Who will bomb Iran first?

[shemp]

It seems like it's becoming a question of not if, but who. Israel seems the most likely candidate, but GWB has an itchy trigger finger and would love to go out with a bang. Or maybe they'll piss somebody else off and that country will do the job. Who will bomb Iran first?

[President Bush]

Think I will sometime later on this year. But definitely before my next birthday. The last thing I want is to be 63 years old and still only bombing Iraq.

[Tumblehome]

Canada. Stephen Harper thinks Canada should stand for something, and apparently in his mind you can only stand for something militarily.

I wouldn't doubt that he's giving orders to load Block Busters onto the Cessna right now.

[Pardalis]

Canada. Stephen Harper thinks Canada should stand for something, and apparently in his mind you can only stand for something militarily.

I wouldn't doubt that he's giving orders to load Block Busters onto the Cessna right now.

We'll bomb Iran with hockey pucks.

[Thunder]

Israel will bomb Iran first. Natural Jewish paranoia, irrational fears of a new holocaust, anti-Muslim bigotry, warmongering, and a desire to be the center of world attention, will drive them to shoot first..ask questions never.

I hope Iran launches ever missile it has at Tel Aviv after this attack. Israel must learn to pay a price for its arrogance.

[Policenaut]

:rolleyes:

[SDC]

Let me start by saying this. Parky, you have stepped over the line by saying how pleased you will be to see many people killed. Including some of my cousins. What did Beth do to you?

Not a joke.

[Tailgater]

Israel will bomb Iran first. Natural Jewish paranoia, irrational fears of a new holocaust, anti-Muslim bigotry, warmongering, and a desire to be the center of world attention, will drive them to shoot first..ask questions never.

I hope Iran launches ever missile it has at Tel Aviv after this attack. Israel must learn to pay a price for its arrogance.

wow

[Doctor Evil]

Israel will bomb Iran first. Natural Jewish paranoia, irrational fears of a new holocaust, anti-Muslim bigotry, warmongering, and a desire to be the center of world attention, will drive them to shoot first..ask questions never.

I hope Iran launches ever missile it has at Tel Aviv after this attack. Israel must learn to pay a price for its arrogance.

Advocating war crimes, how lovely.

By the way, would you also explain what do you mean by "Natural Jewish paranoia".

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Israel will bomb Iran first. Natural Jewish paranoia, irrational fears of a new holocaust, anti-Muslim bigotry, warmongering, and a desire to be the center of world attention, will drive them to shoot first..ask questions never.

I hope Iran launches ever missile it has at Tel Aviv after this attack. Israel must learn to pay a price for its arrogance.
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/mindlesscrowdfollowers.jpg

[moon1969]

Nobody is bombing Iran. Israel would just bomb Iran"s nuclear reactors just like they bombed Saddam Hussein during Operation Opera.

[Thunder]

Let me start by saying this. Parky, you have stepped over the line by saying how pleased you will be to see many people killed. Including some of my cousins. What did Beth do to you?

Not a joke.

Tel Aviv will not and should not be hit by Iran, if Israel does not strike them first...unprovoked...and without warrant.

When a nation is attacked, it has the right and obligation to defend itself and respond to such attack. Do you not agree?

[Thunder]

Advocating war crimes, how lovely.

By the way, would you also explain what do you mean by "Natural Jewish paranoia".

How would it be a war crime for Iran to defend itself against an unprovoked attack from Israel?

[SDC]

Parky76, what did my cousin Beth ever do to you?

[Thunder]

Parky76, what did my cousin Beth ever do to you?

What did the children of Iran ever do to you to deserve being injured or killed by the radioactive cloud that Israel will unleash if they bomb Iran's nuclear facilities without good reason or warrant?

[Thunder]

Nobody is bombing Iran. Israel would just bomb Iran"s nuclear reactors just like they bombed Saddam Hussein during Operation Opera.

Oh, thats nice. I'll forward that message to Iran.

[Doctor Evil]

How would it be a war crime for Iran to defend itself against an unprovoked attack from Israel?

