Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
Interesting headline on Drudge right now.
Topic Started: Jan 6 2007, 04:08 PM (686 Views)
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Another preemptive strike against Islamic terrorists with WMDs.

Do you think it will work out any better than our preemptive strike in Iraq? Is the world a kinder sweeter place?

If Israel attacks Iran--Israel will have declared war with the entire Middle East--all those factions fighting each other over there will unite to fight Israel and the United States will be right in the middle of it. The more the United States entangles itself in the Middle East the less peaceful the place becomes. And if the Israeli use a nuclear weapon FIRST, you can be sure it won't be the last nuclear weapon used over there.

Before the first Gulf War--the Middle East was the home of a bunch of petty tyrants murdering their own people and occasionally whacking each other--When the US drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait it started off a chain reaction of events that led us here with a distable Iraq and a hostle pre-nuclear Iran.

Time we withdraw from that field and let them settle their own disputes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
apple
Jan 7 2007, 01:24 PM

They announced that some time ago, I believe. It makes sense, they need a sea-based nuclear capability to deter a first strike (since they're too small to survive a first strike).
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Tom, I'd say the point where war was declared was the very moment Iran announced its plan to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
pianojerome
Jan 7 2007, 11:42 AM
Israel can do whatever they want with it, even if we later don't like how they are using it.

Yes, indeed.

What they need to be reminded of however, is if we withdraw our support they will cease to exist.
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pianojerome
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Steve Miller
Jan 7 2007, 02:56 PM
pianojerome
Jan 7 2007, 11:42 AM
Israel can do whatever they want with it, even if we later don't like how they are using it.

Yes, indeed.

What they need to be reminded of however, is if we withdraw our support they will cease to exist.

If Iran develops nuclear weapons, then Israel will cease to exist.
Sam
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Cohen
Member Avatar
Junior Carp
pianojerome
Jan 7 2007, 02:59 PM
Steve Miller
Jan 7 2007, 02:56 PM
pianojerome
Jan 7 2007, 11:42 AM
Israel can do whatever they want with it, even if we later don't like how they are using it.

Yes, indeed.

What they need to be reminded of however, is if we withdraw our support they will cease to exist.

If Iran develops nuclear weapons, then Israel will cease to exist.

I'm no so sure.

An Iranian nuclear attack on Israel would certainly lead to massive retaliation and certain regime change in Iran.

I know they hate the Israelis, but I doubt that they will committ suicide, enmass. Sure many are willing to be martyrs, but not in huge numbers.

"I wouldn't mind paying taxes if I knew they were going to a friendly country!" - Dick Gregory


Dealer Principal and Industry Consultant
Jasons Music Centers - Family Owned
Since 1937 - Serving Maryland/DC
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Steve Cohen
Jan 7 2007, 12:04 PM
I know they hate the Israelis, but I doubt that they will committ suicide, enmass. Sure many are willing to be martyrs, but not in huge numbers.

In normal situations, I would agree with you.

But the quarrel between Israel and the rest of the Middle East has an extreme religious component, and when dealing in extremes of religion you can pretty much expect rational thought to fly out the window.
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pianojerome
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Steve Cohen
Jan 7 2007, 03:04 PM
pianojerome
Jan 7 2007, 02:59 PM
Steve Miller
Jan 7 2007, 02:56 PM
pianojerome
Jan 7 2007, 11:42 AM
Israel can do whatever they want with it, even if we later don't like how they are using it.

Yes, indeed.

What they need to be reminded of however, is if we withdraw our support they will cease to exist.

If Iran develops nuclear weapons, then Israel will cease to exist.

I'm no so sure.

An Iranian nuclear attack on Israel would certainly lead to massive retaliation and certain regime change in Iran.

I know they hate the Israelis, but I doubt that they will committ suicide, enmass. Sure many are willing to be martyrs, but not in huge numbers.

It wouldn't neccessarily mean that Iran itself would directly attack Israel. But they could give and/or sell the weapons to others who would directly attack Israel.
Sam
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1hp
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp

Perhaps you have forgotten the chants of "Death to America". Or some planes that Islamics flew into the Pentagon, and the World Trade center. Or the embassies in Kenya. Or the USS Cole. So excuse me if I find it amusing to read "(although i suspect we'd be a direct or indirect target of their retaliation in any event)"

Wake up and smell the coffee - whether the Democrtas or Republicans rule the government, whether we are in Iraq, or out of the Middle East, whether you kiss Ahmadinejad's rear end or not, whether you provide prayer rooms for Muslims in airports,

YOU, AN AMERICAN, ARE A TARGET.

