Peter_Puget Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 preemtive strike? Read this first. Then read this second. PP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 What do you think? And whilst you think about that, tell me if you would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 Yes they will. Of course they will. Can there be any doubt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 (edited) Could I get an executive summary of that wordy link please? Oh nevermind, I think I get the gist, but since I don't want to read that whole thing I will make my response conditional. If there is very good evidence that there is a real and imminent threat to Israel, then as a matter of self-preservation I would not hold it against them if they bombed Iranian nuclear facilities. On the other hand, if it's just a bunch of trumped up BS meant to further some other agenda that the public would not otherwise support, then I'd say no. I would not support it. Edited May 11, 2004 by chucK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 So for matters of self-preservation, the Arab League should bomb Israeli weapons installations, I suppose. Gasoline has never been shown to be effective at putting out fires, no? And right now, this whole world is on fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 Iranian pres says to western "colonialists" shape up, or else we'll rase Israel with the a-bomb if'n we get one. Sharon says Israel will bomb any nucular reactor if Iran is in danger of producing a-bomb, having tacit support from bush. So what? If you make threats like that to a fanatic country, you are just asking for it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 Yep, where does it end? If the Arab league were totally convinced that Israel was going to end their existence, then of course how could you fault them for attempting to survive. Of course, I doubt the Arab League could pull it off. Just like Iraq couldn't really do much with the US breathing down its neck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted May 11, 2004 Author Share Posted May 11, 2004 link 1: Nuclear Weapons Can Solve the Israel Problem Rafsanjani said that Muslims must surround colonialism and force them [the colonialists] to see whether Israel is beneficial to them or not. If one day, he said, the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel's possession [meaning nuclear weapons] - on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end. This, he said, is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam. Link 2: Israel may be preparing to attack Iranian nuclear facilities within the year, according to US administration assessments reported on Army Radio Saturday morning. Chuck - The question is: Given the speech and the enviroment of the ME do you think that Israel already has the right to go bomb Iran. Stop that talking head equivocation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 Chuck - The question is: Given the speech and the enviroment of the ME do you think that Israel already has the right to go bomb Iran. Stop that talking head equivocation. Well, if you put it that way, given the current environment of the ME I'd say Israel has nothing to worry about. So no. I don't think they should bomb Iran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 Chuck - The question is: Given the speech and the enviroment of the ME do you think that Israel already has the right to go bomb Iran. Stop that talking head equivocation. Well, if you put it that way, given the current environment of the ME I'd say Israel has nothing to worry about. So no. I don't think they should bomb Iran. But do they have the right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 No. They are not in imminent danger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted May 11, 2004 Author Share Posted May 11, 2004 I think that if they believe that Iran is about to have nuclear capabiltity and they belive that a strike will be effective in preventing achieving that capability, they will strike regardless of what the US wishes. And they would be right too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 I think I had a different form of preemption in mind, the non-military form. I think it can be helpful to address the underlying causes of any particular conflict; it seems to me if grievances aren't heard, conflict cannot be eradicated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted May 11, 2004 Author Share Posted May 11, 2004 No. They are not in imminent danger. You and that word! Please clearly define what you mean by this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 and to be talking about bombing or not bombing Iran misses the point. But I guess work can be kinda boring for some at times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 By imminent danger, I mean something bad will almost definitely happen to them, short of action by them. Why am I being singled out here with regards to Israel? I don't ever get into these flame wars regarding Israel. I tried to shift the discussion to the US in Iraq and you quashed that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 If someone is promising they will bomb someone as soon as they get the weaponry and are building that weaponry, i would call that an imminent danger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 The idea that Israel is a threat to the Arab Leauge is idiotic. Israel has never done anything besides defend it's borders and attack installations directly affecting it's national security. The only land they have ever occupied was won during wars started by the arab states. A good portion of that has also been given back in exchange for peace. Let us remember that one of the main reasons Iraq never got nuclear weapons was that Israel destroyed their nuclear weapons program in the 1980s. I would absolutely support them doing this to Iran's facilities. When you have significant arab leaders spouting out this agressive talk about "leaving nothing on the ground" in Israel then I believe they have no choice, imminent threat or not. Knowledge gained with a nuclear weapons program is knowledge that remains in that state even if facility destruction sets them back. The arab states of the middle east have already proven their resolve to attack israel without provocation several times before. In their current state they can't be trusted in any way, and allowing them to continue to develop nuclear weapons would be criminal negligence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martlet Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 Personally, I'd much rather Israel do it than it get to the point where we feel the need to step in. It needs to be done, let Israel take the heat. They live there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 Maybe in a different time, but right now Iran is surrounded by what, 200,000?, US troops, probably just begging to be rolling tanks over troops instead of the ugly job of civillian pacification. I'd say that's a credible deterrent. If you think it'd be OK for Israel to bomb Iran. What about using nuclear weapons on them and really putting an end to Iran? What do you think about that idea Peter Puget? I'll bet that would keep Iran off of their back for a while, as well every other arab country, except maybe Pakistan I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 Yeah, I'd like to see the fallout from a *Muslim* country nuking Jerusalem.....would they be so stupid as to destroy their own religious sites? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted May 11, 2004 Author Share Posted May 11, 2004 By imminent danger, I mean something bad will almost definitely happen to them, short of action by them. Why am I being singled out here with regards to Israel? I don't ever get into these flame wars regarding Israel. I tried to shift the discussion to the US in Iraq and you quashed that. Singled out? No way you continuously brought up the issue of "imminent danger" with regard to Bush's actions. I am interested in discussing the whoel issue of preemption. I fel that since you repeatedly brought the issue up you had an interest in the subject. Where have I flamed? What if Iran did have nuclear weapons and decided that a nuclear attack on Israel was indeed worth the damage it would sustain. At that point what recourse woudl Israel have? With this potential threat what would be the conditions in which you would agree that Israel would have the moral authority to preemtively strike? PP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willstrickland Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 So what? If you make threats like that to a fanatic country, you are just asking for it... Which one is the fanatic country? I'm confused. They both deserve each other. Nuke each other and create a big ass parking lot for the camels. No more Zionist colonialism, no more Ayatolla Insaney...sounds like a good start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 So what? If you make threats like that to a fanatic country, you are just asking for it... Which one is the fanatic country? I'm confused. They both deserve each other. Nuke each other and create a big ass parking lot for the camels. No more Zionist colonialism, no more Ayatolla Insaney...sounds like a good start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.