Its quite simple, Tel-Aviv is a city, not a military target.

[SDC]

Parky76, I'm in the Greater New York Metropolitan Standard Statistical Area. Like you, I gather. How did you get me to Tel Aviv with my finger on a button? That seems to be what you think.

Calm down. Avoid hyperbole.

[Thunder]

Its quite simple, Tel-Aviv is a city, not a military target.

are you saying the bomb being dropped on Nagasaki was a war-crime?

the bombing of Dresden was a war-crime?

blowing up the house of the family of a suicide bomber in Gaza is a war-crime?

[Thunder]

Parky76, I'm in the Greater New York Metropolitan Standard Statistical Area. Like you, I gather. How did you get me to Tel Aviv with my finger on a button? That seems to be what you think.

Calm down. Avoid hyperbole.

eh?..you live in Philly?

[egslim]

are you saying the bomb being dropped on Nagasaki was a war-crime?

the bombing of Dresden was a war-crime?
There are actually several who hold those views.

Personally I find the whole concept of "war-crimes" somewhat wishful thinking. Wars are always dirty, and then they get worse. The clean, high-tech war is a popular myth. Wars per definition represent the ultimate breakdown of international law and order. In that context the idea that war should be fought within legal limits sounds rather silly to me.

Parky, you have stepped over the line by saying how pleased you will be to see many people killed. Including some of my cousins. What did Beth do to you?

Not a joke.
Life isn't fair, and that's no joke either. That's exactly why the decision to commit an act of war should be taken very seriously, because it always invites a disproportionate counterattack. History demonstrates that these kind of actions tend to escallate.

I will derive no pleasure whatsoever from your cousine's death due to a retaliatory Iranian counterattack, though with all the terrible deaths and suffering so many people all over the world suffer every moment of the day, I honestly won't be terribly bothered either.

My concern is that people seem to believe that if Israel attacks Iran, it is only natural for it not to pay a big price in blood for doing so. Any economist will tell you that if the price of a good is perceived to be low, people will buy more. And that is very dangerous, because of the potential for escallation in a world with nukes.

So I have no problem with a country that committed an act of war being made to pay a high price in blood for that decision. In my opinion too many, including some in this thread, perceive the price of war to be much lower than it really is. Basically that includes everyone who advocates a military strike against Iran right now.

[Darth Rotor]

In my opinion too many, including some in this thread, perceive the price of war to be much lower than it really is. Basically that includes everyone who advocates a military strike against Iran right now.

You made some good points in your post, but I'd like to know just who is advocating a military strike against Iran right now?

DR

[webfusion]

D-R asks:I'd like to know just who is advocating a military strike against Iran right now?

38% of American Jews (according to American Jewish Committee polling data) indeed support such an option.
http://www.forward.com/blogs/campaign-confidential/5969/

[Darth Rotor]

D-R asks:

38% of American Jews (according to American Jewish Committee polling data) indeed support such an option.
http://www.forward.com/blogs/campaign-confidential/5969/

Warmongering bastidges.

I say "Let them eat pork!" :p

DR

[egslim]

You made some good points in your post, but I'd like to know just who is advocating a military strike against Iran right now?

DR
Looking through this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123981

Yes you can.

Israel had bombed Iraq for essentialy the same thing. It was called "Operation Opera" and happened in the early 80's.

Don't be suprised if Israel goes ahead and does it again, because Iran is one of those countries which is ruled by people who have publicly vowed to destroy them. Also don't be suprised if the U.S.A. goes ahead and helps them do it, because Iran is one of those countries whos citizens engage in heated protest against America all the time.

What do you do when a person that has vowed to kill you is reaching for a gun? Your choices are (A) run, (B) fight, or (C) die

...cept running isnt actualy an option in this case...
I say take care of the problem now before it gets out of hand.
Especially the second is rather explicit.

I should have been more clear though: The list of people who I feel take war too lightly includes, but is not limited to, those who advocate a strike against Iran.
The people in this thread I referred to are specifically moon1969, for his "just like that" description, and Doctor Evil, for assuming that the distinction between a military and a civilian target makes much difference in a war.