So if Israel drops a nuke on an Iranian nuclear lab, exactly what will change besides there being 1 less nuclear lab in the world?

There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those that understand binary and................
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
pianojerome
Jan 7 2007, 03:13 PM

It wouldn't neccessarily mean that Iran itself would directly attack Israel. But they could give and/or sell the weapons to others who would directly attack Israel.

That's true.

Iran's not going to fly B-2 Bombers over Israel and bomb them. Most likely the bomb will be delivered by a couple of guys in a truck. The next day some unknown Islmic organization will take credit for the bomb on the Internet.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
TomK
Jan 7 2007, 12:27 PM
Iran's not going to fly B-2 Bombers over Israel and bomb them. Most likely the bomb will be delivered by a couple of guys in a truck. The next day some unknown Islmic organization will take credit for the bomb on the Internet.

What's to stop them from doing that now?

Plenty of ex-USSR nukes floating around unaccounted for these days.
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
George K
Jan 6 2007, 08:25 PM
Saw that too. Very interesting....

George.. what is your avatar? Looks like Winnie the Poop?!?!?!
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Steve Miller
Jan 7 2007, 01:38 PM
TomK
Jan 7 2007, 12:27 PM
Iran's not going to fly B-2 Bombers over Israel and bomb them.  Most likely the bomb will be delivered by a couple of guys in a truck.  The next day some unknown Islmic organization will take credit for the bomb on the Internet.

What's to stop them from doing that now?

Plenty of ex-USSR nukes floating around unaccounted for these days.

How 'bout this scenario?:

30 years, or so, after the Cuban Missle Crisis, it became public knowledge that the United States had not planned a nuclear war with just the U.S.S.R. Any "unfriendlies" who possessed, or were thought to be soon possessing nuclear weapons were to be included in the first strike.

To put it simply, China was a gone puppy. Along with several other "lesser" threats.

Fanatics many in the Middle East may be, but self-preservation is a powerful instinct. If a major American city goes up in radioactive smoke, what's to stop us from killing every breathing thing in that part of the world? The good, the bad, the fanatical...purge them all...
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Jolly
Jan 7 2007, 12:46 PM
If a major American city goes up in radioactive smoke, what's to stop us from killing every breathing thing in that part of the world? The good, the bad, the fanatical...purge them all...

Satisfying as this scenario may be to contemplate, it's a bit too late to consider it today.

Global trade considerations aside, far to many countries have far too many nukes to reasonably conclude that we could bomb them all without expectation of retaliation.
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
Jolly
Jan 7 2007, 11:46 AM
The good, the bad, the fanatical...purge them all...

Okay. That is, after all, what it's really, truly, finally going to take. Agree or disagree, but the war in the Middle East will go nuclear, and it's only a question of when. :no:
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Frank_W
Jan 7 2007, 12:52 PM
That is, after all, what it's really, truly, finally going to take. Agree or disagree, but the war in the Middle East will go nuclear, and it's only a question of when. :no:

I fear that you are probably correct.

The question then becomes whether to try and hold it off as long as possible or to get an early start and be done with it.

Either way, if morality isn't an issue then oil certainly is.
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Steve Miller
Jan 7 2007, 02:02 PM
Frank_W
Jan 7 2007, 12:52 PM
That is, after all, what it's really, truly, finally going to take. Agree or disagree, but the war in the Middle East will go nuclear, and it's only a question of when.  :no:

I fear that you are probably correct.

The question then becomes whether to try and hold it off as long as possible or to get an early start and be done with it.

Either way, if morality isn't an issue then oil certainly is.

I'm not just playing silly bugger.

In the event of nuclear catastrophe, the survival of the United States is paramount. The day of the lawyer is past, and only the sword is effective. It boils down to the quick, and the dead.

If there's anything left, the Quirts of the world can argue who's right and who's wrong...but just remember...only survivors write the history books.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
Man... I don't know. I'm very glad I'm not in the position of having to call the shots, at this time in history. *sigh*
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
meant to reply earlier but was stuck in OR.

ok, so whats going on? why all of a sudden a fuss in the sunday times??
its all nonsense of course, do u really believe we announce true intentions in the sunday times?

3 options...

1: someone here deliberatly leaked this in order to wave a stick, as has been said before. possible but improbable. we get no advantage with saber ratteling and posturing and in the end doesnt serve our interest.

