[marden]

If Israel responded to a WMD attack by an Arab/Muslim neighbor such as Iran, would all Muslims be called to defend Iran against the Zionist forces?

Do you think Iran or al Qaeda would ever try to starve the USA of oil, if they could do so?

If Israel was attacked by WMD's from an Arab/Muslim neighbor or al Qaeda or Hezbollah what should the US do?

If our oil supplies were being shut down or were threatened to be shut down or reduced significantly by an enemy such as Iran or CALCIUM, should we go to war to restore our access as it had been before the disruption?

Is defending Israel worth our getting into a war with Iran?

[DBursey]

Originally Posted by marden

If Israel responded to a WMD attack by an Arab/Muslim neighbor such as Iran, would all Muslims be called to defend Iran against the Zionist forces?

I would imagine that such a scenario would come either as cause or effect of a major military conflict. The US would almost certainly become involved militarily, and Arab regimes would be conflicted with tough choices given the inevitable grassroots muslim & arab reaction to any conflict with Israel (as Pakistan's Musharrif found out following 9/11).

Do you think Iran or al Qaeda would ever try to starve the USA of oil, if they could do so?

Al Qaeda most definitely, if they could. Iran, not in the least, given that the US is the biggest market for its oil.

If Israel was attacked by WMD's from an Arab/Muslim neighbor or al Qaeda or Hezbollah what should the US do?

The US would be obliged to help Israel in that case. Here's an interesting view ...

Will Israel Start WWIII?

If our oil supplies were being shut down or were threatened to be shut down or reduced significantly by an enemy such as Iran or CALCIUM, should we go to war to restore our access as it had been before the disruption?

Such a crisis to the North American economy would likely precipitate some sort of military conflict. BTW, what kind of acronym is CALCIUM?

Is defending Israel worth our getting into a war with Iran?

I can't speak for American involvement. I think Israel is quite capable of defending itself from Iran.

[Splinter]

Originally Posted by marden

If Israel was attacked by WMD's from an Arab/Muslim neighbor...

If Israel is attacked with WMDs I can promise you that that country would be completley destroyed.

Israel has enough WMDs to wipe russia+ off the map let alone a "tiny" country like Iran.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden

If Israel responded to a WMD attack by an Arab/Muslim neighbor such as Iran, would all Muslims be called to defend Iran against the Zionist forces?

Yes, just as all Western nations would be called to defend Israel if Iran responded to a preemptive attack by Israel.

Do you think Iran or al Qaeda would ever try to starve the USA of oil, if they could do so?

I think al Qaeda would (though they lack the means). I don't think Iran would; starving the US of oil would kill the Iranian economy (you have to remember to not just think about possibility, but also likelihood).

If Israel was attacked by WMD's from an Arab/Muslim neighbor or al Qaeda or Hezbollah what should the US do?

If Israel were attacked (by anyone), the US should help defend Israel ... provided Israel didn't provoke the attack.

Originally Posted by marden

If our oil supplies were being shut down or were threatened to be shut down or reduced significantly by an enemy such as Iran or CALCIUM, should we go to war to restore our access as it had been before the disruption?

Do not oil producing countries how some degree of freedom to decide whom to sell their oil to?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Splinter

If Israel is attacked with WMDs I can promise you that that country would be completley destroyed.

Israel has enough WMDs to wipe russia+ off the map let alone a "tiny" country like Iran.

Then what?

[DBursey]

then we deal with the fallout

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by marden

Then what?

Secure the resources, take control of the government, and rule the people like we did with Germany following WW2.

[marden]

Originally Posted by DBursey

I would imagine that such a scenario would come either as cause or effect of a major military conflict. The US would almost certainly become involved militarily, and Arab regimes would be conflicted with tough choices given the inevitable grassroots muslim & arab reaction to any conflict with Israel (as Pakistan's Musharrif found out following 9/11).



Al Qaeda most definitely, if they could. Iran, not in the least, given that the US is the biggest market for its oil.

That makes sense on the face of it. But what is the STRONGER motivation to Iran? Religion or material wealth? OBL has instructed the believers to use oil as a weapon.

Al Qaeda's Oil Weapon
Katrina and Rita highlighted our energy vulnerabilities. What did the terrorists learn?

by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross
10/03/2005 12:00:00 AM

THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT that our terrorist enemies keenly watched both Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. One clear lesson they will seize on is the inadequacy of the governmental response to Katrina, which suggests that we're unprepared to handle the effects of a major terrorist attack. Another clear lesson is the U.S. economy's vulnerability to high energy prices.

