Iran Air Strikes Growing in Probability

Quote:

Israel's Rumsfeld Takes Heat
Jerusalem, Israel - Topic A here is whether the Defense Minister, Amir Peretz, will resign or be forced out, similar to the firing of Donald Rumsfeld, and on similar grounds...


Topic C, of course, is Iran, and increasingly vocal concerns that Israel will be forced to confront the growing threat of a nuclear Iran, since the world, including the U.S., has decided not to. Though Israel is loathe to lead this effort, which it is ill-equipped to do on its own, the sense is that if current trends continue there will be no choice.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/saul_singer/2006/11/post_2.html

It's more than a little depressing to imagine that the muscular-militarist boys might set to an attack on Iran. As in the US, they hold fast to the notion, "all that those (fill in the enemy) understand is force". The blindnesses and disassociation of these people seem akin to acute autism.

Even if, as just suggested by oralloy and as Hersch surmised recently, the plan might be to destabilize Iranian society through hits on infrastructure (a fundamental strategy they've used in Palestine and attempted in Lebanon), I simply cannot imagine how either action will do anything at all except dramatically heighten Israel's security problems and those of Israel's allies.

No. But that's not the subject of the post you addressed.

...the muscular-militarist boys might set to an attack on Iran....the plan might be to destabilize Iranian society through hits on infrastructure...

It is about time that the US stops howling at the moon and realize that we are in no position to stop any nation that has the will and the resources to develope a facility for the production of atomic power and weapons from doing so. Further that the BS organization ,the UN, has no stomach, for the taking of meaningful action in that regard.
We just may be witnessing the beginning of the end of mankind as we know it.
Up from the primeval mists and back down again.

au1929 wrote:

It is about time that the US stops howling at the moon and realize that we are in no position to stop any nation that has the will and the resources to develope a facility for the production of atomic power and weapons from doing so. Further that the BS organization ,the UN, has no stomach, for the taking of meaningful action in that regard.
We just may be witnessing the beginning of the end of mankind as we know it.
Up from the primeval mists and back down again.

I agree, and that is exactly why an effort is being made to prevent the uncontrolled proliferation of WMD. We prefer not to see mankind perched at the brink of Armageddon again, as would probably be the case, if more and more entities were allowed to acquire WMD.

blatham wrote:

No. But that's not the subject of the post you addressed.

Is it not? The post of yours, which I addressed said, and I quote:

blatham wrote:

...the muscular-militarist boys might set to an attack on Iran....the plan might be to destabilize Iranian society through hits on infrastructure...

I responded by pointing out that what you are asserting the current administration might do is quite different from what they have actually done. This was an on-topic comment. One wishes that so much of your energy were not directed towards attempting to disqualify criticisms you wish to avoid answering.

Brandon9000 wrote:

blatham wrote:

No. But that's not the subject of the post you addressed.

Is it not? The post of yours, which I addressed said, and I quote:

blatham wrote:

...the muscular-militarist boys might set to an attack on Iran....the plan might be to destabilize Iranian society through hits on infrastructure...

I responded by pointing out that what you are asserting the current administration might do is quite different from what they have actually done. This was an on-topic comment. One wishes that so much of your energy were not directed towards attempting to disqualify criticisms you wish to avoid answering.

I did not suffer in your absence. The subject is Israel. Read the link.

Brandon9000 wrote:

au1929 wrote:

It is about time that the US stops howling at the moon and realize that we are in no position to stop any nation that has the will and the resources to develope a facility for the production of atomic power and weapons from doing so. Further that the BS organization ,the UN, has no stomach, for the taking of meaningful action in that regard.
We just may be witnessing the beginning of the end of mankind as we know it.
Up from the primeval mists and back down again.

I agree, and that is exactly why an effort is being made to prevent the uncontrolled proliferation of WMD. We prefer not to see mankind perched at the brink of Armageddon again, as would probably be the case, if more and more entities were allowed to acquire WMD.

It is a half assed attempt and as readily seen does not work.

Can ammageddon be in the not so distant future?

blatham wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

blatham wrote:

No. But that's not the subject of the post you addressed.

Is it not? The post of yours, which I addressed said, and I quote:

blatham wrote:

...the muscular-militarist boys might set to an attack on Iran....the plan might be to destabilize Iranian society through hits on infrastructure...

