I dont understand you ash
one minute you say to set
" BTW, if it were my decision to make, I would probably reluctantly go with the non-intervention alternative myself. "
next to me
"If you could prevent "someone from doing something", say exploding an Atomic Bomb in a crowded urban area, and instead you walked away saying "it's none of my affair", would you then have some guilt for the result?"
...trying to place guilt on my shoulders for not intervening in this hypothetical scenario when you yourself are not prepared to act in the real world.
Do you have an answer to his question?
Asherman
Quote:Israel has never threatened anyone with nuclear attack
Quote:Israel Threatens to Launch Nuclear Attack on Islamic Sites
THERAN - 10 Dec -- A high-ranking Israeli officer threatened that the Zionist regime would launch nuclear attack on Islamic holy sites in the Middle East, an Israeli newspaper said Sunday.
In case Israel was attacked by states or groups, the Jewish state would respond by dropping nuclear bombs on Islamic cities such as Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia and Qom in Iran. The Haaretz newspaper quoted an unidentified high-ranking officer a s saying.
It is an irony of our time Iraq has been suffering for a decade because it is accused of having some capabilities of unconventional weapons, while Israel announces that it possesses nuclear weapons, but there is not any international action against it.
The officer, a guide in the Israeli military academy, was quoted as saying that Israel possesses hundreds of nuclear warheads along with their delivery systems, including long-range ballistic missiles, long-range bombers and nuclear submarines.
Indeed, while is Iraq under the pressure, Israel is the only entity in the Middle East to possess a huge arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, including a sizable nuclear arsenal.
It is unfortunate that the United States, Israel's main protector, has always prevented any serious move to discuss Israel's weapons of mass destruction. But at the same time it has accused a number of other countries of trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. It has put them under pressure on the basis of the very baseless accusations it has leveled against them.
It is time the Islamic world in the first place and the international community too took serious action to contain Israel. The Zionist regime is an occupationist, expansionist entity. It must be contained, else the entire world will be in danger. Tehran Times
source
Ofcourse Asherman would say - they didn't mean it, it was probably a typing error. The Haaretz newspaper reporter's slip of keystrokes, what they really wanted to send were flowers to Islamic holy sites. :wink:
Clearly you don't understand my position.
In earlier posts here your positions was that Iran has only peaceful intent, but that even if they did acquire and use a nuclear weapon that it would be justified against Israel and/or the United States. You have been unwilling, it seems to consider all the alternatives. Any decision to intevene would be wrong on its face, and reflect only the warlike policies of the United States. I think all of the costs and risks of the alternatives hve to be analyzed before making a decision.
I think that I've done that, and if the decision were mine, given all the circumstances, I would probably take the risk attendant upon leaving Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons. If later, Iran used those weapons to murder millions, then I would certainly carry a great weight with me to the grave. Upon sober reflection, I could stand personally to take that risk ... others might come to a different conclusion. I'm not President so the decision isn't mine to make, and for that I'll be eternally thankful. The President may decide that intervention, with all its own attendant risks, is the best course of action. There is ample room in the cost/benefit-risk/return analysis to support either decision, and it will not be an easy decision to make.
Once people begin to understand what is at stake, I would hope that it will be easier to understand and support whatever our President decides. In this particular decision the President is going to lose no matter what he decides. Not being able to know the future, we can only hope that the path followed will be less destructive than the one not taken.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:yes
Were you going to share it?
Asherman
Quote:There is ample room in the cost/benefit-risk/return analysis to support either decision, and it will not be an easy decision to make.
Quote:Tuesday, April 18, 2006
OFF THE TABLE
Bombing Iran is not only illegal and unjust, it is an unacceptable risk. The risks of "stopping Iran" are greater than not "stopping Iran." It isn't just my opinion that the risks that come with military actions against Iran are unacceptable. Look at the conclusion drawn from war-game simulations of attacking Iran.
The final conclusion after running through many options was expressed by General Gardiner, a simulations expert at the U.S. Army’s National War College:
"After all this effort, I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers," Sam Gardiner said of his exercise. "You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work.""
The CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, ‘The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating.‘” I HOPE SO! But the Bush Administration OFTEN IGNORES advice from intelligence.
The example of the USSR is an important one to analyze. The biggest close call was because of U.S. policy maker's recklessness and aggression toward Cuba. We don't want to repeat the same kind of mistakes. And the sick part is President Kennedy didn't know about the hypocrisy of U.S. nukes already based a mere 150 miles from Soviet boarders, in Turkey.
As far as the habits of other nuclear countries, the U.S. and Israel are heavily involved in terrorism. The U.S. has inflicted massive amounts of terrorism against Cuba, just one example. And the hypocrisy is incredible. Look at the case of Orlando Bosch. The U.S. Justice Department, which was overruled by Bush I, complained that the U.S. harboring Bosch put the public interests at risk because "the security of this nation is affected by its ability to urge credibly other nations to refuse aid and shelter to terrorists." Look also at the shameful case of the Cuban 5.