[Doctor Evil]

are you saying the bomb being dropped on Nagasaki was a war-crime?

the bombing of Dresden was a war-crime?

blowing up the house of the family of a suicide bomber in Gaza is a war-crime?

The first two are war crimes by today's standards.

As for the last one that depends on details. If someone in Gaza uses his house to store rockets or suicide belts, he may make his house to be a legitimate (i.e. no civilian) target. Targeting the house may still be war crime, or it may not, depending on details.

I must say I don't understand what you want to argue here. I have pointed out that you advocated for intentional targeting of civilians, which is a war crime. You seem to be responding by saying, look there, others have committed war crimes before. Its a fairly lame response.

[Darth Rotor]

As for the last one that depends on details. If someone in Gaza uses his house to store rockets or suicide belts, he may make his house to be a legitimate (i.e. no civilian) target. Targeting the house may still be war crime, or it may not, depending on details.
No. Targeting it is not crime. Blowing up that house, since it is now an arsenal and thus a legit target, is not likely to result in the charge of a war crime. Blowing up the entire neighborhood to get that house to blow up, may, in this day and age, induce the charge of a war crime based on the rubric of proportionality that is sometimes used as a measure. It was not such in WW II thanks in part to the expectations of accuracy for ariel bombing. However, if the tool were a tank, and the entire neighborhood were taken out rather than the house, a likely charge might be "reprisal" against civilians which might result in the charge of a war crime. Never forget that a charge of a war crime is a politically motivated charge. We seem to agree that one ought to treat any such charge with skepticism, until one can separate the wheat from the chaffe.
I must say I don't understand what you want to argue here. I have pointed out that you advocated for intentional targeting of civilians, which is a war crime.
Yes.
You seem to be responding by saying, look there, others have committed war crimes before. Its a fairly lame response.
The pretense that there is a black and white distinction between civilian and military targets is one of the great myths that I see pandered to on this set of forums. egslim has covered this somewhat during the thread, no need for further comment by me.

DR

[Doctor Evil]

I should have been more clear though: The list of people who I feel take war too lightly includes, but is not limited to, those who advocate a strike against Iran.
The people in this thread I referred to are specifically moon1969, for his "just like that" description, and Doctor Evil, for assuming that the distinction between a military and a civilian target makes much difference in a war.

I seem to be accused of taking war lightly. Evidence: pointing out that an intensional attack on a civilian city is a war crime. :rolleyes:

Egslim, you should apply to the million dollar prize for your mind reading skills. I say that since it seems you claim to know what I think, a fairly amazing feat.

More seriously, I believe that trying to make a distinction between military and civilian targets is important, even during wartime. If you don't believe this that this is where we differ.

Now lets us assume that the Israeli government decide to attack Iran. (A course of action which I do NOT advocate.) you seem to imply that the only response open to Iran is to target a civilian city. I do not agree. Iran has a choice as to how to respond. They can try to target military bases, ports or other infrastructure. Maybe even critical industrial areas. In addition, I expect that Israel will pay a huge diplomatic price if they attack Iran. However, if Iran choose to respond by attacking a city, I expect them to pay a price for that choice, too.

[Doctor Evil]

The pretense that there is a black and white distinction between civilian and military targets is one of the great myths that I see pandered to on this set of forums. egslim has covered this somewhat during the thread, no need for further comment by me.

DR

Oh, I would definitely agree with you that there is not black and white distinction. However, blindly targeting a city, without any attempt to hit any specific target, is as very close to the black end of the spectrum. Thus, when someone advocates this type of action, I feel free to let him know what I think about his suggestions.

[Thunder]

D-R asks:

38% of American Jews (according to American Jewish Committee polling data) indeed support such an option.
http://www.forward.com/blogs/campaign-confidential/5969/

38%??? thats it??? i figured it would be at least 50%. perhaps the jews are not beyond salvation after all.

