posted
I know that this was reported yesterday, but it's getting even more press today and I guess my question is: what now?
What do we do now? Sanctions? Threats? Do we allow Israel to premptively attack Iran? Can we condemn Israel for a premptive strike when we essentially did the same thing in Afghanistan and Iraq? How do you handle a nation that has, or is close to having, nuclear capability and is advocating the complete destruction of another country, and potentially compromising a very fragile truce between Israel and Palestine?
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do we allow Israel to premptively attack Iran?
Methinks that this is not such a peachy idea at all. I have no options, but I do not think that Israel attacking Iran would do anything but get Israel, as threatened, blown off the map.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally don't think it's a good idea either, but I have heard some of the militants begin talk of a pre-emptive attack...and Israel is actually on record as saying they would strike if Iran appeared to be gaining nuclear technology.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Israel has a history of pre-emptive strikes where nuclear power in the hands of its neighbors is concerned.
Frankly, I can't blame them. The combination of Arabic nations' rhetoric against Israel with the destructive capability of nuclear weapons along with willingness to inflict massive civilian casualties means Israel has to take a very long, hard look at continuing their policy of pre-emptive strike in this situation.
I mean, they'd be insane not to. At the worst of times, the governments of the USA and the USSR weren't saying to each other, "I'd just love to incinerate every single one of you."
It'll sound imperialist and racist, but I sometimes wonder if Iran having nuclear weapons isn't more a danger to Iran than Israel having nuclear weapons.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's an interesting conundrum. Regardless of what action is taken, this has the potential to go very badly.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Methinks that this is not such a peachy idea at all. I have no options, but I do not think that Israel attacking Iran would do anything but get Israel, as threatened, blown off the map.
Methinks that had the State of Israel existed in 1939, we might also have been spared WWII. Just speculation, but in the light of what happened then (the western powers standing by while Hitler openly prepared for a war of extermination) and what has happened since (most western powers standing by while Arab-Muslim autocrats and tyrants openly wage a war of extermination,) I think it's entirely probable.
Posts: 109 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you're Iran, with huge numbers of American troops on either side of you and the Bush Administration consistently labelling you a threat to global security, what else can you do? North Korea's example suggests that if Iran can actually get nukes, America is much less likely to attack. I think the leadership of Iran would be crazy* not to be trying to not nuclear weapons at this point, and from this perspective their current rhetoric makes all kinds of sense.
Israel may attempt to stop Iran's nuclear program via sabotage, which strikes me as being considerably less risky than open war (let alone a nuclear attack). That's also something they've shown they can do in the past... but it would still significantly destabilize the region. On the other hand, I'm sure they're determined not to let any of the Arab nations obtain nuclear weapons, for obvious reasons. We'll see.
*Crazier than they are, that is.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well unfortunately, the means to produce nuclear weapons continue to get smaller and smaller. It's my understanding that what once took a factory complex that was obvious to a satellite or a plane or a guy with a pair of binoculars now takes something the size of a machine shop.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twinky, are you actually making apologies for someone who advocated wiping an entire people off the face of the earth? I wouldn't have thought it, not even from you.
Posts: 109 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't underestimate the Iranian air defense systems. The rest of their military may be antiquated and mismatched, but they could inflict massive casualties on any air-based assault.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twinky just seemed to be giving a different perspective to this situation...not making apologies.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
"... and in other news, actor Bill Cosby has revealed that he is black."
Iran calling for the destruction of Israel is like Ellen Degeneris coming out. Only a surprise to people who weren't paying attention to begin with.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks like he's justifying the behaviour of North Korea and Iran, from the first paragraph of the post. I read it quite well, I assure you.
Posts: 109 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Only a surprise to people who weren't paying attention to begin with.
That is, everyone who was actually in a position to do something. Which is quite encouraging, actually, because the fact that this is news at all, and Tony Blair actually considering military action against Iran, means that finally people are paying attention.
Posts: 109 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: If you're Iran, with huge numbers of American troops on either side of you and the Bush Administration consistently labelling you a threat to global security, what else can you do?
I would think that they would have other courses of action other than declaring that they intend to wipe the Zionists off the face of the earth. Defusing the situation rather than escalating it might be a smarter response in this case. Proving Bush's statements right about being a threat to global security hardly seems the most prudent course.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Attempting to explain the perspective of a person or group is not "apologizing" for the same. The fact that you think it is, though, is completely unsurprising to me.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twinky, you weren't just explaining their perspective. You were endorsing it. You explicitly stated that your own personal opinion was that they would be crazy not to be trying to get nuclear weapons.
