Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Iran

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    625

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dani View Post
    I'm talking about nuclear war. That's what this is all about, right? Who's got the bombs? Israel has between 100 and 200 nuclear weapons. Iran has a facility that could begin enriching uranium sometime in 2010. Unless there's a lot more we don't know about Iran's nuclear program, Israel has won the arms race.

    Now, would either country use them? Well, I really hope not.

    [deleted] It isn't about "winning an arms race". It is about 1 country wanting to wipe another off the face of Earth because they do not believe that country has a right to exist.

    It doesn't matter if Israel has 1 million bombs to Irans 1. Israel isn't going to use their bombs to blow a country off the earth that they do not believe should exist. Iran wants to. So simply put, they must be stopped. How many Jews in your opinion should die before Israel has the right to protect themselves? The few thousand or so that would die in the intitial attack, they are just the cost of bargaining?

    You are speaking as if Ahmadinnafool is a sane/rational person. He is not. He could give a [deleted] less about his own people. He has killed his own people.
    Last edited by lifestyle_hosts; 09-27-2009 at 11:58 AM. Reason: Personal attack, profanity

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bailey View Post
    This is why you hit em hard. Prevent them from attacking.

    On your 2nd thought...Is Israel threatening to wipe Iran off the map? No, I didn't think so either. As I said, this is real life, not some hippy imagination world. There is a clear good guy and a clear bad guy.

    ETA: All I can say is thank the Lord the brave men who surrundered their lives for our freedom didn't think the same way you did. We'd all be speaking German or Japanese and Israel wouldn't be an issue because they wouldn't have existed...evil would have succedded in sending 'em all to the ovens...

    I take it that the irony of this is completely lost on you.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    615

    Default

    experts in Israel and the West agree that an Israeli attack would not dismantle Iran's nuclear capabilities but set them back. That would be the goal. Israel would NOT use nuclear weapons to do this. Israel would most definitely have the Obama administration's backing. It would be MUCH more preferable to have the backing of the EU or other European nations.

    The situation is very complex and not as simple as "hit 'em hard and prevent them from attacking." Iran's actions and Israel's possible actions have wide ranging implications, as Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper, analysis explains:

    During the past year, military experts and commentators are increasingly coming around to the view that the Israel Air Force is capable of executing the mission. The Israel Defense Forces was significantly upgraded during the tenure of Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi. The goal, it is argued, is not to liquidate the Iranian project but to set it back. According to this line of thought, if an attack, American or Israeli, causes a couple of years' delay in the project it will have achieved its aim. Similarly, before launching the attack on the Iraqi reactor in 1981, Israel did not foresee the chain of events that finally forced Saddam Hussein to forgo his nuclear ambitions.

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak take a similar view of the Iranian threat. At least, that is what both their public statements and their comments in closed meetings suggest.

    For an Israeli attack to be considered, Israel would need the tacit approval of the Obama administration, if only in the sense that it looks the other way. This is due above all to the necessity of passing through the Iraqi air corridor, as American soldiers will still be in Iraq in 2011. No less important is strategic coordination for the day after: How will the United States react to a prolonged aerial attack by Israel on the nuclear sites and to the regional flare-up that might follow?

    These are matters that would have to be agreed on directly between Obama and Netanyahu. The disparity in their policy stances, together with the total lack of personal chemistry between them, is liable to prove a hindrance.

    Iran is likely to respond to an Israeli attack by opening fronts nearby, via Hezbollah from Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Three years after the Second Lebanon War and at the end of a broad process of learning lessons from that conflict, the IDF is quite confident of its ability to deal with Hezbollah. At the same time, it's clear that Israel will be subjected to extensive rocket attacks that can be expected to cover most of the country.

    A key question would be Syria's behavior. Israel has a salient interest in having Damascus be no more than a spectator in a confrontation. If the attack on Iran is perceived to have been successful, that is probably how the Syrians will respond.

    But an attack on Iran will reopen a decades-old blood feud - and the Iranians have both a long memory and a great deal of patience. With decisions like this looming within a year, it's no wonder that Netanyahu wants to get the Gilad Shalit affair wrapped up.

    A decision to attack Iran would mean that the IDF bears central responsibility for resolving the nuclear threat. In the years when Mossad director Meir Dagan held prime minister Ariel Sharon in his thrall (and even more so his successor, Ehud Olmert), the general belief was that the espionage agency could, together with political efforts, contain the Iranian nuclear project. And, indeed, if Western intelligence services had to push back their forecasts repeatedly over the past decade regarding when the project would be completed, it's a safe bet that not all of Iran's delays were due to divine providence. At present, however, no action looms - other than an attack - that is capable of preventing Iran from achieving its goal.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    615

    Default

    PS -- Note that the Israeli PM and Defense Minister are of DIFFERENT parties.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,975

    Default

    Your scenarios don't include "Israel is attacked and is rendered unable to retaliate." What should they do to prevent this? And why don't we have sanctions in place already?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    615

    Default

    how many times should Israel do this without the support of other countries and place herself, her people at risk for even MORE attacks because other countries won't stand up with her? It is not a simple or easy calculation.