[egslim]

Now lets us assume that the Israeli government decide to attack Iran. (A course of action which I do NOT advocate.) you seem to imply that the only response open to Iran is to target a civilian city. I do not agree. Iran has a choice as to how to respond. They can try to target military bases, ports or other infrastructure. Maybe even critical industrial areas.
No, Iran lacks the military capability to conduct the kind of long range precision airstrikes against Israel the IAF is capable of. The targets you suggest are probably too small for Iran to hit, civilian cities are much easier.

Depending on the situation, there exist several reasons to retaliate. One of them is as a deterrence against future attack: By hitting back hard you demonstrate to future potential adversaries that attacks against you are a very bad idea. I consider that a fairly reasonable and rational course of action, and it has been commonly exercised throughout history, among others by the US.

So what kind of military options does Iran have against Israel? Invasion is impossible, precision airstrikes are beyond its capability. An intensified terrorist campaign is relatively harmless - remember the goal is to deter future attacks. Missile attacks against large, soft civilian targets like cities are Irans only viable military option I can see.

More seriously, I believe that trying to make a distinction between military and civilian targets is important, even during wartime.
Depends. Since civilians are essential to keep any warmachine going, they are automatically part of it to some extent. For example, you can destroy enemy tanks on the battlefietld, the factory that builds them, or kill the people who make them.
Since the goal in a war should be to win while minimising your own casualties, I will support whatever means of eliminating tanks that poses the least risk to my own forces.

Since Iran has good reason to retaliate against an Israeli airstrike with military means, and assuming Irans only effective means of doing so is to target civilians, they simply lack the luxury of choice between military and civilian targets. So the distinction you advocate is meaningless to them.

I seem to be accused of taking war lightly. Evidence: pointing out that an intensional attack on a civilian city is a war crime.
Yeah, that means you take war lightly. In most of the well-known wars of the last 60 years at least one side had relatively little at stake, so they held back. The result was usually fairly good behavior, but that should not be taken for granted. Serious wars can get very dirty, very fast. Murderous attacks on civilians are part of that, as both world wars demonstrated.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

38%??? thats it??? i figured it would be at least 50%. perhaps the jews are not beyond salvation after all.

Wow... did you just accidentally say too much or what?

[Thunder]

Wow... did you just accidentally say too much or what?

no, it was not an accident. i assumed at least 50% of american jews supported attacking iran. im very glad that i am wrong.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

no, it was not an accident. i assumed at least 50% of american jews supported attacking iran. im very glad that i am wrong.

Exactly my point, you forgot to swap the z-word in for the j-word.

[Thunder]

the poll questioned jews...not "zionists".

[Ziggurat]

Israel will bomb Iran first. Natural Jewish paranoia, irrational fears of a new holocaust, anti-Muslim bigotry, warmongering, and a desire to be the center of world attention, will drive them to shoot first..ask questions never.

Have you seen the global attention Israel gets? That's rather exactly what they don't want. It would be a vast improvement for them if everyone started ignoring them.

I hope Iran launches ever missile it has at Tel Aviv after this attack. Israel must learn to pay a price for its arrogance.

Yes: Israel must be punished for crimes you imagine they will commit for motives that make no sense. And that punishment should consist of indiscriminate civilian slaughter. You're a fruitcake when it comes to Israel, parky.

[WildCat]

My concern is that people seem to believe that if Israel attacks Iran, it is only natural for it not to pay a big price in blood for doing so. Any economist will tell you that if the price of a good is perceived to be low, people will buy more. And that is very dangerous, because of the potential for escallation in a world with nukes.

So I have no problem with a country that committed an act of war being made to pay a high price in blood for that decision. In my opinion too many, including some in this thread, perceive the price of war to be much lower than it really is. Basically that includes everyone who advocates a military strike against Iran right now.
When Israel took out Iraq's nuke plant Iraq did nothing, and Iraq had much more capability to attack Israel than Iran does.

The best Iran could do is maybe launch a few scud-type attacks in Israel's general direction.

And speaking of scud attacks, what war crime was Saddam charged with for those scud attacks on Israel in GWI which were aimed at civilians?