There is a huge difference between understanding someone else's perspective and actively endorsing it. The fact you don't see it, though, is completely unsurprising to me.
Posts: 109 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
C'mon dh, just because Twink is on a slightly different ground of this particular disagreement is no reason to jump to the 'excusing talk of genocide'.
And the 'not even from you' was pretty crass.
----
Twink,
quote:If you're Iran, with huge numbers of American troops on either side of you and the Bush Administration consistently labelling you a threat to global security, what else can you do? North Korea's example suggests that if Iran can actually get nukes, America is much less likely to attack.
Well, if you're Iran you could conceivably go out of your way to make it harder for the Bush Administration to label you a threat to global security.
"Wow, calm down man, you're acting crazy!
I'll kill you!"
Is what this will be spun as by the Bush Administration and others.
Attempting to acquire nukes makes it more likely that Israel and America will attack. People get caught up in the fact that no WMD have been found in Iraq (and rightly caught up), but they forget that everyone believed Iraq had and was building them.
And Iran's lesson from that piece of history is to say, "We're going to get nuclear power."!!! And to say things like we want to destroy Israel.
That's just nuts, I think. It doesn't make a lick of sense, at all. It cannot be swept aside by geopolitical realities. Iran is forcing American invasion on themselves if they do things like this.
Afghanistan was invaded because the Taliban refused to give up OBL. Iraq was invaded (on paper, whatever you think the 'real' reasons were) because it refused to comply with weapons inspectors and was felt to have WMD. Iran is setting itself up to be another Iraq. The only thing that would stop it would be to actually get nukes before an invasion.
And if that becomes likely, Israel attacks.
There is another, non-crazy option that involves this: if you know your enemy will destroy you but needs some pretext to do so, don't bend over and hike those pretexts to him like a bloody football.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Iran calling for the destruction of Israel is like Ellen Degeneris coming out. Only a surprise to people who weren't paying attention to begin with.
Lisa, When I started this topic, I envisioned a truly open discussion that wouldn't devolve into critical attacks on other people's posts without at least backing them up with some substance.
With that in mind, there is quite a big difference in how the international community can deal with something that is implied vs. something that is advocated in a speech by the president of another country.
Please don't denigrate people's posts based wholly on your well-known and unchangeable opinions.
posted
If you would pay attention to what twinky has said rather than the electrons you're thrusting into his mouth, dh, you'll notice that he was talking about nukes. Not about killing Israel.
Which is what you said he said at first, and have yet to retract or apologize for.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And Iran's lesson from that piece of history is to say, "We're going to get nuclear power."!!! And to say things like we want to destroy Israel.
That's just nuts, I think.
Exactly. Not to mention hateful and despicable. Which is why I am particularly offended at Twinky's attempt to make it seem like a reasonable reaction.
Posts: 109 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twink , I gotta go with digging holes on this one... it sure sounded to me like you were endorsing Iran's attempts to obtain nukes as well as their threat to Israel, which, BTW, implies that their goal in obtaining nukes is *not* protecting themselves but destroying Israel.
Edit: I was typing that before this escalated... all I'm saying is that, like digging holes, I found Twinky's "they'd be crazy not to" as an endorsement of both the nuclear program and the threatening posture which he said made "all kinds of sense."
As for Iranian air defense, THT, Israel has shredded state-of-the-art air defense systems repeatedly in the past. What they did in the Bekaa Valley in 1982 was sheer genius and is totally repeatable.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Iran wanting to get nuclear weapons is not in itself hateful or despicible. It is, from one perspective, quite understandable. Frankly if Iran does get nukes before Israel or America can destroy them, its policy will probably succeed.
Which was I think Twink's point all along.
You didn't read carefully. He didn't apologize for them, he did not say that Iran is right to say things like wipe out Israel, and he did not say, "I agree with this policy."
It's a nice, smooth two-step you're trying to do. First he was 'apologizing' and now he's 'endorsing'. He was doing neither. He was saying the policy of attempting to acquire nuclear weapons made sense, from one crazy perspective. You saw that part, right, where he called them crazy?
You owe him an apology. You're misrepresenting him.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, dh could have spent the last half hour explaining why he felt Twinky was wrong instead of attacking his personal morals.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I didn't see that as a denigration, Target. Not of anyone here anyway.
Not specifically targeted at Lisa (apologies to Lisa if it was interpreted as such), just as a general plea that this topic not turn into a mud-slinging exchange or over-generalized statements.