Even a cursory glance through the news reveals the kind of economic damage caused by a disruption to the nation's energy supply. For example, John Felmy, chief economist and director of statistics at the American Petroleum Institute, predicted to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the combination of high gas prices and record home heating bills would "have a profound impact on consumers" this winter. The worst-case scenario, he stated, was that diminished consumer spending could drive the country into recession. Anticipating the ripple effect that Rita could have on the economy, the Tampa Tribune warned readers to "[e]xpect higher prices for gas, insurance, food, construction supplies--and pretty much anything else, including a gallon of milk or this year's holiday gifts."

Our economy's vulnerability to high oil and gas prices makes an early September discovery by the Saudi Arabian police particularly worrisome. A 48-hour shootout at a villa in the seaport of Ad Dammam ended on September 6 after Saudi police brought in light artillery to finish the job. Newsweek reports that when police searched the erstwhile terrorist compound, they found "enough weapons for a couple of platoons of guerrilla fighters," including more than 60 hand grenades and pipe bombs, machine guns, and rocket-propelled grenades. But of even greater concern is the terrorist cell's apparent target.

[...]

For the very first time, he (OBL) called for attacks on the oil industry, framing them as part of al Qaeda's "bleed-until-bankruptcy" strategy:

One of the main causes for our enemies' gaining hegemony over our country is their stealing our oil; therefore, you should make every effort in your power to stop the greatest theft in history of the natural resources of both present and future generations, which is being carried out through collaboration between foreigners and [native] agents. . . . Focus your operations on it [oil production], especially in Iraq and the Gulf area, since this [lack of oil] will cause them to die off [on their own].

Since then, the supposed theft of Muslim oil has been prominent in al Qaeda's public
rhetoric. For example, Ayman al-Zawahiri's early August videotape warned the United States to "stop stealing our oil and wealth."

Al Qaeda operatives also appear to have taken the message to heart. The Washington, D.C.-based SITE Institute has reported that a mid-August post on a password-protected internet forum affiliated with al Qaeda asserted that attacks on Saudi oil pipelines would have a greater effect on the United States than a chemical weapons attack by creating "a big economic disaster for the American public." The post's author noted that bin Laden had referred to this as an effective method of damaging the American economy, and concluded with a call to arms: "Start it. Start it, al-Qaeda men."

By exposing the U.S. economy's vulnerability to high energy prices, Katrina and Rita make oil installations a tempting terrorist target. And bin Laden's speeches make clear that the first acknowledged terrorist plot against a Saudi oil installation is probably not an aberration.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...cchwz.asp?pg=1

Originally Posted by DBursey

Such a crisis to the North American economy would likely precipitate some sort of military conflict. BTW, what kind of acronym is CALCIUM?

Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Lukashenko*, Castro and the International Ummah of Muslims. The non-aligned nations who all have signed an anti-America pact and who are cooperating and conspiring to use their combined resources to bring America down.

*President of former Soviet satellite nation, Belarus.

Originally Posted by DBursey

I can't speak for American involvement. I think Israel is quite capable of defending itself from Iran.

Not quite true nowadays. Since the Iranians got serious about creating a nuclear weapons capability and hiding it from sight long enough for the project to reach completion even if there is an aerial attack, they have spread their facilities to many different sites around Iran and they have buried them deep below ground and below tens of feet of hardened concrete.

Even WE would have a difficult time taking out these sites. And who knows if we'd even succeed 100%?

But more than that, you aren't the first person I've run across who assumes that WE would be acting to protect Israel simply because of Israel's vulnerability.

We CAN NOT let Israel be targeted because they have said they would HAVE to respond to such an attack. Where WE have been at war with Iraq twice (actually, continually) since 1990 the Islamic world has not seen that as grounds for starting a Holy War. But if Israel responded to a nuclear attack from Saddam or Ahmadinejad or Hezbollah or al Qaeda what reason would there be for the Islamic world NOT to declare war on Israel?

What would we be able to do to stop them from rising up in greater numbers and greater outrage than we saw at the cartoon riots but this time from declarations of war and fatwa from their nation's capitols.

By keeping Israel safe we stave off WW4.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Splinter

If Israel is attacked with WMDs I can promise you that that country would be completley destroyed.

Israel has enough WMDs to wipe russia+ off the map let alone a "tiny" country like Iran.

Not that what you say may not be true to some degree, but if Iran knows this (and they surely do) don't you think they would find a method of offsetting Israel's advantage before they provoke a fight?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Yes, just as all Western nations would be called to defend Israel if Iran responded to a preemptive attack by Israel.

Thank you. You have just proven that Iran already enjoys a MAD dynamic WITHOUT needing nuclear weapons. Any attack on Iran would be met with a global Islamic response. Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons for protection.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

I think al Qaeda would (though they lack the means). I don't think Iran would; starving the US of oil would kill the Iranian economy (you have to remember to not just think about possibility, but also likelihood).