[egslim]

When Israel took out Iraq's nuke plant Iraq did nothing, and Iraq had much more capability to attack Israel than Iran does.
When Israel attacked Osirak Iraq was quite busy fighting a war with Iran. Escallating a second war when the first isn't going very well is poor strategy, but that concern obviously does not apply to Iran nowadays.
In addition, Iraq enjoyed good relations with and some support from the US, had it retaliated against Israel it would most likely have lost those. Again, not a concern for Iran.

The best Iran could do is maybe launch a few scud-type attacks in Israel's general direction.
Agreed, that's pretty much what I already mentioned. The problem is that with such limited military options the only way Iran can effectively retaliate is by either hitting Israeli cities with lots of missiles, or by hitting them with a few loaded with chemical weapons.

Limited military capability can cause Iran to either discard retaliation as an option, or make its retaliation much more brutal. And since Iran has very good reason to retaliate as a deterrence against future attack, the latter option makes a lot of sense.

And speaking of scud attacks, what war crime was Saddam charged with for those scud attacks on Israel in GWI which were aimed at civilians?
Who cares, unless anyone plans to actually invade and occupy Iran?

[WildCat]

Agreed, that's pretty much what I already mentioned. The problem is that with such limited military options the only way Iran can effectively retaliate is by either hitting Israeli cities with lots of missiles, or by hitting them with a few loaded with chemical weapons.

Limited military capability can cause Iran to either discard retaliation as an option, or make its retaliation much more brutal. And since Iran has very good reason to retaliate as a deterrence against future attack, the latter option makes a lot of sense.
Not when your opponent has nukes... and I don't think Iran has "lots of missiles" capable of hitting Israel.

Who cares, unless anyone plans to actually invade and occupy Iran?
Saddam escaped a charge of war crimes against Israel even though he was invaded, the country occupied, and he was captured.

[RandFan]

I wouldn't doubt that he's giving orders to load Block Busters onto the Cessna right now.:) That's going to put a dent in airtravel.

[RandFan]

I hope Iran launches ever missile it has at Tel Aviv after this attack. Israel must learn to pay a price for its arrogance. God I hope there are no attacks. Be careful of what you wish for. History does not hold pleasant vistas of things to come.

[Thunder]

Have you seen the global attention Israel gets? That's rather exactly what they don't want. It would be a vast improvement for them if everyone started ignoring them.



Yes: Israel must be punished for crimes you imagine they will commit for motives that make no sense. And that punishment should consist of indiscriminate civilian slaughter. You're a fruitcake when it comes to Israel, parky.

attacking another country with no good reason, possibly killing hundreds of people, ruining billions of dollars in infrastructure, is a crime...that must be punished.

just be glad Iran doesnt accept Bush's philosophy of premption.

[WildCat]

attacking another country with no good reason, possibly killing hundreds of people, ruining billions of dollars in infrastructure, is a crime...that must be punished.
Glad you see how Iran must be punished for arming, training, and funding groups which attack Israel.

just be glad Iran doesnt accept Bush's philosophy of premption.
Nope, their philosophy has always been to destroy Israel without any pretense that they're pre-empting anything.

[Ziggurat]

attacking another country with no good reason, possibly killing hundreds of people, ruining billions of dollars in infrastructure, is a crime...that must be punished.

And what better way of punishing a country than killing lots of civilians. But hey, they asked for it, what with living in Israel and everything. Did you honestly expect this response to do anything other than reinforce my earlier assesment of you?

[Thunder]

And what better way of punishing a country than killing lots of civilians. But hey, they asked for it, what with living in Israel and everything. Did you honestly expect this response to do anything other than reinforce my earlier assesment of you?

threatening to attack a nation's civilian areas to prevent that nation from an engaging in an unwarranted attack is fair in my book.

and...i really could care less what you think about me.

[RandFan]

threatening to attack a nation's civilian areas to prevent that nation from an engaging in an unwarranted attack is fair in my book.

and...i really could care less what you think about me. But killing civilians is fun.

