nuclear strike against Iran?

Russia and China oppose tough measures, insisting on a negotiated solution.

Click to expand...

If (recent) history is to be our guide, the translation is: "our corrupt officials are making a buttload of money off Iran, so we want to keep the heat on because it's good for business. Doing anything decisive would be bad for business."

No President will rule out any options -- no need to and it is stupid to do so.

I wonder if Iran is not in danger of becoming a Russian client state? They are showing off military equipment purchased from Russia (maybe given to them?) as if they developed it themselves, and they are heavily reliant on Russsia for their nuclear technolgy. They are dependent on Russia for political cover in the U.N. and Europe.

How much influence does this give Russia over Tehran? Are we dealing only with a recalcitrant bunch of Islamo-Facists, or are we also dealing with a Russia that is trying to rebuild it's Empire?

China is in it strictly for the money and a way to have a few chuckles by poking the eye of the westerners, I think.

No President will rule out any options -- no need to and it is stupid to do so.

Click to expand...

I take it you're not old enough to remember the Carter administration.

Nothing to worry about. Putin and Hu are close friends--barbecue buddies--of Bush. He can count on them implicitly. Just like his old amigo Vicente Fox.

Sometimes friendship and war by other means look strangely alike.

I take it you're not old enough to remember the Carter administration.

Click to expand...

LOL.

Sadly, I am old enough to remember Ike (but not Truman!).

Perhaps I should edit my post to read "No SANE President"??????

Sounds like a job for some Seals.

When this whole thing started, Bush's only response should have been....

"Maybe we will. Maybe we won't. Kinda up to them, ain't it?"

Yesterday I saw a poll that said 13 percent of the American public supported attacking Iran. For the sake of argument, let's assume that Iran is a threat that has to be dealt with, which it may well be. If that were the case, then we are in incredible danger when we have a president with such little support that he can only muster 13 percent of the population behind his saber rattling.

Lobotomy Boy said:

...we are in incredible danger when we have a president with such little support that he can only muster 13 percent of the population behind his saber rattling...

Click to expand...

This 13 percent of which you speak is meaningless... the American public are focused more closely on what concerns them directly and most do not connect the dots between what might happen in Iran and what is happening now at their neighborhood gas pump...

Added to that is the Democrats who would scorn anything that Bush does in relation to Iran, despite its apparent security for this nation... Further added to the mix is most see saber rattling in the Mideast in a political lense rather than through a national security lense...

However=> Let Iran launch one of its ballistic missiles and then see what this "13 percent" climbs to? By then it will be, of course, too late but such an overt act would spurn and harden public realities...

To date Iran has simply "threatened" Israel, and by connection USA, with words and idle talk... let talk become reality and we, as Americans, will totally back and support retalitory action...

btw... I note that the Democrat Talking Points on Iran are against President Bush yet surface no alternate strategy...which leaves me to assume they support Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...something to think about in any event.

This 13 percent of which you speak is meaningless... the American public are focused more closely on what concerns them directly and most do not connect the dots between what might happen in Iran and what is happening now at their neighborhood gas pump...

Click to expand...

Yyyeah....aw, who needs that pesky "democracy" thing anyway, the Masters know better than that silly "People" thing, right?

To date Iran has simply "threatened" Israel, and by connection USA, with words and idle talk... let talk become reality and we, as Americans, will totally back and support retalitory action...

Click to expand...

AMERICA does NOT EQUAL ISRAEL! We are NOT ISRAEL. And really, what has backing Israel gotten us? They're not a democracy, they've been led by a succession of religio-zealots. We don't get any resources from them, we don't get any regional influence from them...what we DO get, is every time they mouth off, they duck, and the return punch from their enemies hits US in the face.

Why? What does supporting their every action get us? Besides dead Americans here and abroad?

We really need to be more isolationist in some instances, and I DO THINK that includes telling Israel "You're on your own."

Enough taking the punches for them. And you can't say "because supporting them is right", in some nebulous definition. If we did what was "right", Kim Jon Il would be a grease spot and we'd invade and free North Korea. We'd say we will defend Taiwan's right to be a free state no matter what, because they "want democracy". We can't, it'd not be practical at this juncture. And we need to be pragmatic here...we CANNOT continue to take the hits for Israel, for which we get NOTHING in return, no benefit, no nothing.

Even the crusaders, zealots in the extreme, knew when to fold and get the heck out of Jerusalem when it became plain that staying would just be continued attrition that'd weaken their rule at home. Are we going to fail in long term planning so badly that we can't even see what a bunch of people with broadswords saw, back then? At some point, you HAVE to weigh continued losses against the desparate hanging onto of the unwinnable..and weigh what benefits you're getting, if any, from hanging onto it. I don't see any benefits to our continued support. Not in terms of tactical advantage, not in terms of resource benefits (Israel doesn't have much oil!)...nothing. I don't see any reason WHY we support them so unquestioningly.