Al Qaeda has already shown it's ability to command unafiliated others to take action and it is only our luck that those efforts so far have been unsuccessful. But with a rise in hostilities OBL's call to target the oil could easily bear fruit. (See article posted above).

As for Iran, guess what?

Iran threatens to use 'oil weapon' in nuclear standoff

Simon Tisdall in Tehran
Monday August 7, 2006
The Guardian

Iran warned Britain and the US yesterday that the international community could face a new oil crisis if the United Nations security council imposes sanctions on Tehran over its alleged attempt to acquire a nuclear weapons-making capability.
Speaking in Tehran, Ali Larijani, the country's chief nuclear negotiator and head of the supreme national security council, said Iran would be reluctant to cut its oil exports. "We do not want to use the oil weapon. It is them who would impose it upon us."

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Iran threatens to use 'oil weapon' in nuclear standoff

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

If Israel were attacked (by anyone), the US should help defend Israel ... provided Israel didn't provoke the attack.


Do not oil producing countries how some degree of freedom to decide whom to sell their oil to?

Not if they have done so as an act of war.

[marden]

Originally Posted by DBursey

then we deal with the fallout

The literal and figurative fallout would be more than the radioactive variety and we would likely be 'dealing' with it here in our home towns as well as in the area of the blast(s).

[marden]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob

Secure the resources, take control of the government, and rule the people like we did with Germany following WW2.

How many Islamic terrorists around the world do you think would arise to slay the Great Satanists? How many in your town? How do you identify, recognize, prevent them from attacking America?

We are not dealing with soldiers of one nation state.

We are looking at the people who have committed their lives to the ideals and principles of Islam and there are 1.2 billion of those folks around the world. How many would take arms and action in response to a call for violent jihad to protect their brothers in Iran or what they might believe is an attack on the whole religion, I don't know.

But there are blond haired, blue eyed, fair skinned Muslims who would respond just as their would be swarthy Arabian types. And there would probably be a lot of them. And from many different places.

They'll wear no uniforms and will speak all different languages.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden

Thank you. You have just proven that Iran already enjoys a MAD dynamic WITHOUT needing nuclear weapons. Any attack on Iran would be met with a global Islamic response. Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons for protection.

By the same token, Israel doesn't need nuclear weapons to enjoy protection through a MAD dynamic either.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden

Not if they have done so as an act of war.

How do you determine if doing so is an act of war? Simply the fact that they are doing it?

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by marden

How many Islamic terrorists around the world do you think would arise to slay the Great Satanists? How many in your town? How do you identify, recognize, prevent them from attacking America?

We are not dealing with soldiers of one nation state.

We are looking at the people who have committed their lives to the ideals and principles of Islam and there are 1.2 billion of those folks around the world. How many would take arms and action in response to a call for violent jihad to protect their brothers in Iran or what they might believe is an attack on the whole religion, I don't know.

But there are blond haired, blue eyed, fair skinned Muslims who would respond just as their would be swarthy Arabian types. And there would probably be a lot of them. And from many different places.

They'll wear no uniforms and will speak all different languages.

How many are attacking America right now? Really, if a large group of islamic terrorists were to spring up and attack America because they saw an attack on their religion, would they not have already? They have plenty of reasons to (Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel)...

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

By the same token, Israel doesn't need nuclear weapons to enjoy protection through a MAD dynamic either.

The status quo has prevented a region wide calamity or worse. Let's leave "well enough," alone.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

How do you determine if doing so is an act of war? Simply the fact that they are doing it?

I think you'd know.

[marden]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob

How many are attacking America right now? Really, if a large group of islamic terrorists were to spring up and attack America because they saw an attack on their religion, would they not have already? They have plenty of reasons to (Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel)...

Thousands are attacking the USA right now. In very subtle ways. It would get violent when they were told or sensed that the attack was serious. Don't you watch the news?

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by marden

Thousands are attacking the USA right now. In very subtle ways. It would get violent when they were told or sensed that the attack was serious. Don't you watch the news?

The news reports things to get ratings. Right now, fear creates ratings and bashing Bush creates ratings, which is why the news outlets will either be pushing a "Bush is destroying our economy/science" story or "We're all going to die/Your children could be at risk".

I don't see how a retaliatory attack on Iran would cause any greater violence than our attack on Iraq. Anyways, if people get violent, that is where our national guard comes in and lays the smack down (Yes, that is the proper response to a violent anti-american protest in my book)

Our greatest threat comes not from some country or religion, but from within. Such as, the Left trying it's damnedest to turn fellow countryman on fellow countryman because Bush doesn't roll over for them, the media trying to make everything a me vs you issue, or the Right for making everyone lay down their civil liberties to remain "safe".