[egslim]

Not when your opponent has nukes... and I don't think Iran has "lots of missiles" capable of hitting Israel.
I don't know about the latter, but the global fall-out from a first-use of nukes is extremely unpredictable and very likely to be huge. Much greater than the fall-out from killing a few tens of thousands of enemy civilians as a retaliation.

Not to mention that Israel is far more dependent on goodwill from other nations than Iran, because the latter offers essential natural resources.

Saddam escaped a charge of war crimes against Israel even though he was invaded, the country occupied, and he was captured.
Political leaders from governments that are violently overthrown generally have poor remaining life expectancies. The rationalizations for their execution matter little.

[egslim]

God I hope there are no attacks.
I agree completely, except for the reference to an unproven deity. But I really want this situation to be settled peacefully.

Problem is that any workable diplomatic solution will have to take Iranian security concerns into account too - the country is pretty much diplomatically isolated, surrounded by a superpower that has called for "regime change" in Iran, and has demonstrated its willingness to invade nations to accomplish that. Add some covert US operations to create political instability in Iran.
Posession of nukes would secure Iran against a US attack, so if I were Iran I'd want to have them too.

Taking Irans security concerns into account means finding alternative means to secure the country against US attack. Not merely for as long as the US remains stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan, but for the indefinate future.

Be careful of what you wish for. History does not hold pleasant vistas of things to come.
I will however agree with parky76 that if anyone strikes Iran, I hope the latter retaliates effectively and makes its attacker pay dearly in blood.

The reason is demonstrated everytime someone refers to the succes of Osirak as a reason why Israel should attack Iran now. Faillure to retaliate invites future pre-emptive strikes by making them seem "cheap". That's a very dangerous development.

[Ziggurat]

But killing civilians is fun.

Especially if they're Israeli. Their fault for living there, donchaknow.

[SDC]

This is about the bloodthirstiest thread I've ever read. Do people here actually read what they write? Or do they just cry out for (others') blood?

[WildCat]

Political leaders from governments that are violently overthrown generally have poor remaining life expectancies. The rationalizations for their execution matter little.
Maybe so, but in the 12 years between GWI and GWII the Hague and the UN did nothing to bring war crimes charges against Saddam. In fact, just prior to GWII support for sanctions was waning and France had stopped enforcing the no-fly zones and many countries were involved in illegal oil deals with Iraq.

[WildCat]

This is about the bloodthirstiest thread I've ever read. Do people here actually read what they write? Or do they just cry out for (others') blood?
Aside from parky, who is doing this?

[SDC]

Well, reading it over... I withdraw the comment. Though Egslim in #48 seems to be looking forward to bloodshed. These paired threads give the impression, or at least give it to me, that some think an excuse for Israel's destruction would be a good thing. They don't talk about (for example) Poland in such terms, or England, or China, or any other state. I wish I found that remarkable.

ETA: removed phrase "started by Oliver;" he only started one.

[Thunder]

But killing civilians is fun.

this isnt about fun. this is about one nation threatening to attack another nation for no good reason. if the world is going to have peace, we cant go around attacking each other..because we think they may someday have a nuke and may someday use it against us.

[Ziggurat]

this isnt about fun. this is about one nation threatening to attack another nation for no good reason. if the world is going to have peace, we cant go around attacking each other..because we think they may someday have a nuke and may someday use it against us.

But somehow, the fact that Iran has attacked Israel never seems to enter your calculations. Tell me, parky: how should Iran be punished for attacks they've actually committed via their Hezbollah proxies? By your logic, shouldn't Israel be allowed to indiscriminately kill some Iranian civilians in retaliation for what's actually happened already?

Incivility removed.

Please be civil and polite.

[RandFan]

this is about one nation threatening to attack another nation for no good reason. Iran has said plainly that Israel will cease to exist in the future. I don't see how you are going to stop them from attacking Israel. When you take into account the apocalyptic dreams to bring back the Mahdi I'm afraid that it is inevitable. Any ideas how to keep Iran from getting their nukes?

