forum

since it does not directly deal with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict

[Roho]

38. why was it moved here in the first place? nt

[Tom Joad]

40. Because we can't mention Israel in public, it gets shuttled to the

dungeon. Mention Israel policy in anything less than worshipful terms, and one is accused of anti-semitism.

I can criticize god on the general discussion board, however. go figure.

[Behind the Aegis]

41. Not quite true.

I am not a mod, nor have I served, but what I have observed is that some of them may be very uncomfortable with the topic of Israel because it can get dicey. Although I don't think this particular topic should have been brought here, it is at their prerogative.

I also think it is funny, how some get so upset when something gets placed down here when it is about Israel, as if NO ONE but members of I/P can make comments. Hell, you don't even have to be a donating member to comment in this forum. I think the real problem is that some want anything and everything negative about Israel front and center because their hate for Israel is so great. These are the same posters that invade Israeli threads that have nothing to do with the conflict, sometimes, not even politics, and make it about I/P, then bitch when it gets moved here.

[Roho]

42. Isn't this a progressive board?

Or is it strictly Democratic party approved messages board?

Sad if true. The Israeli treatment of the Palestinians is an intricate part of the problems faced in the middle east. How can an effective strategy for peace be developed if we can't discuss the elephant in the room.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. I guess the argument is...

..that we can discuss it, but we've got to discuss it here in this forum. Skinner used to allow discussion of it upstairs back in the early days, but it got a forum of it's own due to the way the I/P threads drowned out everything else and the bloodbath that happened because some folk are so incredibly immature that they turn the I/P conflict into something where they pick a side and see it in terms of evil and pure, good and bad, hate and like. You don't have to go far to spot posts where this sort of nonsense is in plain view, and where there's strong implications made that posters who criticise Israeli policy are anti-Semites. Yet it's these same folk who'll deny that this happens. So it's folk who have no interest in any genuine discussion, but in shrieking accusations and raising their selective outrage level to overload levels who make discussion of this issue sometimes impossible and most of the time frustrating, and they're the ones to thank for I/P discussion being contained just in this forum. Personally, I think there's an upside to the sometimes interesting I/P discussion just being kept in one forum, as it's a complex issue and not all that many mods would have the knowledge of the conflict that our current mods have...

Violet...

[Roho]

45. but doesn't his

reward the behavior you describe? I mean I'm sure the people claiming discussion of Israel's role in the conflict equals anti semitism are the same people that would like to see the topic relegated from the larger forum.

Check out the Canadian documentary Discordia. It's exactly what was happening on Canadian University campuses.

BTW thanks for the thoughtful response.

[barb162]

53. If mention is made of Israel OR the Palestinians it belongs

in I/P if/when the mods say so. I/P is "public" is it not? As to your second sentence, if I remove the words "Israel" and "anti-semitism" and replace them as follows is the statement accurate?
"Mention (Palestinian) policy in anything less than worshipful terms, and one is accused of (bigotry)."

Your sentence and my revised sentence are not accurate

[Violet_Crumble]

44. No...

And it's for quite a few reasons...

Violet...

[bemildred]

46. Bombing Iran to stop it's enrichment activities is like ...

Poking a Bear with a stick to get it to back away from the
honeycomb. The bear will eat you first, and then go back to
the honeycomb.

[Coastie for Truth]

47. Everybody or nobody.

US, Russia, UK, France, PRC, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran - or nobody.

[channa18]

50. 3 Words...HELL.... F&@KING .....YES !!

IF THE EU cant or wont do anything about it, not only do I support Israel to do it, but i suggest other countries who are openly threatened with annihilation do it too.

FLAME AWAY....i MAKE NO APOLOGIES.

oH...OMT...Chirac agrees with me....

Chirac threatens nuclear weapons against 'terrorist' states

"Leaders of any state that uses terrorist means against us, as well as any that may be envisaging -- in one way or another -- using weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would be exposing themselves to a firm and appropriate response on our behalf," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060119/wl_afp/francepoliticsmilitary

[wuushew]

51. I don't believe Chirac called for preemptively attacking anyone

Was not his statement merely that if France was attacked by nuclear weapons, French retaliation was flexible enough to include the nuclear option in such a hypothetical situation?

[channa18]

52. Then you may be mistaken....

his statement seemed crystal clear....

"Leaders of any state that uses terrorist means against us, as well as any that may be envisaging -- in one way or another -- using weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would be exposing themselves to a firm and appropriate response on our behalf," he said.

[wuushew]

54. Are France and Iran currently at war?

I see no evidence that Iran is actively engaging in terrorist acts aimed at bringing down the French Republic.

Chirac was stating the obvious French position and chose to speak at this moment because I suspect BushCo is putting political pressure on other countries in his ramp up to yet another war in the Middle East.

[centristo]

56. i read a great opnion article on jpost

but i can't find it now. the author was arguing that Israel should not fear an Iran with WMDs. For one, they can't nuke Jerusalem or else they'd destroy the Temple on the Mount. If they attack another city unprovoked the backlash would be brutal.

I think it was originally posted on DU somewhere. If you know what I'm talking about please post the link in this thread.

[Spinoza]

58. I do.

Millions of lives in Israel could be at stake. For a whacked out, hatred driven, nut-job Holocaust denier--who practically smacks his lips over another prospective Jewish genocide-- to control Nukes would be a fucking catrastrophe for the Jews and for the world.