Do you?

We need to get out of the 2 messes were in now befor we open another can of woop ass Were starting to run low on the ass kicking part.,
Dummy doesn't need to start again unless him and Rummy lead the attack. He is a pilot after all. So put him in the first plane leading the first strike Give VP a A-10 it kinda like a big shot gun. Oh just so fair call and tell them were coming and who leading the attack. They won't do anything they will be to busy rolling around laughing.

Manedwolf said:

I don't see any reason WHY we support them so unquestioningly.

Do you?

Click to expand...

When I see an elderly person struggling with life's labors I automatically offer to help even if it is not asked. I don't often question why I help!

While it is tempting to abandon Israel to its own devices and become "isolationist" as you suggest, what good would it really do us to let terrorists run the board? As General Patton said a few times, "I hate paying for the same real estate twice!" (I believe it was him)... Letting Iran and Israel beat each other up might be good but since we'll inevitiably become involved in the fight why not be involved up front?

Asked another way Manedwolf: Do you think for a second this feud is simply between Israel and Iran? It is more about Christian versus Muslim in my opinion....

When I see an elderly person struggling with life's labors I automatically offer to help even if it is not asked. I don't often question why I help!

Click to expand...

Then why aren't we helping the oppressed residents of North Korea, which is a total hellhole? Why are we playing nice-nice with China, one of the most horrendous human rights abusers on the planet?

Asked another way Manedwolf: Do you think for a second this feud is simply between Israel and Iran? It is more about Christian versus Muslim in my opinion....

Click to expand...

Oh, GOODY. So it's a struggle of RELIGIONS. Of BELIEFS, the things that can't be proven or denied, that drive men to act like insane zealots... The kind of wars that last centuries and end up destroying empires and nations with no resolution in the end, just lots of ruins and millions of dead.

Oh, that makes me feel so much better.

If it was up to me, I'd want to take the most fanatical zealots of all the religions and put them on an island, let THEM slug it out instead of using the rest of the world for their bloody sandbox. It'd make good entertainment, and millions of people who just want to go about their lives wouldn't have to die because they think differently than their neighbor.

Zealots fighting over religion is two guys with machine guns and a room full of bystanders between them...but they fire randomly anyway.

WHat would be the purpose of "ruling out" anything? Considering that Iran is very possibly a budding nuclear power they of ALL nations needs to know the consequences of M.A.D, of course in their case there is nothing "mutual" about it. Telling them that we would never nuke them for any reason isnt exactly going to keep their fingers off the button. If you were to do a little digging I bet we have nuclear options with every single nation on the planet including Canada and Mexico. There is no reason in the world *not* to have options available.

We don't have to tell anyone anything about ruling options out--the Iranians are smart people, and they can see that the Bush administration has zero credibility abroad or at home. Bush is like the little boy who cried "Wolf!" or more precisely, "WMD!" He has squandered his credibility to the point where he has become so ineffectual that should we find ourselves in genuine danger, he would not be able to act. Given that the administration can only muster 13 percent support for action against Iran, we are in deep, deep trouble.

Bush is like the little boy who cried "Wolf!" or more precisely, "WMD!" He has squandered his credibility to the point where he has become so ineffectual that should we find ourselves in genuine danger, he would not be able to act. Given that the administration can only muster 13 percent support for action against Iran, we are in deep, deep trouble.

Click to expand...

Sad to say, Lobotomy Boy, you're right. I watched Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon do the same thing a generation ago—and Jimmy Carter cap their wretched performance by yielding to the Iranians who seized our embassy, which...

Aw, never mind. I'm going to the range tonight.

I agree with Manewolf. Supporting Israel has got us nothing but trouble and punches and kicks in the face. They want to have a country in a sea of enemies? Good luck to them. Not my problem. The aspirations of a foreign country are not worth a drop of American blood nor a cent of American taxpayer funds. Yeah, go ahead, call me antisemitic.

Israel uses us as their shield and sword, a big bully brother to keep them out of trouble and beat up the other bullies for them. Iraq was not our problem. Saddam shot SCUDs at Israel, not us. They want to fight it out medieval style? Fine. Sell weapons to both and televise the fireworks on prime time. I'll buy my popcorn.

Israel are ECSTATIC about our new involvement in the region. Did you see the interview with their Mossad head on the Daily Show? "You did the right thing with Iraq and WMDs." "But we did not find any." "Oh, there is no guarantee that someday you won't."

Our admin is phoning Israel to ask them what they want done. Any criticism is "unpatriotic", "against the troops", "antisemitic". Screw that.

