[kimosABE]

I strongly support Israel and it's right to exist. I am vehemently opposed to Iran having the nuclear (or any other) means to "wipe Israel off the map" or any other WMD's they might use to inflict massive casualties on our greatest ally in the Middle East.

There is a lot of talk about either Israel or the US or NATO mounting a military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities to pre-empt any possible nuke strike by Iran on Israel. Such an attack would likely be designed to make good on their existential threat to the Zionist state.

However, just as I had doubts about our invading Iraq for fear of the insurgency that might follow, I fear the possibility of thousands of dedicated, motivated and well trained Iranian terrorists being unleashed to attack Western interests around the world should we attack Iran.

There might even be sleeper cells or agents already positioned in the US ready and awaiting the signal to attack us using various types of explosives, gunfire, or chemical, nuclear or biological weapons.

And, in this election year, I wouldn't be the only person to wonder if Barack Obama might ok a strike on Iran before Nov. 6th just because he knows that in time of war the American people always rally around their POTUS. This likely would assure Obama a second term, but cause him to completely divide the American people and push us toward a civil war kind of situation.

Bottom line, I fear an attack on Iran but I fear it even MORE SO if it happens before election day.

How about you?

[Waragainstsleep]

Hope fully Obama won't feel the need to invade anywhere. He should just run an ad campaign reminding everyone of how he personally repelled from a Black Hawk into Pakistan and strangled Bin Laden with his bare hands.

[Wiskedjak]

hmmm ... I dont recall you having doubts about Bush's invasion of Iraq. Can you dig up any of your old posts showing your doubt?

Gut feel on *this* thread: you're trying to get Liberals here to support an invasion of Iran by Obama so you can paint them as hypocrites if they were opposed to the invasion of Iraq by Bush.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Hope fully Obama won't feel the need to invade anywhere. He should just run an ad campaign reminding everyone of how he personally repelled from a Black Hawk into Pakistan and strangled Bin Laden with his bare hands.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

hmmm ... I dont recall you having doubts about Bush's invasion of Iraq. Can you dig up any of your old posts showing your doubt?
Gut feel on *this* thread: you're trying to get Liberals here to support an invasion of Iran by Obama so you can paint them as hypocrites if they were opposed to the invasion of Iraq by Bush.

I didn't begin posting here until after the invasion. I think it was 2004 or 2005. But, believe me, I had concerns. So much so that I mentioned these doubts to an influential acquaintance and after his negative reaction I felt I'd better get back in his good graces. So, I gave him a gift of a military book.

Yes, he was my boss.

[subego]

Point of order:

How are we defining "invade"?

Is this same term covering the whole continuum between bombing the shit out of them and rolling tanks through Tehran?

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by subego 

Point of order:
How are we defining "invade"?
Is this same term covering the whole continuum between bombing the shit out of them and rolling tanks through Tehran?

I've always thought of an invasion as being comprised of logistics to support 1,000+ infantry as well as asssorted heavy weapons companies and artillery for an indefinite period of time. All of this being dependent on the realities of the situation, of course.

I hope someone actually looks up the answer. The above was off the top of my head and just my idea of what an invasion consists of.

[subego]

Is there any reason you think we just wouldn't bomb the shit out of them?

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is there any reason you think we just wouldn't bomb the shit out of them?

Nope. Despite the predictable possible consequences of doing so, if Iran reaches the point in their nuclear weapons development where Israel can no longer just sit still and do nothing we will have to go in and knock out those facilities.

[Waragainstsleep]

If you run on to the field at a football match (thats soccer to most of you), it is referred to as invading the pitch. Even if you are the only one.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

I didn't begin posting here until after the invasion. I think it was 2004 or 2005. But, believe me, I had concerns. So much so that I mentioned these doubts to an influential acquaintance and after his negative reaction I felt I'd better get back in his good graces. So, I gave him a gift of a military book.
Yes, he was my boss.

I love Dr. Seuss books!

