Israel could strike Iran’s nuclear assets

[Ban Hammer 13,637]

The 'new direction" will have to be one that recognizes the value of working in concert with the international community and through the established processes that have kept the world from descending into WWIII. That route has proven time and again to be much more efficient and effective than the Yahoo type operations of the sort of O.I.L. - which is the sort of thing that really scares the shite out of me. If one good thing will come out of Iraq, it is the lesson that unilateral action against the international community is a failed strategy. Well, some haven't quite learned that lesson yet. The Israelis, for one, seem to be a bit slow on that uptake.

the above has been a paid political ad by the democratic party.

we now return you to your scheduled thread.

[DeadPoolX 9]

What has Iran done military to threaten the U.S. or its allies?

Well, Iran has threatened one of the U.S.'s closest allies and the United States itself. The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been recorded as stating he and Iran will "destroy Israel and all of its people" and to "imagine a world without the United States."

Now, while he did not directly say, "We're gonna nuke you to kingdom come," his words were very distinctly threats against the U.S. and Israel. I can't see how anyone could honestly say that Ahmadinejad and Iran pose no threat to Israel, the United States, the entire Middle-East, and quite possibly the world.

The most important thing to remember is that Ahmadinejad does not have the right to decide who lives and who dies. He does not have the right to destroy Israel or the United States. Furthermore, let's say he did succeed and destroyed both countries -- who would be next on the list? Would any country be safe? I don't think so.

Having said all of that, the Iranian military will do whatever Ahmadinejad orders them to do, and they are fairly well equipped. Iran is a huge country as well. As powerful and technologically advanced as the U.S. military is (with the Israeli Defense Force backing them up), going into Iran would be disastrous. A full-scale war with Iran would have to be a last resort, as I don't see anything good coming out of such a conflict.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What has Iran done military to threaten the U.S. or its allies?

Well, Iran has threatened one of the U.S.'s closest allies and the United States itself. The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been recorded as stating he and Iran will "destroy Israel and all of its people" and to "imagine a world without the United States."

Now, while he did not directly say, "We're gonna nuke you to kingdom come," his words were very distinctly threats against the U.S. and Israel. I can't see how anyone could honestly say that Ahmadinejad and Iran pose no threat to Israel, the United States, the entire Middle-East, and quite possibly the world.

The most important thing to remember is that Ahmadinejad does not have the right to decide who lives and who dies. He does not have the right to destroy Israel or the United States. Furthermore, let's say he did succeed and destroyed both countries -- who would be next on the list? Would any country be safe? I don't think so.

Having said all of that, the Iranian military will do whatever Ahmadinejad orders them to do, and they are fairly well equipped. Iran is a huge country as well. As powerful and technologically advanced as the U.S. military is (with the Israeli Defense Force backing them up), going into Iran would be disastrous. A full-scale war with Iran would have to be a last resort, as I don't see anything good coming out of such a conflict.

Just empty rhetoric when you look at Iran's actions. Normalizing relations with Iran would go a lot further in quelling the animosity that many countries in the Middle East have towards Israel. If you listen further into the rhetoric, you will hear what their beef is with Israel. I'm not saying you have to agree with it, but it's rooted in reason... they don't just hate the Israeli's for being Jews. If that were the case, Jews wouldn't exist in places such as Iran. Common sense needs to come into play here.

It is one of the many paradoxes of the Islamic Republic of Iran that this most virulent anti-Israeli country supports by far the largest Jewish population of any Muslim country.

http://www.sephardicstudies.org/iran.html

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

The 'new direction" will have to be one that recognizes the value of working in concert with the international community and through the established processes that have kept the world from descending into WWIII. That route has proven time and again to be much more efficient and effective than the Yahoo type operations of the sort of O.I.L. - which is the sort of thing that really scares the shite out of me. If one good thing will come out of Iraq, it is the lesson that unilateral action against the international community is a failed strategy. Well, some haven't quite learned that lesson yet. The Israelis, for one, seem to be a bit slow on that uptake.

the above has been a paid political ad by the democratic party.

we now return you to your scheduled thread.

It's not really about the Democrats.... Bush acts in reckless disregard of Congress anyway.

It's all about the fall of the neo-cons. I repeat: the neo-con war party is over.

George W. ignored the advice of his father and the rest of the old guard at BushCo, and heedlessly followed the neo-cons' bidding into the Iraqi quagmire. Now, 6 years into the disaster of W's presidency, the old man is circling the wagons. The arrival of Bob Gates is the clear signal that W is taking up a new course, and the neo-cons will not influence that course.

Gates is an old school oil man, an Arabist if you will, who believes that negotiations and diplomacy with the Arab and Muslim world are what's best for American prosperity and security. After being hijacked by the neo-con war party, American policy is being handed back over to the same anti-war advisors that dominated Washington during Bush I's tenure.

Gates and Zbigniew Brzezinski already gave their recommendations on dealing with Iran, as co-chairmen of the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force (commissioned by Congress.) They called for the Bush administration to directly engage the mullahs and to use "fewer sticks and more carrots" in Iran, and across the Muslim world. They recommended that the U.S. completely discard "regime change" as a strategy, and move more forcefully to establish a Palestinian state as quickly as possible. They also recommended that the U.S. put the pressure on Israel not to take any military action against the Iranian nuclear facilities. They argue that such actions would threaten U.S. national interests.

Most recently, Gates has been serving as a member of the Iraq Study Group, which is chaired by co-Arabist and Bush old guard Jim Baker. This committee will recommend "new strategies" for managing the war in Iraq to W later this month.

In recent press interviews, Baker has indicated that the group will recommend that W enter into negotiations with Iran and Syria. This, they say, will motivate Iran and Syria to help stabilize the situation in Iraq, which will prepare for the retreat of U.S. forces.

In short: the U.S. will now abandon the neo-con oil acquisition method -- stealing it at gun point. The old-fashioned, honorable American way will go into effect immediately: We will buy oil from its Muslim owners. We will pay for it with goods and services which the oil rich people want to buy. Both will prosper.

Edited November 13, 2006 by wife_of_mahmoud

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The 'new direction" will have to be one that recognizes the value of working in concert with the international community and through the established processes that have kept the world from descending into WWIII. That route has proven time and again to be much more efficient and effective than the Yahoo type operations of the sort of O.I.L. - which is the sort of thing that really scares the shite out of me. If one good thing will come out of Iraq, it is the lesson that unilateral action against the international community is a failed strategy. Well, some haven't quite learned that lesson yet. The Israelis, for one, seem to be a bit slow on that uptake.

the above has been a paid political ad by the democratic party.

we now return you to your scheduled thread.

It's not really about the Democrats.... Bush acts in reckless disregard of Congress anyway.

It's all about the fall of the neo-cons. I repeat: the neo-con war party is over.

George W. ignored the advice of his father and the rest of the old guard at BushCo, and heedlessly followed the neo-cons' bidding into the Iraqi quagmire. Now, 6 years into the disaster of W's presidency, the old man is circling the wagons. The arrival of Bob Gates is the clear signal that W is taking up a new course, and the neo-cons will not influence that course.

Gates is an old school oil man, an Arabist if you will, who believes that negotiations and diplomacy with the Arab and Muslim world are what's best for American prosperity and security. After being hijacked by the neo-con war party, American policy is being handed back over to the same anti-war advisors that dominated Washington during Bush I's tenure.

Gates and Zbigniew Brzezinski already gave their recommendations on dealing with Iran, as co-chairmen of the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force (commissioned by Congress.) They called for the Bush administration to directly engage the mullahs and to use "fewer sticks and more carrots" in Iran, and across the Muslim world. They recommended that the U.S. completely discard "regime change" as a strategy, and move more forcefully to establish a Palestinian state as quickly as possible. They also recommended that the U.S. put the pressure on Israel not to take any military action against the Iranian nuclear facilities. They argue that such actions would threaten U.S. national interests.

Most recently, Gates has been serving as a member of the Iraq Study Group, which is chaired by co-Arabist and Bush old guard Jim Baker. This committee will recommend "new strategies" for managing the war in Iraq to W later this month.

In recent press interviews, Baker has indicated that the group will recommend that W enter into negotiations with Iran and Syria. This, they say, will motivate Iran and Syria to help stabilize the situation in Iraq, which will prepare for the retreat of U.S. forces.

In short: the U.S. will now abandon the neo-con oil acquisition method -- stealing it at gun point. The old-fashioned, honorable American way will go into effect immediately: We will buy oil from its Muslim owners. We will pay for it with goods and services which the oil rich people want to buy. Both will prosper.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The 'new direction" will have to be one that recognizes the value of working in concert with the international community and through the established processes that have kept the world from descending into WWIII. That route has proven time and again to be much more efficient and effective than the Yahoo type operations of the sort of O.I.L. - which is the sort of thing that really scares the shite out of me. If one good thing will come out of Iraq, it is the lesson that unilateral action against the international community is a failed strategy. Well, some haven't quite learned that lesson yet. The Israelis, for one, seem to be a bit slow on that uptake.

the above has been a paid political ad by the democratic party.

we now return you to your scheduled thread.

Well, at least we can rest assured that it's not just the Israelis that are slow on the uptake.

[Ban Hammer 13,637]

The 'new direction" will have to be one that recognizes the value of working in concert with the international community and through the established processes that have kept the world from descending into WWIII. That route has proven time and again to be much more efficient and effective than the Yahoo type operations of the sort of O.I.L. - which is the sort of thing that really scares the shite out of me. If one good thing will come out of Iraq, it is the lesson that unilateral action against the international community is a failed strategy. Well, some haven't quite learned that lesson yet. The Israelis, for one, seem to be a bit slow on that uptake.

the above has been a paid political ad by the democratic party.

we now return you to your scheduled thread.

Well, at least we can rest assured that it's not just the Israelis that are slow on the uptake.

being anti semite, et?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The 'new direction" will have to be one that recognizes the value of working in concert with the international community and through the established processes that have kept the world from descending into WWIII. That route has proven time and again to be much more efficient and effective than the Yahoo type operations of the sort of O.I.L. - which is the sort of thing that really scares the shite out of me. If one good thing will come out of Iraq, it is the lesson that unilateral action against the international community is a failed strategy. Well, some haven't quite learned that lesson yet. The Israelis, for one, seem to be a bit slow on that uptake.

the above has been a paid political ad by the democratic party.

we now return you to your scheduled thread.

Well, at least we can rest assured that it's not just the Israelis that are slow on the uptake.

being anti semite, et?

Nice try. But you gotta do better than that. Or you gotta re-read the statement I made and try to get a handle on what it means. What I said doesn't have a first thing to do with being anti-semite.

[Carol&Marc 0]

The 'new direction" will have to be one that recognizes the value of working in concert with the international community and through the established processes that have kept the world from descending into WWIII. That route has proven time and again to be much more efficient and effective than the Yahoo type operations of the sort of O.I.L. - which is the sort of thing that really scares the shite out of me. If one good thing will come out of Iraq, it is the lesson that unilateral action against the international community is a failed strategy. Well, some haven't quite learned that lesson yet. The Israelis, for one, seem to be a bit slow on that uptake.

the above has been a paid political ad by the democratic party.

we now return you to your scheduled thread.

Well, at least we can rest assured that it's not just the Israelis that are slow on the uptake.

being anti semite, et?

the value of working in concert with the international community and through the established processes that have kept the world from descending into WWIII. That route has proven time and again to be much more efficient and effective

Or perhaps if we had transit busses getting blown-up and rockets landing in our streets we would get the up-take hmmmmm?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Or perhaps if we had transit busses getting blown-up and rockets landing in our streets we would get the up-take hmmmmm?

I see. Yeah that makes all the sense in the world. Descending onto the level of the lawless will make the world a better place. I can just picture what a wonderful place it would be indeed. How come that never occured to me until you brought that brilliant idea up?

[Caladan 19]

It's probably worth pointing out that Ahmedameenivegamin is pretty much a figurehead trying to rally support, like any politician. Fine, he hates Israel. He's also not irrational nor a religious madman. People are completely capable of both hating the U.S. and responding rationally to pressure. (And getting nukes is a smart thing. Think we would be allied with Pakistan if they didn't have nukes?)

(And that if we're taking speeches to the base seriously, then Bush threatened Iran by calling it an axis of evil much earlier than Ahmameenimexican did.)

Frankly, I'm not sure how much we can do militarily in Iran. Maybe if we hadn't decide to play in Iraq, but now, we've got an army pinned in Iraq, a situation out of control, and we're going to what, start another conflict. That is a recipe for at least a large regional conflict.

The elder Bush was a diplomat and knew how to manage a situation and build a coalition. Let's hope Baker isn't rusty, because we're going to need him to keep the lid on over there while we mop up our own mess.

[Carol&Marc 0]

Or perhaps if we had transit busses getting blown-up and rockets landing in our streets we would get the up-take hmmmmm?

I see. Yeah that makes all the sense in the world. Descending onto the level of the lawless will make the world a better place. I can just picture what a wonderful place it would be indeed. How come that never occured to me until you brought that brilliant idea up?

I like the way you read lawlessness into my statement of defending our self! If someone is on "OUR" streets blowing themselves up and killing our people we should go to the U.N.? (France,Germany,Russia) and ask if its okay to retaliate?

[Ban Hammer 13,637]

The 'new direction" will have to be one that recognizes the value of working in concert with the international community and through the established processes that have kept the world from descending into WWIII. That route has proven time and again to be much more efficient and effective than the Yahoo type operations of the sort of O.I.L. - which is the sort of thing that really scares the shite out of me. If one good thing will come out of Iraq, it is the lesson that unilateral action against the international community is a failed strategy. Well, some haven't quite learned that lesson yet. The Israelis, for one, seem to be a bit slow on that uptake.

the above has been a paid political ad by the democratic party.

we now return you to your scheduled thread.

Well, at least we can rest assured that it's not just the Israelis that are slow on the uptake .

being anti semite, et?

Nice try. But you gotta do better than that. Or you gotta re-read the statement I made and try to get a handle on what it means. What I said doesn't have a first thing to do with being anti-semite.

sure sure

let's just make the israelis sound dumber than a box of rocks........

[Carol&Marc 0]

It's probably worth pointing out that Ahmedameenivegamin is pretty much a figurehead trying to rally support, like any politician. Fine, he hates Israel. He's also not irrational nor a religious madman. People are completely capable of both hating the U.S. and responding rationally to pressure. (And getting nukes is a smart thing. Think we would be allied with Pakistan if they didn't have nukes?)

(And that if we're taking speeches to the base seriously, then Bush threatened Iran by calling it an axis of evil much earlier than Ahmameenimexican did.)

Frankly, I'm not sure how much we can do militarily in Iran. Maybe if we hadn't decide to play in Iraq, but now, we've got an army pinned in Iraq, a situation out of control, and we're going to what, start another conflict. That is a recipe for at least a large regional conflict.

The elder Bush was a diplomat and knew how to manage a situation and build a coalition. Let's hope Baker isn't rusty, because we're going to need him to keep the lid on over there while we mop up our own mess.

I read your statement as if you think these people will listen to reason?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Or perhaps if we had transit busses getting blown-up and rockets landing in our streets we would get the up-take hmmmmm?

I see. Yeah that makes all the sense in the world. Descending onto the level of the lawless will make the world a better place. I can just picture what a wonderful place it would be indeed. How come that never occured to me until you brought that brilliant idea up?

I like the way you read lawlessness into my statement of defending our self! If someone is on "OUR" streets blowing themselves up and killing our people we should go to the U.N.? (France,Germany,Russia) and ask if its okay to retaliate?

I like the way you read defending ourselves into Olmert's statements. So, I guess we both misread a little. There's no need to talk to anyone for retailiation. There never has been. The way Olmert sounds, the Israelis are not talking about retaliation, though.

The 'new direction" will have to be one that recognizes the value of working in concert with the international community and through the established processes that have kept the world from descending into WWIII. That route has proven time and again to be much more efficient and effective than the Yahoo type operations of the sort of O.I.L. - which is the sort of thing that really scares the shite out of me. If one good thing will come out of Iraq, it is the lesson that unilateral action against the international community is a failed strategy. Well, some haven't quite learned that lesson yet. The Israelis, for one, seem to be a bit slow on that uptake.

the above has been a paid political ad by the democratic party.

we now return you to your scheduled thread.

Well, at least we can rest assured that it's not just the Israelis that are slow on the uptake .

being anti semite, et?

Nice try. But you gotta do better than that. Or you gotta re-read the statement I made and try to get a handle on what it means. What I said doesn't have a first thing to do with being anti-semite.

sure sure

let's just make the israelis sound dumber than a box of rocks........

I didn't. Just stating the fact the per Olmert's statement, he doesn't quite seem to have learned the lesson that should be learned from the quagmire that Iraq has become: Unilateral pre-emptive attacks are not the answer.