Christian versus muslim? I am no christian or muslim and don't give a crap about either. Not my problem. Anybody who wants to fight religious wars should go and fight them out over there on their own. Not interested. Next time some towelhead drives a plane in a building of ours, we glassify a city of theirs. Collateral damage? Tough. Don't give a crap. The Japanese got the message and so will the Arabs. But, we have compassionate Dubya instead of Harry Truman. They say they have divine mandate? Nuke Mecca and Medina. A deity would not allow something like that, and so we disprove him atomically.

There is no point in having nukes if we won't use them, just like it is pointless to have a gun for self-defense if you won't use it.

I heard on the news tonight that several congressmen are introducing bills to initiate unilateral economic sanctions against Iran. (Democrats, by the way.) I was farming when Carter initiated unilateral economic sanctions against Russia because of the invasion of Afghanistan. To give you an idea of how well this worked, I'm not farming today. Unilateral economic sanctions left a bad taste in my mouth. I don't think I could ever support a dumb-@$$ idea like that under any circumstances.

I'm not sure there is any way to get Iran to change course with their weapons programs and all the badness that conveys from a proliferation POV but a US strike with nukes seems a virtual impossibility to me.

Me thinks the US will not go there. Frankly I wonder if we know to a reasonable certainty where all the pieces are located we would need to hit.


S-

we have a president with such little support that he can only muster 13 percent of the population behind his saber rattling

Click to expand...

I guess I went to school before keeping your options open was defined as saber rattling.

Then again, I didn't catch the news report that some of you must have heard about Bush wanting to attack Iran.

Actually, it's fairly appalling that as much as 13 percent of the population wants to attack Iran at this stage of the game.

There is no point in having nukes if we won't use them, just like it is pointless to have a gun for self-defense if you won't use it.

Click to expand...

Part of the 13 percent?

I heard on the news tonight that several congressmen are introducing bills to initiate unilateral economic sanctions against Iran. (Democrats, by the way.)

Click to expand...

Of course, causing economic damage to Americans is always preferable to taking military action against other countries.

Our opinion of Bush is irrelevant to the Iranians.
Whether or not we want to participate in a religious war is irrelevant to the Iranians.
The fact that preemption is dead is irrelevant to the Iranians.

What is relevant is Iran is ruled by a coterie of nuts possessing very big guns. Said nuts have said things (based on their religious precepts) which indicate the favor massive death and destruction for Israel first and the west foremost. Said nuts have expressed no interest in being talked off the ledge; a ledge they created and then walked out upon. As much as we earnestly desire to do the "live and let live" thingy WRT Iran, it ain't gonna happen. So we can do what we do so well. We will simply ignore the threat Iran presents until we have two clear options. Option One is to endure never ending terror on a worldwide basis because of Iran's nuclear umbrella, or Option Two is deal with the problem forthrightly and militarily. I just don't see any real viable scenarios playing out other than the two I mentioned. Iran and its nut leaders are clear as to their objectives. We can choose to ignore their warnings. But ignoring their warnings has nothing to do with abandoning their objectives.

What is relevant is Iran is ruled by a coterie of nuts possessing very big guns. Said nuts have said things (based on their religious precepts) which indicate the favor massive death and destruction for Israel first and the west foremost. Said nuts have expressed no interest in being talked off the ledge;

Click to expand...

The situation between Iran and the U.S. is getting serious, but it seems to me that only one of those countries has talked itself onto a ledge. Hint: It's not the one sitting on top of one of the largest deposits of easily recovered high-grade crude left on earth.

it seems to me that only one of those countries has talked itself onto a ledge

Click to expand...

Could you please cite specifics - with references.

Saber-rattling has to be backed up by the will of the American people.

After the 9/11 attacks, I was certain that the resolve of the American people to fight a global war against enemies without countries would dissolve quickly. As quickly as the True Value stores ran out of American flags.

VietNam tested the resolve of the American people to defend an ally; the American resolve dissipated, and the Islamic terrorists were emboldened.

Subsequent attacks on US interests tested our resolve, and we folded.

First reports from the 9/11 attacks said that as many as 20,000 people could have been killed. Given that it was only 3,000 or so, it was time to go back to WalMart and McDonalds.

It's all become a political football, and the only people who are really interested are the media pundits.

The cynic in me says that even another attack that kills 3,000 Americans on our soil won't rally the country.

I think it's going to take an attack that will kill 30,000 or even 300,000 before the US public will back an attack on Iran. And the only response to such an attack would be to nuke Iran completely.

The problem we have right now is the presence of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. We'd have to pull them out quickly, and that would be the warning sign to Tehran.

Iran isn't North Korea. At least the Little Guy in High Heels in North Korea has some semblance of sanity. The Iranian leadership doesn't even have that grasp of reality.