[Athens]

I think the safest thing for that region would be for Israel and Iran to have more then enough Nuclear weapons each to guarantee the annihilation of either in a conflict. To drop all sanctions from Iran and to stop any political interference in that country. Mutual assured destruction is a very powerful and effective system to stop wars. It creates a pause for conflicts and a way out. Ending sanctions and political interference allows for a stable population and government.

The greatest threat to Israel from Iran regardless of Nuclear weapons is a unstable people and government in Iran.

Pakistan and India are both good examples of how Nuclear weapons has resulted in a uneasy but lasting peace between the two countries. If it had not been for nuclear weapons the two countries would have been through a few wars in the last couple decades.

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I think the safest thing for that region would be for Israel and Iran to have more then enough Nuclear weapons each to guarantee the annihilation of either in a conflict.

Are you saying that the principle of MAD still applies even when one party doesn't value their own life? I have always been under the impression that mutually assured destruction only works because people don't want to die. If the Iranians don't have that hang up then I don't think MAD applies.

I think we should look back at what happened to the Osirak reactor in Iraq that Israel destroyed and see if a similar (pre-emptive) attack on Iran would be successful.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by SSharon 

Are you saying that the principle of MAD still applies even when one party doesn't value their own life? I have always been under the impression that mutually assured destruction only works because people don't want to die. If the Iranians don't have that hang up then I don't think MAD applies.

I think we should look back at what happened to the Osirak reactor in Iraq that Israel destroyed and see if a similar (pre-emptive) attack on Iran would be successful.

Iran (Persia) is one of the world's oldest civilizations with a history going back thousands of years. What makes you think it's leadership is suicidal? Any nation-state is deterred by MAD. Terrorist organizations with no territory to defend are another matter.

OAW

[Waragainstsleep]

I'm inclined to agree that MAD is safer between powers where religion is a little more mitigated.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I'm inclined to agree that MAD is safer between powers where religion is a little more mitigated.

And I am willing to bet that is the exact same view Muslims would have on us crazy Christians. At the end of the day the majority of the people in those countries go to work, make a living and raise a family, just like us. All we see on TV about those countries is the loud out spoken few that give the entire country a bad name. Just like they only see of us wild crazy Red Necks with straw hats screaming (Yaa Hoo) which is also only a small portion of America. Iran is not so different from Israel. Just like Israel is not so different from the USofA. A place like North Korea, is a totally different matter. A closed off people, brain washed, under the total control of a single man. Thats way more scary.

[Waragainstsleep]

For the record, I'm not singling out one religion, I just think that in the west, the religious loons get away with less religious lunacy than they do in the mid east.

[OAW]

Iran hasn't attacked another nation in centuries. Religion notwithstanding.

OAW

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by SSharon 

Are you saying that the principle of MAD still applies even when one party doesn't value their own life?

Do you really think the leadership of Iran wants a martyr's death for themselves? Rubbish. The leaders of terrorists groups and terrorist nations don't want to kill themselves for God, they want their underlings to kill themselves for God. "Martyr's death" is a political tool for powerful people, masquerading as religious devotion. Like so much of religion, it's only a method of exploitation.

There's only one reason certain people are so worried about a nuclear Iran: they want regime change. It has nothing to do with Israel being bombed. Many powerful people in the West want the Iranian regime gone, for the same reason they've always meddled in the internal affairs of Iran. But if Iran gets the bomb, that's all over. No more invasion plans, Iran becomes an impenetrable fortress just like China, Russia, and America.

Iran wants the bomb for the same reason the West doesn't want them to have it: the end of a potential invasion of Iran, forever.

[Wiskedjak]

Only one nation has *ever* deployed a nuclear bomb.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Only one nation has *ever* deployed a nuclear bomb.

So far.

It will be interesting/terrifying to see what happens when that event passes from living memory.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

So far.
It will be interesting/terrifying to see what happens when that event passes from living memory.

For many from that nation, I think it already has.

[Waragainstsleep]

Well yes for many it has. Its been interesting watching the 'collective national memory' of the last war fade during my own lifetime over here in the UK. Kids now don't seem to have any clue what it would be like to live through a war like that. Not that I lived through it, but I think I probably have much a better idea than most of the generation after me because of the larger number of conversations I had with the generation before me.