We also need to look at what Israel actually is, and it isn't pretty. For example, if all the people living in Israel had equal rights, the same rights we demand for ourselves, that would be the destruction of Israel by definition. Keeping in place a system of discrimination based on religion is not something Americans should risk their lives for. Keeping in place a system of injustice is not something Americans should support. Should the Confederacy have been wiped off the map?
source
Do you GET THAT? If Bush attacks Iran, it will trigger WW3.
WW3.
And this time, the World War STARTS with the nuclear weapons.
f4f,
I'm not impressed with your source. Can you show us the Iraeli new article that this one purports to quote? Doesn't it occur to you that the "news" source you've cited is going to twist and distort information to fit its government's propaganda needs? Is an "unidentified high-ranking officer" a good source for Israel's policies? A Captain is a "high-ranking" to a private soldier or civilian ... of a progagandist sitting in Iran.
If you are going to cite sources, please quote the original and not someone far removed and who has clear partisan motivations to manipulate the reader. Why is it you would rather believe the propaganda coming out of Saddam's Iraq, or Iran, over more objective materials available to you in open sources? If you don't want to believe the President, then delve into internet's vast supply of more objective materials?
Ticomaya wrote:Steve (as 41oo) wrote:yes
Were you going to share it?
My initial reaction was that it was a silly question. At best its a poor analogy. How does personal intervention to prevent a terrorist outrage equate with US pre emptive military action against Iran? One could just as well argue that stopping an atomic bomb detonating in a city is best achieved by not attacking the country or group who might have the means to carry it out. But for the sake of argument...of course if a bunch of beardos with turbans were messing around with some peculiar looking device in the middle of London, I would say Halt, by the power vested in me as a loyal subject of her majesty the queen, I am making a citizen's arrest of the lot of you and confiscating your nuclear bomb for safe keeping. You can have it back later once I have reported your activities to the proper authorities.
Asherman wrote:f4f,
I'm not impressed with your source. Can you show us the Iraeli new article that this one purports to quote? Doesn't it occur to you that the "news" source you've cited is going to twist and distort information to fit its government's propaganda needs? Is an "unidentified high-ranking officer" a good source for Israel's policies? A Captain is a "high-ranking" to a private soldier or civilian ... of a progagandist sitting in Iran.
If you are going to cite sources, please quote the original and not someone far removed and who has clear partisan motivations to manipulate the reader. Why is it you would rather believe the propaganda coming out of Saddam's Iraq, or Iran, over more objective materials available to you in open sources? If you don't want to believe the President, then delve into internet's vast supply of more objective materials?
No offence Asherman, but only an idiot would believe that, said type of news would be reported in the western media.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:My initial reaction was that it was a silly question.
...
And so you responded with a silly answer. Gotcha.
f4f,
Again with a clearly biased news source. General Gardner is a highly respected military analyst and,stripped of the emotional spin the un-named writer gives the quote, Gen. Gardner's analysis isn't so different from what I've said above. Both of us come down on the side of no military intervention at the moment. Because, credible analysts can come to differing results will only make the President's decision harder ... and riskier.
World War III? Where did that appear in the story? Are you certain that General Gardiner is predicting WWIII if military force is used against Iran's weapons program? I don't think so. If there is a risk of nuclear war, that risk is greatest if Iran is left unchecked to develop a nuclear arsenal. The risk of conventional intervention now or in the near future might indeed increase the tempo and severity of terrorist attacks around the world, but setting off WWIII is not on the board. Who exactly would be tossing around nuclear weapons in the wake of an limited preemptive attack on a dozen Iranian nuclear facilities? Do you think that China will go to DEFCON 1 and be ready to launch on New YorK? Maybe France will join with Islamic militants and fire a nuclear tipped missile at Tel Aviv?
Hyperbole doesn't conceal the feebleness and weaknesses of your argument.
Guess you didn't bother to click on the link from my original source.
reuters
Ticomaya wrote:Steve (as 41oo) wrote:My initial reaction was that it was a silly question.
...
And so you responded with a silly answer. Gotcha.
Glad we are on the level here. Would you like to rephrase Ash's initial question so as to elicit a serious response from me?
later...Milan v Barcelona on tv
Steve,
Please excuse my inability to express myself clearly. Your personal opinion that nothing could justify intervention in Iran's nuclear weapons program, did not admit of any possibility that such an intervention might be appropriate. Not the affair of the UK. If things go badly, not of any concern of mine.
I wasn't asking you to make a decision to stop Iran's mad course, but only to put yourself in the place of those responsible for making the decision.
Imagine yourself the President of the United States faced with evidence that Iran is, and has been working, to develop and build nuclear weapons. Knowledgable advisors in the intelligence and military communities tell you that Iran's weapons capability doesn't currently exist, but is probable in a few years. Iran's leadership is making inflammatory speeches calling for the extinction of Israel. Iranian volunteers, weapons and munitions are being used against US troops in Iraq.
You must choose a course of action from the following list:
A. Intervene to prevent Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons for 5-10 years, or
B. Leave the Iranian's to produce nuclear weapons in the next few years.
Inside the A alternative you have:
Try to find a diplomatic solution that halts Iran's nuclear programs. This is currently being done, but does not appear to be working. The matter is likely to be dealt with (LOL) by the UN. The UN may put some sanctions in place, but they are unlikely to be effective in convincing Iran to abandon their quest for nuclear weapons. Will the UN authorize military intervention to protect world peace? The organization's history in these matters is almost unrelieved failure. Even if the UN were to authorize military action, it would be the United States alone who would have to do the deed. Still this is everyone's preferred option.