[Thunder]

But somehow, the fact that Iran has attacked Israel never seems to enter your calculations. Tell me, parky: how should Iran be punished for attacks they've actually committed via their Hezbollah proxies? By your logic, shouldn't Israel be allowed to indiscriminately kill some Iranian civilians in retaliation for what's actually happened already?
Incivility removed.

if israel believes that iranian support has gone to hezbollah attacks, they are free to prevent the shipment of iranian weapons or money to hezbollah.

do you think israel should launch attacks against iranian cities for the 10 or so israelis killed by hezbollah over the last 10 years?

[Thunder]

Iran has said plainly that Israel will cease to exist in the future. I don't see how you are going to stop them from attacking Israel. When you take into account the apocalyptic dreams to bring back the Mahdi I'm afraid that it is inevitable. Any ideas how to keep Iran from getting their nukes?

Iran does not have a nuclear weapon.

Iran may be at least 2 years away from having a nuclear weapon.

If and when Iran has a nuclear weapon, it would be SUICIDAL for them to use it on Israel, considering Israel's nuclear deterance and ASSURED nuclear response to a nuclear attack.

This is why I believe it would be wrong to attack Iran..at this point.

I believe in self-defense, and pre-emption when the facts of an IMMEDIATE threat are CONCLUSIVE.

Unlike George Bush and you, who would rather shoot first, make excuses later.

[RandFan]

If and when Iran has a nuclear weapon, it would be SUICIDAL for them to use it on Israel, considering Israel's nuclear deterance and ASSURED nuclear response to a nuclear attack. Yes, it would be suicidal. That's the whole point.

Please see Apocalypse and Mahdi.

Ahmadinejad Criticized for Saying Long-Ago Imam Mahdi Leads Iran (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/07/AR2008050703587.html)

"We see his hand directing all the affairs of the country," Ahmadinejad told theological students in the city of Mashad during a speech that appears to have been given last month but was not broadcast until Tuesday. "A movement has started for us to occupy ourselves with our global responsibilities. God willing, Iran will be the axis of the leadership of this movement," Ahmadinejad said. No figure out what the Mahdi has to do with the end of the world and why it is important to launch an apocalyptic and Messianic war against Israel.

Unlike George Bush and you, who would rather shoot first, make excuses later. Please to demonstrate where I advocate preemptive war by Iran against Israel?

[Ziggurat]

if israel believes that iranian support has gone to hezbollah attacks, they are free to prevent the shipment of iranian weapons or money to hezbollah.

No, actually, they aren't free to do so. It's called smuggling for a reason.

do you think israel should launch attacks against iranian cities for the 10 or so israelis killed by hezbollah over the last 10 years?

No, I do not. Nor would I be happy, as you would be, if Iran retaliated for an Isreali strike by causing indiscriminate slaughter in Israeli cities. You're the one who prefers more dead civilians, not me.

[Tumblehome]

I wouldn't doubt that he's giving orders to load Block Busters onto the Cessna right now.

:) That's going to put a dent in airtravel.


Only domestically. We still have the four-seater for international travel, as long as there are enough dogs to pull it. :)

[RandFan]

Only domestically. We still have the four-seater for international travel, as long as there are enough dogs to pull it. :):)

Where do you live?

[egslim]

Though Egslim in #48 seems to be looking forward to bloodshed.
Can't you bloody read? I first said I agreed completely with RandFan's hope there would be no attacks, and then I said I really wanted this situation to be settled peacefully.

I am scared of those people who believe they or their allies should be able to commit acts of war against other nations with impunity. They need to realise such actions can have very dangerous consequences - especially in a world with so many nukes. And I prefer to see a couple of thousand civilians dead now to make that point absolutely clear, than WWIII with many millions of deaths later.

These paired threads give the impression, or at least give it to me, that some think an excuse for Israel's destruction would be a good thing. They don't talk about (for example) Poland in such terms, or England, or China, or any other state. I wish I found that remarkable.
If you're (partially) referring to me here, you're quite wrong.