I sometimes wonder if this experience isn't (for lack of a better word) 'missed' in the US. You've had one or two big, violent events on your soil but your population can have little real experience or appreciation of what its like to live with the risk of invasion or nightly bombings in your major cities. That and the whole mass conscription for trench warfare. I think some of your people might be less fond of war than they appear to be were that not the case.

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Well yes for many it has. Its been interesting watching the 'collective national memory' of the last war fade during my own lifetime over here in the UK. Kids now don't seem to have any clue what it would be like to live through a war like that. Not that I lived through it, but I think I probably have much a better idea than most of the generation after me because of the larger number of conversations I had with the generation before me.
I sometimes wonder if this experience isn't (for lack of a better word) 'missed' in the US. You've had one or two big, violent events on your soil but your population can have little real experience or appreciation of what its like to live with the risk of invasion or nightly bombings in your major cities. That and the whole mass conscription for trench warfare. I think some of your people might be less fond of war than they appear to be were that not the case.

I agree 100% that most Americans can't remember or can't appreciate what a wartime (using the word loosely) atmosphere is like. I think I am in the minority when I say the US should have mandatory national or military service. The second semester of senior year in high school is also a waste and should be mandatory time spent living in another country.

What you said about risk of invasion, nightly bombings, etc., is basically what Israel feels on a daily basis. Thousands of rockets, hundreds of terrorist attacks, and mass conscription greatly affect the Israeli mentality. Everyone currently serving in the military right now is old enough to remember the height of the second intifada. When everyone knows someone personally that has been killed in combat or in a terrorist attack people feel one of two ways: 1) revenge - kill everyone and fight back, or more commonly, 2) life is precious, war sucks and we wish the fighting would end. Trust me when I say that everyone in the country knows what it means if they start a war with Iran. Bombing Iran won't be on a whim, it will be calculated based on the very real chance that Israel will get nuked. (While Iran might not itself invade, they have a history of supporting terrorist groups that would.)

[Waragainstsleep]

I have a friend who just came back from a stint in Israel. He didn't enjoy it much, mostly down to the constant random missile attacks. Also the heat.
Consequently, I sort of had Israel in the back of my mind when I wrote that last post. Its probably one of only a few places that is experiencing an atmosphere like that at the moment.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by SSharon 

What you said about risk of invasion, nightly bombings, etc., is basically what Israel feels on a daily basis.

Imagine how it feels to live in Palestine.

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Imagine how it feels to live in Palestine.

Where exactly is Palestine? (Are you talking about Gaza, the West Bank, or Arabs that are citizens/residents of Israel?) Can you tell me how it feels to live in each of those locations?

Do you think the men and women feel the same? I'm sure the men are afraid that they may get arrested at any moment if not for terrorist activities than for even a connection to a terrorist, but very few women are arrested so do they also live in fear? Many Arab communities can predict when their towns will be subjected to curfews, road blocks, etc. because it always happens after someone from their area, or someone found in their area, commits an attack. Does an ability to predict interactions with the Israeli military negate some of the feelings of fear?

Imagine how it feels to live in Syria.

[subego]

Originally Posted by SSharon 

I think I am in the minority when I say the US should have mandatory national or military service.

Military service would be a bad idea. Volunteers make much better soldiers than conscripts.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Iran hasn't attacked another nation in centuries. Religion notwithstanding.
OAW

May I point out that no one does anything before they do it the first time? Don't you think it would be foolish for a civilized free world to ignore Ahmadinejad's and the Mullah's threats to wipe Israel off the map?

We are taking them at their word and we've let them know many times in the past few years that we ARE taking them at their word.

Their response?

To quicken the pace of their nuclear program development and to construct even harder failities in hopes of protecting them from attack.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Only one nation has *ever* deployed a nuclear bomb.

And thank God we did! Too bad we couldn't have done it sooner. We'd have saved even MORE lives from the ravages of a war started by Japan and Nazi Germany!

