Should Israel strike Iran?

[acronym]

Quote from claywilk:

There are silo's in Israel right now on high alert with ICBM's pointed at Iran. The minute that Israel suspects Iran is going to launch on them I assure you they will assume the strike will be WMD of one type or another and will unleash on Iran. We will wake up one morning and there will no longer be an Iran. While this would be justified it is really gonna suck when oil is going for $500 a barrell.

Was that ever, NOT the case?
You know.........iran is a nice place, at least thats what the expat iranians, the ones who are allowed to speak, say.

But, you are looking at a nation more controlled than the USSR ever was, mainly because its smaller, but still.

If the israelis attacked, (pre-emptively), it would be a disaster.
If the yanks attacked, (pre-emptively) it would be a f*n disaster.

If the international community had it's shit together, there wouldn't be a problem-because uncontroversial countries would be doin the goods.

For example, perhaps, romania, or eastern cyprus could declare war, and this would, as far as the un is concerned fulfill requirements legitimately.

 

[dddooo]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Your ridiculous claim that I don't have the "guts" to answer your poorly phrased questions on an anonymous message board is absolutely absurd, and typical of the aggressive personality you have been demonstrating of late.

Sorry, I am not a fanatical black and white thinker who knows with self righteous certainty what was or was not the absolutely right thing to do. It was not my decision to make.

There is much to much complexity to spout such ridiculous notions that anyone knows what was "right" or "wrong" when long term implications are not known. Might as well ask is it right to have a doctrine of preemption.

I don't have a certain answer, as what Israel did was an act of war (if Iraq had done the reverse, you would certainly call it an act of war), and the doctrine of preemption that we are seeing in Iraq right now is generating the seeds that may well create even more harm and danger to the US than existed before Saddam.

As I have never seen Saddam as a suicidal maniac, and knowing that it is suicide for anyone to use nuclear weapons against a country that has an arsenal of them, I am not convinced that Saddam's efforts being curbed have really made things better in that area.

I have said before, I believe in a balance of power, and the power vacuum that is now gone with Saddam's departure shows the type of insanity that follows.

I merely wanted to know whether you would have done the same thing if you were prime minister of Israel. Do you believe it's a good thing Saddam did not have nuclear weapons when he invaded Kuwait? These are simple yes or no questions, they have nothing to do with Bush, our Iraq invasion, Saddam's departure etc.

You keep criticizing Israel in 200 threads for not doing "the right thing", then you turn around and claim that you are not "a fanatical black and white thinker" and that you don't know "what was or was not the absolutely right thing to do." You can't have it both ways can you?

 

[bsmeter]

Quote from gunslinger:

FWIW I dont believe the US supplied any arms to Britain pre 1941, they did however aid in sending boots, clothing, food and transports, all of which were extremely impt in helping Britain.

Didnt Germany have an alliance with Japan knowing full well the plan would be for them to control the Pacific, including the US interests there, thereby having the Japanese fight the US?

.

Please note the mobilization of American citizens in 1940. The reason America did not enter the WW right away was because of internal anti war sentiments.

What changed public sentiment was Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt knew about Pear Harbor way before it happened but he let it happen to change public sentiment. We won't go there right now as there is ample evidence available online these days
( much of it un classified using the Freedom of information act)
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p119_Stolley.html


As for the US joining war efforts before the formal declaration, here's some well known facts. I won't post the lesser known facts since there is no need to do that. All we're doing is refuting your premise that Americans were'nt supplying Arms to the British before 1942

http://home.earthlink.net/~gfeldmeth/chart.ww2.html

1940 Draft bill drafts 900,000 men

( Question: if there was no formal war declaration, why the draft? Implies well thought out preparation in place by those superiorly informed)

1940 US transfers 50 destroyers to Britain
1940 Lend-Lease plan ( transfer of war equipment to Britain)

all this happened before

Dec 1941 when Congress formally declared war.

after pearl harbor had changed public sentiment. ( I'm sure the "independent press" did a great job whipping that sentiment up)

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

If I were the prime minister if Israel, I assume I would have more facts at my disposal than I do right now, and given my tendency against preemption, I suspect I wouldn't have engaged without UN resolutions authorizing me to do the job.

I think if Saddam had used nuclear weapons attacking Kuwait, it would have been suicide for him, and as I have stated, he is not suicidal.

Quote from dddooo:

I merely wanted to know whether you would have done the same thing if you were prime minister of Israel. Do you believe it's a good thing Saddam did not have nuclear weapons when he invaded Kuwait? These are simple yes or no questions, they have nothing to do with Bush, our Iraq invasion, Saddam's departure etc.

 

[steve46]

You know, when I am wrong I have to admit it.

It would be wrong to nuke Iran

I think the obvious answer is to target the president of Iran and simply nuke him and all those around him. Limited fallout and one assumes that all the survivors would thank us for fixing their country.

"Your welcome"

There that seems like a much better solution

Steve

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

I am criticizing Israel's killing of innocent civilians, yes. No where have I said they do not have the right to defend themselves.

I equally condemn terrorists who kill innocent civilians out of their own sense of self righteousness.

My focus is on law and procedure. We have laws against killing innocents, even during war...and when these laws are violated, they are called war crimes, of which I believe both sides are guilty of.

Is a desire to see people follow the law black and white?