I responded by pointing out that what you are asserting the current administration might do is quite different from what they have actually done. This was an on-topic comment. One wishes that so much of your energy were not directed towards attempting to disqualify criticisms you wish to avoid answering.

I did not suffer in your absence. The subject is Israel. Read the link.

As a poster here, I have the option of either responding to the original thread topic, or responding to a particular post. I responded to a particular post, specifically yours, and I responded directly to what you said. I wish to pose a question to you. If you are, as you must believe, in the right, why is so much of your energy devoted to fleeing challenges, even polite challenges, to the things you assert?

You stated what the conservatives who control the White House might do, as though you were criticizing things which they had already done. I pointed out that the reality of what they have actually done is very different from your speculations. Respond or don't as you please, but it was a polite and reasonable question based on your post.

Brandon9000 wrote:

blatham wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

blatham wrote:

No. But that's not the subject of the post you addressed.

Is it not? The post of yours, which I addressed said, and I quote:

blatham wrote:

...the muscular-militarist boys might set to an attack on Iran....the plan might be to destabilize Iranian society through hits on infrastructure...

I responded by pointing out that what you are asserting the current administration might do is quite different from what they have actually done. This was an on-topic comment. One wishes that so much of your energy were not directed towards attempting to disqualify criticisms you wish to avoid answering.

I did not suffer in your absence. The subject is Israel. Read the link.

As a poster here, I have the option of either responding to the original thread topic, or responding to a particular post. I responded to a particular post, specifically yours, and I responded directly to what you said. I wish to pose a question to you. If you are, as you must believe, in the right, why is so much of your energy devoted to fleeing challenges, even polite challenges, to the things you assert?

You stated what the conservatives who control the White House might do, as though you were criticizing things which they had already done. I pointed out that the reality of what they have actually done is very different from your speculations. Respond or don't as you please, but it was a polite and reasonable question based on your post.

Wrong. The reference - in keeping with the pasted piece - refers to Israel and what Israel might do, NOT the White House. This is the last time I'll point out what should have been clear to you from the first reading.

Expert: Bush can't attack Iran

Security expert tells forum: US president has no credibility, unable to initiate Iran attack
Yaakov Lappin

US President George Bush does not have sufficient credit to initiate a military strike on Iran , Giora Romm, senior researcher for the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, told a forum attended by members of the Foreign Ministry and delegates from the American Jewish community in Jerusalem Tuesday.

Romm was a former Air Force pilot, Assistant Director of IDF operations, defense attache to Washington and a former head of the Jewish Agency. He recently returned from Washington, and described how senior American officials were completely preoccupied with the war in Iraq.

"Iraq is sitting very heavily on them," Romm said, adding that the problems of the Iraq war have robbed President Bush of any credibility.

Quoting a senior American official, Romm told the forum, "If Bush does something physical to Iran, he will be impeached."

"Bush has no military credit. Don't delude yourself by thinking that Bush has a military option (regarding Iran). I don't think the average American is convinced that his country is in danger (from Iran), and isn't moved by dangers in the Middle East. After 3.5 years in Iraq, he won't be convinced by wishy washy intelligence," Romm said.

He added that the same source, from the Democratic Party, said, "If there isn't a change in Iraq within six months, I'm told, people will take to the streets like in Vietnam."

Speaking to Ynetnews, Romm said he "could see a situation where we would attack Iran and the United States won't, but I can't estimate that now."

Romm added that the American-Israeli alliance has not been endangered following the Democratic upswing in the US elections.

'Aspects of Lebanon war disturbing'

Romm launched into a detailed analysis of the Lebanon war, and said that "several operational aspects of the war disturbed me," citing a lack of clear political and military directives.

"If you're setting out objectives, go through with then," Romm said, adding that a change in the land fighting approach was also needed.

"If we know Hizbullah is planning to kidnap our soldiers, we should set out, publicly, on the front page, 20 targets in Lebanon, and say 10 of them will be destroyed, no matter who is there, if the kidnapping takes place. And we should transmit this directive to the Lebanese government, with no secrecy," Romm said.

The Guardian thinks "We're going in". I'll post a link or two on this topic later, insh'allah.

..Bush is chomping at the bit... However, even he is not stupid enough to get enbroiled in a fight we do not have a chance to win.