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Do you really think the leadership of Iran wants a martyr's death for themselves? Rubbish. The leaders of terrorists groups and terrorist nations don't want to kill themselves for God, they want their underlings to kill themselves for God. "Martyr's death" is a political tool for powerful people, masquerading as religious devotion. Like so much of religion, it's only a method of exploitation.
There's only one reason certain people are so worried about a nuclear Iran: they want regime change. It has nothing to do with Israel being bombed. Many powerful people in the West want the Iranian regime gone, for the same reason they've always meddled in the internal affairs of Iran. But if Iran gets the bomb, that's all over. No more invasion plans, Iran becomes an impenetrable fortress just like China, Russia, and America.
Iran wants the bomb for the same reason the West doesn't want them to have it: the end of a potential invasion of Iran, forever.

From what I've read comparatively few people who are knowledgeable on the subject believe the Iranians are bluffing.

But you do.

Sorry, you lose THAT debate.

[subego]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

From what I've read comparatively few people who are knowledgeable on the subject believe the Iranians are bluffing.
But you do.
Sorry, you lose THAT debate.

The Iranians won't even admit they're making a bomb. I think there's bluffing going on by definition.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Do you really think the leadership of Iran wants a martyr's death for themselves? Rubbish. The leaders of terrorists groups and terrorist nations don't want to kill themselves for God, they want their underlings to kill themselves for God. "Martyr's death" is a political tool for powerful people, masquerading as religious devotion. Like so much of religion, it's only a method of exploitation.
There's only one reason certain people are so worried about a nuclear Iran: they want regime change. It has nothing to do with Israel being bombed. Many powerful people in the West want the Iranian regime gone, for the same reason they've always meddled in the internal affairs of Iran. But if Iran gets the bomb, that's all over. No more invasion plans, Iran becomes an impenetrable fortress just like China, Russia, and America.
Iran wants the bomb for the same reason the West doesn't want them to have it: the end of a potential invasion of Iran, forever.

Some little irritation in my brain makes me wonder if we shouldn't wrestle with the hypothetical ramifications of a global war with Iran and perhaps millions of Muslim Holy Warriors in every nook and cranny of the Western world trying to make their Koranic dreams come true.

Once hostilities break out and with the prospect of something like the above looming would there, at some point, be the thought of using a nuclear weapon in a first strike? The rationale for that use would be the ultimate saving of more lives by stopping the war as quickly as possible. Especially when you can limit Iran's use of nukes while they still have a limited number of them.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

Once hostilities break out and with the prospect of something like the above looming would there, at some point, be the thought of using a nuclear weapon in a first strike? The rationale for that use would be the ultimate saving of more lives by stopping the war as quickly as possible. Especially when you can limit Iran's use of nukes while they still have a limited number of them.

Very true. There was a similar justification the last time a nuclear bomb was used as well. But, isn't this the very definition of terrorism? A pre-emptive strike to save the lives of *your* people and *your* way of life is no different from another nation pre-emptively striking *you* to save the lives of *their* people and *their* way of life. In fact, just *suggesting* a pre-emptive strike may entice the other side to seek to strike first.

ter·ror·ism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

[subego]

I doubt we'd want to nuke them.

There's no practical benefit to trashing the country. A power vacuum doesn't help us.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Do you really think the leadership of Iran wants a martyr's death for themselves? Rubbish. The leaders of terrorists groups and terrorist nations don't want to kill themselves for God, they want their underlings to kill themselves for God. "Martyr's death" is a political tool for powerful people, masquerading as religious devotion. Like so much of religion, it's only a method of exploitation.
There's only one reason certain people are so worried about a nuclear Iran: they want regime change. It has nothing to do with Israel being bombed. Many powerful people in the West want the Iranian regime gone, for the same reason they've always meddled in the internal affairs of Iran. But if Iran gets the bomb, that's all over. No more invasion plans, Iran becomes an impenetrable fortress just like China, Russia, and America.
Iran wants the bomb for the same reason the West doesn't want them to have it: the end of a potential invasion of Iran, forever.