Try to sabotage and delay Iran's program by covert means. There is good reason to suppose that many Iranians do not support their governments nuclear efforts, and some of those might assist in secretly derailing the programs. Subtle sabotage can be quite effective. The downside is that US HUMINT has never fully recovered from the constraints put upon it since LBJ's administration. Finding and assisting Iranians to wreck the programs might be difficult, and would certainly involve bribery, blackmail, and coercion as much as appeals to patriotism. Espionage is not and has never been a pretty business that "gentlemen" want to be involved with. This option should be pursued, and probably is already in place.
Make a conventional attack on all known Iranian nuclear facilities. To be successful I believe we need to inflict damage that will at least delay the Iranian Bomb programs for 5-10 years. The targeted facilities are secret, dispersed, in hardened sites with the best Air defenses Iran can muster. Not all facilities may be known. The attack, if decided upon, would come from CONUS, carrier/submarine platforms, and from Diego Garcia. Some US losses should be expected, but they would be comparatively light. BDA is always a problem, and this case is no different. If Iran's program is not set back for 5-10 years, the regional dangers of an Iranian nuclear strike might be increased in as little as 2-3 years.
Politically, we can expect a wave of disapproval both at home and abroad. Some will want demand condemnation of the US by the UN. The tempo and seriousness of terrorist attacks can be expected to increase at least temporarily.
Make a nuclear first-strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. The amount of damage inflicted on the Iranian facilities would be greater and the probability of setting their program back 5-10 years would be enhanced. On the other hand, this option is recommended against. First, the probability of inflicting the sort of damage required for success is not all that much greater than use of conventional munitions. Second, it would be a sea-change of American Policy since the late 1940's. Third, a nuclear strike would be counter-productive to our national alliances and agreements. For all practical purposes this option is on the table as a "stick" to help convince Iran's leaders to take a deep breath and decide not to play with nuclear fire.
The second alternative is to leave Iran to develop nuclear weapons if they can not be dissuaded by diplomacy or covert actions. The risks involved with this alternative is that Iran will in a very short time have the capability of making a nuclear missile attack anywhere in the region. If they choose, they can destroy an Israeli city or Baghdad. They can become a definite threat to US vessels operating in and around the Persian Gulf, which in turn might result in widespread shortages of oil throughout the world. A nuclear armed Iran could threaten and blackmail other regional states into subservience to Iran's idea of what an Islamic State should be. The House of Saud would be put at additional risk.
Having "bearded the lion", Iran might well increase its support of international terrorism, and once in possession of nuclear weapons they could transfer some of those weapons to terrorist organizations. This would extend the reach of the Iranian threat to every major sea port in the West.
On the other hand, if Iran later is implicated in the use of a nuclear device it will be open season on Iran and the world won't shed a tear as it is pushed from the 8th century CE back into the 8th century BCE. We can only speculate as to how much satisfaction that might bring the victims of millions killed by weapons that might have never existed.
Alright, President Steve, or President f4f .... what would your decision be? How would you prevent the "down-sides" associated with each of the two primary alternatives? Youse guys seem so quick with the simple solution, cut your teeth on this.
Iran is insane if they think that fighting the U.S in military combat is smart or necessary for their country. Iran has 2-3x the population of Iraq, and haven't been able to defeat them in 10 years of action. There trivial, the united state's, would defeat Iran quickly, they would eliminate their air field's/airports, and turn Iran into an Afghanistan. I hope there "President", realize's the consequences of his action's.
f4f,
I did click on your links.
The one from Iran's propaganda ministry alleging that Israel's policy is to destroy Islamic holy sites with atomic weapons has no credibility at all.
The link to General Gardener is better and more credible, though your spin on the General's abbreviated remarks to make it seem we are on the brink of a nuclear holocaust isn't funny.
The second link from Reuters, is the sort of report that has some credibility. It's from a respected source. It identifies the sources of its quotes, and the quote appears to be in context. The quote itself only underscores the likelihood that the President will probably decide not to pursue military intervention to halt, or slow, the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Sonny5790 wrote:Iran is insane if they think that fighting the U.S in military combat is smart or necessary for their country. Iran has 2-3x the population of Iraq, and haven't been able to defeat them in 10 years of action. There trivial, the united state's, would defeat Iran quickly, they would eliminate their air field's/airports, and turn Iran into an Afghanistan. I hope there "President", realize's the consequences of his action's.
...he said, whistling past the graveyard.
Asherman wrote:Your personal opinion that nothing could justify intervention in Iran's nuclear weapons program, did not admit of any possibility that such an intervention might be appropriate. Not the affair of the UK. If things go badly, not of any concern of mine.
Still watching football, fuller response later. My alarm is that there appears to be a real posibility that the current US administration may initiate a nuclear war against Iran. This has to be madness. I expect decent Americans to rise up en masse and say NO.