[D. S. Troyer]

The world sucks but it's not worth going down the crapper with Israel and the Zionists.

But the U.S. will surely push the flapper.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden

The status quo has prevented a region wide calamity or worse. Let's leave "well enough," alone.

Really? The status quo doesn't seem to be doing a great job at preventing calamity.

[marden]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob

The news reports things to get ratings. Right now, fear creates ratings and bashing Bush creates ratings, which is why the news outlets will either be pushing a "Bush is destroying our economy/science" story or "We're all going to die/Your children could be at risk".


Our greatest threat comes not from some country or religion, but from within. Such as, the Left trying it's damnedest to turn fellow countryman on fellow countryman because Bush doesn't roll over for them, the media trying to make everything a me vs you issue, or the Right for making everyone lay down their civil liberties to remain "safe".

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob

I don't see how a retaliatory attack on Iran would cause any greater violence than our attack on Iraq. Anyways, if people get violent, that is where our national guard comes in and lays the smack down (Yes, that is the proper response to a violent anti-american protest in my book)

There are Muslims who look at the situation in Iraq as a limited engagement. Persia is a much bigger deal because unlike Saddam, Ahmadinejad is very much a devout Muslim. Iran's ambitions are much more in line with Islam. The Ummah would respond with much more enthusiasm.

IMHO.

[marden]

Originally Posted by D. S. Troyer

The world sucks but it's not worth going down the crapper with Israel and the Zionists.

But the U.S. will surely push the flapper.

What if you are all wrong about Israel?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Really? The status quo doesn't seem to be doing a great job at preventing calamity.

There's that lack of gratitude thing. The situation could be much worse.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by D. S. Troyer

The world sucks but it's not worth going down the crapper with Israel and the Zionists.

But the U.S. will surely push the flapper.

Yeah screw those jews.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden

There's that lack of gratitude thing. The situation could be much worse.

Things could also be much better. Status quo doesn't alow for things to get worse, but it also doesn't allow for things to get better. Status quo would have left Saddam in power. It's funny how your argument switches to status quo when the discussion turns to getting rid of Israel's WMD.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Things could also be much better. Status quo doesn't alow for things to get worse, but it also doesn't allow for things to get better. Status quo would have left Saddam in power. It's funny how your argument switches to status quo when the discussion turns to getting rid of Israel's WMD.

It's not funny, Wiskedjak, it's adopting the correct strategy to deal with different situations.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yeah screw those jews.

Yes. I also had that reaction to his post.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yeah screw those jews.

Gee. I thought D.S Troyer's remark was relevant considering that's something that would be a rational thought about letting any other ethnic group in the world drag us down with them.

I don't get it. I'm not anti-Jewish, but I'm not Jews-are-the-most-special-group-in-the-world-lets-bend-over-backwards-for-them either.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

That makes sense on the face of it. But what is the STRONGER motivation to Iran? Religion or material wealth? OBL has instructed the believers to use oil as a weapon.

Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Lukashenko*, Castro and the International Ummah of Muslims. The non-aligned nations who all have signed an anti-America pact and who are cooperating and conspiring to use their combined resources to bring America down.

Here's an idea. Let's find something else to use other than oil, and let the crazies take their ball and go home. Then their economy will dive without the US buying their oil.

But yeah. They can't actually do anything. They need us to buy their oil as much as we need them to sell it to us. It's all saber rattling.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac

Here's an idea. Let's find something else to use other than oil, and let the crazies take their ball and go home. Then their economy will dive without the US buying their oil.

But yeah. They can't actually do anything. They need us to buy their oil as much as we need them to sell it to us. It's all saber rattling.

50 years from now we MAY be completing the switchover from oil to something else. Maybe. If we're still around as a species. Until then oil will still be important. We should all get used to it, IMO.

Iran has already said they are willing to do without our Satanic Bucks.

Iran threatens to use 'oil weapon' in nuclear standoff

Simon Tisdall in Tehran
Monday August 7, 2006
The Guardian

Iran warned Britain and the US yesterday that the international community could face a new oil crisis if the United Nations security council imposes sanctions on Tehran over its alleged attempt to acquire a nuclear weapons-making capability.
Speaking in Tehran, Ali Larijani, the country's chief nuclear negotiator and head of the supreme national security council, said Iran would be reluctant to cut its oil exports. "We do not want to use the oil weapon. It is them who would impose it upon us."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1838645,00.html

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac

Gee. I thought D.S Troyer's remark was relevant considering that's something that would be a rational thought about letting any other ethnic group in the world drag us down with them.

Drag us down with them? Since when is Israel down? It's not.

I don't get it. I'm not anti-Jewish, but I'm not Jews-are-the-most-special-group-in-the-world-lets-bend-over-backwards-for-them either.

I am sure you don't get it.