Whereas we have nukes as an important tool to use in fulfilling our role and living up to our national philosophy as the World's policeman, why would Iran need such guarantees against attack? Why would they need to become an "impenetrable fortress?

I say it's because they know what will result from their attempt to put into effect their religious revolution.

The Mullahs might think: 'If we are going to have any chance of exporting our brand of Islam to the World we must first control the fortunes of our immediate neighbors and dominate our immediate neighbors. But we know the West will not permit this. They are liable to militarily attack us if we try doing more than just exporting terrorism as we've been doing. How can we protect ourselves from attack so we might launch our plans for Holy Jihad without any distractions?

Become an impenetrable fortress. And how do we do that? By building our own nukes! And what if the West stops us or even tries to stop us? We will set off or force the infidels to set off a nuclear conflagration, all according to our religious dreams. So, either we achieve our victory by 'peaceful' means or we achieve our religious dream by bringing the World to an end.

Inshallah, We Win Either Way!'

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by subego 

I doubt we'd want to nuke them.
There's no practical benefit to trashing the country. A power vacuum doesn't help us.

There's no practical benefit to trashing the country...unless???

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Very true. There was a similar justification the last time a nuclear bomb was used as well. But, isn't this the very definition of terrorism? A pre-emptive strike to save the lives of *your* people and *your* way of life is no different from another nation pre-emptively striking *you* to save the lives of *their* people and *their* way of life. In fact, just *suggesting* a pre-emptive strike may entice the other side to seek to strike first.
ter·ror·ism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

What are our goals? Peaceful co-existence, self determination for all peoples and commerce to benefit all parties.

Now, why don't you tell us what you think Iran's national goals are for having an impenetrable fortress or/and nukes.

[subego]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

There's no practical benefit to trashing the country...unless???

Unless we could fill the power vacuum that would create.

Why would we want to take on that monumental of a job? Wouldn't a more focused approach make more sense?

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by subego 

Unless we could fill the power vacuum that would create.
Why would we want to take on that monumental of a job? Wouldn't a more focused approach make more sense?

Yes, you are right. I think a focused strategy would make more sense...unless we needed to completely demoralize the people or completely destroy them or their ability to wage war and to do it quickly.

[subego]

That's the thing. I don't think we want to stop their ability to wage war. If we do, we're on the hook for waging it for them.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

What are our goals? Peaceful co-existence, self determination for all peoples and commerce to benefit all parties.
Now, why don't you tell us what you think Iran's national goals are for having an impenetrable fortress or/and nukes.

Peaceful co-existence and self determination? Now you're deluding yourself.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Imagine how it feels to live in Palestine.

Imagine how it feels to be lied to by the people you should look to for the truth.

The birthplace of Islam is not Israel. Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Koran as a Holy place. It is not mentioned at all in the Koran.

Jerusalem is a Jewish city. It was a Jewish city long before the birth of the prophet.

If the Palestinian people will recognize the right of Israel to exist and renounce any claim to Jerusalem, a city that had been a Jewish city while Arabs were still drinking wine and bowing to idols, then they would quickly and almost magically find relief from their self imprisonment.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Peaceful co-existence and self determination? Now you're deluding yourself.

Oh, so what do you think our philosophy or goals are?

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's the thing. I don't think we want to stop their ability to wage war. If we do, we're on the hook for waging it for them.

I agree with you that it would be vitally important NOT to resort to mass destruction UNLESS things had gotten pretty bad. Imagine a situation like Japan in the final 6 months of WWII when we started fire bombing.

[subego]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

I agree with you that it would be vitally important NOT to resort to mass destruction UNLESS things had gotten pretty bad. Imagine a situation like Japan in the final 6 months of WWII when we started fire bombing.

What's the scenario where things get that bad?

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by subego 

What's the scenario where things get that bad?

I don't know. But, the "worst case scenario"sounds like what it would be.

[subego]

I don't think they're yet capable of doing something which would provoke that kind of response.

[Waragainstsleep]

Nuking Iran would risk irradiating all the oil wouldn't it?

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't think they're yet capable of doing something which would provoke that kind of response.

Perhaps not.