You're projecting your own belief that a nuclear armed Iran would mean the destruction of Israel on my opposition to attacks against Iranian centrifuges. Truth is, I honestly don't believe for a second that a nuclear armed Iran would mean the destruction of Israel. You may of course disagree, but don't accuse me of wanting to see Israel destroyed because I oppose attacks on Iran.

As for Poland, since they agreed to host the US's missile shield Russia announced it would target Poland with its nukes. I've heard little indignation against that move, I myself find it reasonable. That disproves your claim that Israel is treated differently than Poland.

[SDC]

Egslim, I don't think "can't you bloody read" is a reasonable response. Let me review this. When I read your postings, it appears to me that you are looking forward, in a way, to an end game in which Israel is destroyed. You may not intend that. It's what I feel I am reading. Now, in your response (if you make one), please keep your temper.

And of course Israel is treated differently from Poland. No one is advocating Poland's destruction or disappearance. No one anywhere. Please cite any article from the mainstream Russian or German press (at least) advocating Poland's destruction or disappearance. I choose those two (Russian and German) because of history.

ETA: my assumption that you can read Russian, German, and perhaps Polish may be incorrect. If so, my apologies.

[egslim]

Egslim, I don't think "can't you bloody read" is a reasonable response.
To an accussation that I look forward to bloodshed, when I have explicitely stated, twice, that I want a peaceful solution? That's either an incredible misread, or a considerable insult.

Let me review this. When I read your postings, it appears to me that you are looking forward, in a way, to an end game in which Israel is destroyed. You may not intend that. It's what I feel I am reading.
I dislike Israel in its current form, because the conflict between a viable Israel and a non-viable Palestinian state represents a source of perpetual conflict, in an already volatile region. I favour a solution whereby Israel (gradually) absorbs the Palestinian territories and people, and reforms itself into a state with equal rights and opportunities for Jews and Muslims.

There probably are people who equate the transformation of Israel's identity from "Jewish" into "Jewish and Muslim" or "secular" state with its destruction. I disagree with that, because I care little about religion either way. I interpret "destruction of Israel" as the violent overthrow of its political system, the killing of much of its population, or a combination of both. As you can see, I'm not looking forward to either, in any way.

And of course Israel is treated differently from Poland. No one is advocating Poland's destruction or disappearance.
No, instead they started a world war over Poland, which ended with a total of over 70 million deaths.

Conflicts like those Israel faces, with different groups vying for territory, independence, religion, or whatever, are common throughout history. Had it not been for Russia, there would have been striking parallels between Georgia/South Ossetia and Israel/Palestine. Both with the bigger country facing terrorist attacks, and the smaller country suffering occupation. The particulars are always different, but the contours are the same.

Israel is treated differently by many for two reasons. One, because of leftover guilt from the Holocaust. And two, because of religious reasons it enjoys support from both Jews and a number of Christians. Neither consideration applies to me, so I treat Israel the same as I would any other state that's in perpetual conflict with a weaker group.

ETA: my assumption that you can read Russian, German, and perhaps Polish may be incorrect. If so, my apologies.
That's fine, I'll gladly concede the point that mainstream Russian and German press doesn't call for Poland's destruction anymore. After two world wars, a cold war, and the creation of the EU and NATO the tensions with Poland have mostly died down. But that doesn't make the Israeli situation different, it simply hasn't progressed as far. And of course it will progress along a somewhat different path, eventually.

My impression is that the two of us look at the Middle-East with very different biasses. You seem to favour Israel, while I have a very cold and cynical view in general and one that is neutral towards Isreal as a political entity. I hope this post clarifies my position on the issues here. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on a lot of things, but in the future please ask for clarification instead of misreading my position if you feel unclear about something - especially when it concerns the deaths of many people.

[Tumblehome]

:)

Where do you live?


Sastachew--

Sakastacha--

Hell, even I can't say it.

S-A-S-K-A-T-C-H-E-W-A-N.

[RandFan]

Sastachew--

Sakastacha--

Hell, even I can't say it.

S-A-S-K-A-T-C-H-E-W-A-N. Cool. I'm a secret admirer of Canada. Don't tell anyone. I don't want to lose my street cred. :)