No, I think it is rational to follow the law.

Fanaticism of the type I see from your ilk (which include Muslim fanatics) put law secondary to self righteousness...

Quote from dddooo:

You keep criticizing Israel in 200 threads for not doing "the right thing", then you turn around and claim that you're not a black and white thinker and that no one knows what is and what is not the right thing. You can't have it both ways can you?

 

[dddooo]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

If I were the prime minister if Israel, I assume I would have more facts at my disposal than I do right now, and given my tendency against preemption, I suspect I wouldn't have engaged without UN resolutions authorizing me to do the job.

I think if Saddam had used nuclear weapons attacking Kuwait, it would have been suicide for him, and as I have stated, he is not suicidal.

In other words you believe that the decision to bomb Osirak without a UN resolution (which Israel would never have obtained just like there will never be a resoluton to bomb/invade Iran ) was wrong. Fair enough.

You also believe that Saddam with nuclear weapons would not be a threat because using his nukes would be suicidal for him and a suicidal fanatical muslim/arab is absolutely unheard of in the contemporary Middle East.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Quote from dddooo:

In other words you believe that the decision to bomb Osirak without a UN resolution (which Israel would never have obtained just like there will never be a resoluton to bomb/invade Iran ) was wrong. Fair enough.

No need for "other words."

What I wrote was clear.

You also believe that Saddam with nuclear weapons would not be a threat because using his nukes would be suicidal for him and a suicidal fanatical muslim/arab is absolutely unheard of in the contemporary Middle East.

Please provide some evidence of Muslim/Arab leaders who are suicidal...

I said leaders, not followers...

Saddam was the leader, that we found in a hole, trying to survive.

 

[gunslinger]

Quote from bsmeter:

.

Please note the mobilization of American citizens in 1940. The reason America did not enter the WW right away was because of internal anti war sentiments.

What changed public sentiment was Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt knew about Pear Harbor way before it happened but he let it happen to change public sentiment. We won't go there right now as there is ample evidence available online these days
( much of it un classified using the Freedom of information act)
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p119_Stolley.html


As for the US joining war efforts before the formal declaration, here's some well known facts. I won't post the lesser known facts since there is no need to do that. All we're doing is refuting your premise that Americans were'nt supplying Arms to the British before 1942

http://home.earthlink.net/~gfeldmeth/chart.ww2.html

1940 Draft bill drafts 900,000 men

( Question: if there was no formal war declaration, why the draft? Implies well thought out preparation in place by those superiorly informed)

1940 US transfers 50 destroyers to Britain
1940 Lend-Lease plan ( transfer of war equipment to Britain)

all this happened before

Dec 1941 when Congress formally declared war.

after pearl harbor had changed public sentiment. ( I'm sure the "independent press" did a great job whipping that sentiment up)

My bad, I was thinking of how the US aided Russia pre 1941.

 

[Holmes]

Quote from Pabst:

Interesting question Dr. Holmes. The U.S. was supplying arms to Britain for quite some time before our involvement in the second World War yet Germany never declared war on America. I don't believe an arms dealer should be any more culpable for war than a gun manufacturer should be responsible for handgun murders.

This is my distinct worry. IMO both Israel and the U.S. will be at war with Syria and Iran shortly. Either a.) Israel becomes so disproportionate with their continued response in Lebanon that S&I feel compelled to join in or b.) Isreal preemptively goes after S&I bringing the U.S. in on the conflict. I truly think this whole affair is designed for a showdown. America and Israel are much like Leopold and Loeb. Separately neither are killers. Together.......

Thank you for your reply.

I do not know if the response from Israel is disproportionate or not, am not a military expert.

However I do know that one cannot trust the terrorists. As you can read elsewehere on this board Egypt released a number of, lets call them, "misguided" citizens. As a condition of their release they had to "denounce" their previous misbehaving (putting it in politically correct language.....)

Now these same souls have seem fit to join forces with Al Queda.

In other words: they do not even honor their word that they gave to their own government and are starting all over again.

This has been the same story all through the history of Israel.

Let me say that it is not unique to the Middle East. Even in our country we see the same stupidity happening. "we were here first" (and killed of the original population but shhhttt we do not talk about that) "and have had all our land stolen from us" (not true, it was sold to the new owners in exchange for axes, knives etc. "We want compensation and our lands back" (has happened before and then they sold it off again to use for booze and drugs since they are too lazy to work). "We sold it in 1971 for 1 M to the local council for a park and now it is worth 15M, we have not been compensated properly and want another 10 M" (hey wait a minute, 1M in 1971 could buy a whole lot more than the 10M can do now) and on it goes.

It wears me down, all these rhetoric and false information. My late father worked on the dockyards in Europe and he mentioned that you could not trust the Arabs, they were always lying and lazy. I am talking about the 1950's here.....

I do not think that even the Arabs have a right to the area. I believe they were originally nomads in the Sahara - mention to a true Persian that (s)he is an Arab and (s)he will feel insulted.

Unfortunately these Arabs have migrated further and further into the Middle East and are creating severe problems because of their aggresiveness. And in the end they have managed to get into power in their host countries.

Perhaps we should try to reinstate the Otteman empire that France and the UK broke up? Or should we give the whole area back to the Romans? Where is this all going to stop, how far do we have to go back in history?

Holmes