  7. #17
    nmcd is offline INCIIDer - A Community Creator
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by freetibet View Post
    The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed Friday that Iran admitted the existence of the “new pilot fuel enrichment plant,” prompting Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy to respond at the G-20 economic summit in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


    Now what? What would you advise Obama to do/say?
    How do you think Israel will respond to this information?
    I think it's tough. People who say "bomb Iran" don't I think know what that would mean. Iran is massive and even as a hostile nation -as long as it's just threats and nothing more - plays a role in stabilizing the region. War with Iran would almost certainly mean war throughout the Middle East. Iraq would fall apart, Turkey would probabably become involved. It would a nightmare, a quagmire but mostly a blood bath.

    I think the best hope for peace is the Iranian people. They want change and they have made it happen when they got rid of the Shah. It took a religious form but now people know what a regime that works hand in glove with religious leaders is really like, there's hope for a more moderate secular state - dispite the rhetoric the people in Iran want a more open society. They want democracy.

    Attacking Iran would probably put an end to all that giving the regime carte blanche to get rid of whomever they wanted and might even win them more support. The importance of a common enemy can't be underestimated - that's actually why Amadinejab keeps being provocative. He needs for Iran to be underseige to maintain his position. He's a piece of work but he's far from insane - under estimate him at your peril.

    I actually think that announcing that the United States was aware of these facilities was a smart thing to do. The Iranians are now thinking "What else do they know about?" It's a way of saying we can pull the lynch pins from your defences any time we want to - you can fight us but you will hurt more than we will.

    Whatever the US decides to do, I hope it won't hurt the Iranian people. The US had a lot of good will from Iraqis until sanctions. It didn't hurt the regime but people died of starvation and things like heart disease - since so much medication was banned.

    Finally, I think it's unlikely that Israel didn't know about this.They probably have the best intelligence network in the region. They are in a difficult position - everything they do has to be done with a view to what the US will do because they are so dependent on them. I understand why they are feeling nervous. It isn't talked about (interestingly) but it's probably the case that the Saudi's have a bomb or are close to one. Given the nationality of the 9/11 attackers - that makes me as nervous as anything Iran is doing.

  8. #18
    zody is offline INCIIDer - A Community Creator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,000

    Default not to beat a dead horse... but

    Quote Originally Posted by nmcd View Post
    I think it's tough. People who say "bomb Iran" don't I think know what that would mean. Iran is massive and even as a hostile nation -as long as it's just threats and nothing more - plays a role in stabilizing the region. War with Iran would almost certainly mean war throughout the Middle East. Iraq would fall apart, Turkey would probabably become involved. It would a nightmare, a quagmire but mostly a blood bath.

    I think the best hope for peace is the Iranian people. They want change and they have made it happen when they got rid of the Shah. It took a religious form but now people know what a regime that works hand in glove with religious leaders is really like, there's hope for a more moderate secular state - dispite the rhetoric the people in Iran want a more open society. They want democracy.

    Attacking Iran would probably put an end to all that giving the regime carte blanche to get rid of whomever they wanted and might even win them more support. The importance of a common enemy can't be underestimated - that's actually why Amadinejab keeps being provocative. He needs for Iran to be underseige to maintain his position. He's a piece of work but he's far from insane - under estimate him at your peril.

    I actually think that announcing that the United States was aware of these facilities was a smart thing to do. The Iranians are now thinking "What else do they know about?" It's a way of saying we can pull the lynch pins from your defences any time we want to - you can fight us but you will hurt more than we will.

    Whatever the US decides to do, I hope it won't hurt the Iranian people. The US had a lot of good will from Iraqis until sanctions. It didn't hurt the regime but people died of starvation and things like heart disease - since so much medication was banned.

    Finally, I think it's unlikely that Israel didn't know about this.They probably have the best intelligence network in the region. They are in a difficult position - everything they do has to be done with a view to what the US will do because they are so dependent on them. I understand why they are feeling nervous. It isn't talked about (interestingly) but it's probably the case that the Saudi's have a bomb or are close to one. Given the nationality of the 9/11 attackers - that makes me as nervous as anything Iran is doing.
    all of this emphasizes why the war with Iraq was such a bad idea in the first place. It just gave Iran so much more power in the area. Iran has been the true beneficiary in our war with Iraq.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •