Will Israel Have A Choice

[Deepwater6]

In this article the defense minister for Israel Ehud Barak states that Iran is less than a year away from the tipping point.

 

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/21/u-s-to-join-u-k-in-new-iran-sanctions/?hpt=hp_t2

[Deepwater6]

The last paragraph describes a strike on Iran as only setting them back a few years. It also says it will give the leadership good reason to get the public behind them for this cause, both good points to consider.

 

 

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/national_world&id=8557688

[Knothead]

Call me naive, but I really feel that it's pointless for Israel, the US or anyone to attack or, for that matter to threaten to attack Iran. If they have the capability to build the weapons, then it's pretty much inevitable that they will build it eventually. Diplomacy, in my opinion is the only practical way to deal with the situation.

That doesn't mean that the **** won't hit the fan anyway, but a preemptive strike would only guarantee it.

[Deepwater6]

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/23/exclusive-israel-in-open-war-with-iran/?hpt=hp_t3

 

The Syrian uprising adds another element to the uneasy ground with Iran.

[Turtle]

watching one of the Sunday political news programs last week, the argument was laid that "we" should let Iran have a bomb as they couldn't use it. mutual assured destruction as with the US and Russia and Pakistan and India. :shrug:

[Deepwater6]

Well I guess that would be valid argument with a normal country. With a government that has elements in it that contain people willing to become marytrs and erase the great Satan from the planet I'm not so sure.

[Turtle]

Well I guess that would be valid argument with a normal country. With a government that has elements in it that contain people willing to become marytrs and erase the great Satan from the planet I'm not so sure.

 

i wish i could remember/find the guest that put the idea forward. i'll do some more brain-busting on it as i think he has a book out. as to whack-jobs in government, iran has no monopoly on that verse.

 

PS this may be the guy, but i can't find which news show i saw him on. anyway, here's a lengthy article.

 

We Can Live With a Nuclear Iran

 

Fears of a bomb in Tehran’s hands are overhyped, and a war to prevent it would be a disaster.

 

The simple argument is that Iranian leaders supposedly don’t think like the rest of us: they are religious fanatics who value martyrdom more than life, cannot be counted on to act rationally, and therefore cannot be deterred. On the campaign trail Rick Santorum has been among the most vocal in propounding this notion, asserting that Iran is ruled by the “equivalent of al-Qaeda,” that its “theology teaches” that its objective is to “create a calamity,” that it believes “the afterlife is better than this life,” and that its “principal virtue” is martyrdom. Newt Gingrich speaks in a similar vein about how Iranian leaders are suicidal jihadists, and says “it’s impossible to deter them.”

 

The trouble with this image of Iran is that it does not reflect actual Iranian behavior. More than three decades of history demonstrate that the Islamic Republic’s rulers, like most rulers elsewhere, are overwhelmingly concerned with preserving their regime and their power—in this life, not some future one. ...

Edited July 24, 2012 by Turtle

[LaurieAG]

One thing never changes, the people who are willing to sell out their own countries become the powerful elites in the new regime.

 

The only problem is that none of the potential elites (Iraq, Iran or even US) give/gave accounts that can be relied on.

[Guest MacPhee]

Why should all these weak countries, like Iran, make so much trouble for strong countries like the USA. Or Israel - which is the same thing, since as we all know, Israel controls the USA.

 

The point is - why do strong countries put up with annoying weak countries - instead of just destroying them.

 

That's the way the Romans operated - they destroyed Carthage. Which enabled them to go on to create the Roman Empire. And that was surely a good thing, because it advanced civilisation and human progress. The Roman Empire is still admired today, as an example of what strong humans can achieve when they exert their power.

 

In modern times, such power is possessed by the United States of America. So the USA ought to be following in Rome's footsteps, and establishing a global American Empire. After all, doesn't everyone recognise American culture, art, science and language, as absolutely the best things that humans have ever achieved since Roman times?

 

Some weak nations clearly recognise this. It makes them feel envious and resentful. In frustrated anger, they resort to pathetic acts of desperation. Like suicide bombings, or trying incompetently to build an Iranian nuclear weapon. As if some puny 50KT fission bomb could bring America to its knees! A single US Trident SSBN submarine, firing from the Indian Ocean, could blanket Iran with a barrage of 192 thermonuclear warheads, each with a yield of 475KT. Thus permanently ending any threat from Iran.

 

And "threats" from any other weak state could be quickly extinguished by a determined USA. So what's really the problem? Is it just humanitarian considerations, or lack of will, or what is it do you think?

[Turtle]

...And "threats" from any other weak state could be quickly extinguished by a determined USA. So what's really the problem? Is it just humanitarian considerations, or lack of will, or what is it do you think?

 

i think you taking a good look in a mirror will illustrate the problem in no uncertain terms. start applying your suggestions on who you see there.

[Guest MacPhee]

i think you taking a good look in a mirror will illustrate the problem in no uncertain terms. start applying your suggestions on who you see there.

 

Good point - perhaps when US B-29 bombers fired-bombed Tokyo in WWII, killing 50,000+ Japanese, the pilots had looked in their mirrors, and thought "We don't look like Japs, we haven't got slanty eyes, so it's OK to kill 'em".

 

Probably the willingness to kill increases, as physical difference increases?

[JMJones0424]

Why should all these weak countries, like Iran, make so much trouble for strong countries like the USA. Or Israel - which is the same thing, since as we all know, Israel controls the USA.

Absolutely asinine analysis.

 

And "threats" from any other weak state could be quickly extinguished by a determined USA. So what's really the problem? Is it just humanitarian considerations, or lack of will, or what is it do you think?

I only regret that you have but one life to give for my country, or something like that.

[Turtle]

Good point - perhaps when US B-29 bombers fired-bombed Tokyo in WWII, killing 50,000+ Japanese, the pilots had looked in their mirrors, and thought "We don't look like Japs, we haven't got slanty eyes, so it's OK to kill 'em".

 

Probably the willingness to kill increases, as physical difference increases?

 

perhaps your willingness to spout hate-speak increases with every criticism of your willingness to spout hate-speak. pathetic.

[Guest MacPhee]

perhaps your willingness to spout hate-speak increases with every criticism of your willingness to spout hate-speak. pathetic.

 

As soon as someone spouts a silly mindless phrase like "hate-speak", they go down in my estimation of their ability to think clearly. With all due respect.

[Turtle]

As soon as someone spouts a silly mindless phrase like "hate-speak", they go down in my estimation of their ability to think clearly. With all due respect.

 

i don't give a rat's *** for your estimation of me. it's not worth the virtual ink its keyed with.

[Deepwater6]

We Can Live With a Nuclear Iran

 

That's a good article. What I got out of it is that Iran's leadership seems to be more interested in expanding it's (for lack of a better term) "soft power" in the region than destroying the world.

 

Imperialism is one thing MacPhee, detruction of a country because they are annoying or weak is something else. You would also need to consider the countries surrounding the target and what their reaction would be if we wiped their trading partner off the map. I don't think Russia will to happy with us if and when this happens.

 

So it seems the choices are:

 

1.Continue to negotiate with Iran and offer them technical assistance in exchange for an open door policy on it's nuke program and hope they agree.

2.Strike first with percision guided bombs and continue to do that every two yrs. as needed to keep them down.

3.All out invasion of the country to assure we get all material and weapons out of there.

4.Leave them alone.

 

As the article refers to, attacking the country risks galvinizing the population and other countries against us. I thought it a big missed opportunity not doing more in the green movement uprising around the election. I'm sure the CIA was doing what it could but with all the other regime changes around the world that one looked promising before they crushed it.

[Deepwater6]

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18968233

 

I found this article on BBC today about the continuing cyber war. Can somebody with a better understanding of computers than me explain how Iran is getting the updated simatic codes and equipment with such tight sanctions? It seems that they (The West) are cutting any company out of the loop that has anything to do with Iran. Are these stuxnet and other viruses fixes readily available to all or do Iranian computer whizzes have to figure out and fix all their problems?

 

Also we lose some drives and VFD's now and again when we have lightning hits at my place of employment. They are not cheap to replace and I imagine even less so on the black market.