2: someone on the iranian side deliberatly fed the story to the times under a mantle of representing israeli interests, in order to allow an appropriate iranian excuse to continue their rhetoric. maybe.

3: most likely: deliberate story by the times to increase their public influence (and sales). this is not the first time the sunday times has led off a sensationalist headline about israel as a major item. a clever blend of fact and fiction, quote a few unnamed inside sources..and voila, a big story that all of us in the coffee room can prattle on about.

let me tell u all something. contigency plans exist for every possibility. first strike, retaliation, and a million other scenarios, kept deeply under wraps. u wont read about anything thats actually going to happen in the sunday times nor the ny post.
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
I agree with you, Bachophile. I know that there are contingency plans. I sat in on several G-3 meetings, when I was in the Army. That's about all I feel like saying about it, at this point.....
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Frank_W
Jan 7 2007, 04:29 PM
I agree with you, Bachophile. I know that there are contingency plans. I sat in on several G-3 meetings, when I was in the Army. That's about all I feel like saying about it, at this point.....

I agree with bach, too.

There's all kinds of plans--why this would leak out--that's the question.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
David Burton
Senior Carp
George K
Jan 6 2007, 06:40 PM
Well writ, Jack. Well writ.

One more for Jack, he gets it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack Frost
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
If we had had good intelligence, we never should have gone into Iraq; and we would have had better intelligence if our leaders had not turned a blind eye towards every report that did not support their neocon agenda. No doubt you are tired of hearing that, but it remains as true today as it was before we went in. Even as we speak, W's primary advisors are heads of neocon think tanks--the same folks who will go down in history as being utterly and tragically mistaken about the invasion of Iraq.

I have mentioned this above, but it bears repeating. I truly believe we are getting to a point where every and any military solution to a global problem is by definition going to be short sighted. We can buy a year or a decade or two, but in the end, the hostilities remain, regimes change, the anti-USA leanings increase. The weapons that are available to many will be available to more and more with each passing year. These will include biological weapons that will make our nukes seem benign. At some point, as with all other technologies, the science of these biologics will be accessible to most, if not all.

More often than not, when we try to intervene and change the regime, we make it worse. We helped overthrow a democratically elected government in Iran to install our ally the Shah, who could not hold on to power. End result...far worse than when we started. How ironic that we are trying to plant the seeds of democracy in the Middle East when they were in fact growing in Iran...that is, until we helped bring down the democratically elected government to install out puppet dictator. So far, that seems to have been a bad move in the long run.

We need to use our overwhelming military force to stop IMMINENT threats to our security. Cheney et al convinced the American people that Iraq presented just such an imminent threat. The tragedy of that lie is that next time when the threat is closer to home, we may not believe it.

Ultimately, we need to find a paradigm of peace rather than war. We need to find a way to engage those who are or might become our enimies without threats and weapons, or we are in all likelihood doomed. The fate of man on earth hangs in this balance. The increase in the power of weapons generally available makes the world an increasingly smaller place.

The excuses of those of you who claim the radical islamists cannot be reasoned with--that all they know is the pwer of the sword--are inadequate. If you are right--that force is the only paradigm--we will not survive. Our strength will become irrelevant.

We will end up having spent easily $500 BILLION in Iraq--TWENTY-FIVE years worth of our entire annual foreign aid budget. Imagine if we could go back to square one and spend that money in a more productive way. So many modern terrorists seem to have been bred in poverty....

[Rod Serling] Imagine, if you will, two mortal enemies in a small room. One has a nuclear device, the other a mere machine gun. They are the last two people on earth. Odds are, they will kill each other and the fact that one had a million times the firepower of the other was, in the end, not relevant. Welcome to the twi-night zone. [/Rod Serling]

In all our military strength and economic power, we are uniquely situated to make a difference now that could turn the tide for the next century. These little military excursions, however necessary they may seem at the time, are not what the Earth needs to survive.

Our leaders are short sighted and they have made some huge mistakes. W, in particular, has been a disaster. A disaster.

I truly wonder if there is a potential leader anywhere on this Earth up to this task.

jf
Quote:
 
Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Geez, Jack, what a downer.

:P

Difficult as it may be to believe, I'm with JB and Larry on this one. I did not, and do not, believe that Saddam was an imminent threat to our security. In contrast, I do believe that a nuclear Iran is an imminent threat, in the short term. It cannot be allowed to happen.

Your vision of the future is scary, Jack, but we have to get there first. And I fear that we will not even get to experience your scary future if Iran goes nuclear.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2