The whole world knows that Israel is overtly threatened by Islamic countries on a daily basis. What makes this different is that it was spoken in a very public manner by the highest official of Iran.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh wrote: Well, if you're Iran you could conceivably go out of your way to make it harder for the Bush Administration to label you a threat to global security.
Well, you are a rational human being, not a religious fanatic like the Iranian leadership. Given their beliefs and objectives, I'm completely unsurprised that they're pursuing this course.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you believe the first thing Iran would do with nuclear weapons is launch them at Israel, you're an idiot.
Nation-state governments do not committ suicide. They like their perks too much.
DH, this is the last time I'm going to say this, and then I'm bowing out of this discussion. You have said that Twinky is endorsing and apologizing for genocide. You are wrong. You are lying. You are putting words in his mouth and then saying, "This is what he meant!" because of implication.
Your words and opinions make me wish I didn't agree with you. Think about that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: As for Iranian air defense, THT, Israel has shredded state-of-the-art air defense systems repeatedly in the past. What they did in the Bekaa Valley in 1982 was sheer genius and is totally repeatable
That was in 1982. As recently as 2002, the Center for Strategic and International Studies considered Iran's air-defense systems to be the only credible threat to any outside attack.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the leadership of Iran would be crazy* not to be trying to not nuclear weapons at this point, and from this perspective their current rhetoric makes all kinds of sense.
quote:You have said that Twinky is endorsing and apologizing for genocide.
Well, dh never did say that Twinky was aplogizing for genocide itself, just someone that happened to view genocide as an option, which to some extent he was doing. He never justified those actions, but was trying to rationalize them from the mind of a crazy person.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: If you're Iran, with huge numbers of American troops on either side of you and the Bush Administration consistently labelling you a threat to global security, what else can you do?
Ahem. Getting back on subject...
To answer the question, you back down. You be calm and you play nice. The fact that they are thrusting out their chest and beating it aggressively while in the process of developing nuclear weapons confirms much of what Bush has been saying about them. "I'm gonna take all you coppers with me" plays nice in a Cagney movie but has no place on the world satge... and when nukes are involved it means something needs to change yesterday, if not sooner.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Never assume that something that seems crazy came from the mind of a crazy person. There may be many layers to this that we're missing because we can't wrap our minds around the seeming irrationality of the situation.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, you're misunderstanding my use of the word "apologies." I was using it in the sense of "excuse, exonorate, justify, rationalize, whitewash." You know, like apologetics?
And Rakeesh, if you agree with me, then frankly, I would much rather you disagree with me. I am not putting words into anyone's mouth, you are simply not comprehending what I and others are saying.
Posts: 109 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* Camus, to me the line between those two things is exceedingly thin. It was clear to me, at least, what digging_holes meant.
Do you disagree? Trying to explain why a lunatic thinks the way he does isn't apologizing for him. It's actually useful. It's important to have some measure of predictability where ordinary people are concerned, and even more important for lunatics.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:To answer the question, you back down. You be calm and you play nice. The fact that they are thrusting out their chest and beating it aggressively while in the process of developing nuclear weapons confirms much of what Bush has been saying about them. "I'm gonna take all you coppers with me" plays nice in a Cagney movie but has no place on the world satge... and when nukes are involved it means something needs to change yesterday, if not sooner.
From Iran's perspective, though, it looks like being belligerent worked out okay for North Korea. I think that's part of why they're going this way.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Instead of ascribing possible motives and meanings to people's posts, can we just agree that Twink didn't state he was apologizing for Iran's actions and that Dh understands that and is willing to move on?
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
But if you look at the case of Iraq, they did discontinue their WMD programs, and to a large extent they were willing to cooperate with the UN inspections (eventually), but U.S. still got involved because they were considered a threat. Likewise, it's possible to assume that Iran may feel that regardless of how much they cooperate, they will still be viewed as a threat, and so decide to go the N. Korean route of trying to be perceived as a big enough threat that the U.S. and other countries will have to take seriously instead of merely invading.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: That was in 1982. As recently as 2002, the Center for Strategic and International Studies considered Iran's air-defense systems to be the only credible threat to any outside attack.
My point was not that air defenses haven't changed in 20 years... my point was that the same things were said about the Syrian air defenses then...and that technology means nothing compared to how you use it.
Any defensive system has vulnerabilities and weak spots and if anyone knows those vulnerabilities and how to exploit them, it's the IAF. I wouldn't put the ability to accomplish another Osirak-like attack on say, Kuwait, Bahrain or some other nearby, US-guarded, location like Turkey out of their reach.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
