iran?

[geminibleeding]

now that the dems have taken the reins and are doing their best to raise taxes, socialize medical care and pull out of iraq who will deal with a soon to be nuclear iran?

<snip>

Monday, November 13, 2006

IS ISRAEL PREPARING TO ATTACK IRAN?

(JERUSALEM, ISRAEL) -- The buzz here in the last few days is that Israel is seriously considering a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities and ballistic missile sites. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert meets today with President Bush. Iran is Topic A, and Olmert is publicly warning Iran to watch out. "I don't believe that Iran will accept compromise unless they have good reason to fear the consequences of not reaching a compromise," Olmert said over the weekend. "In other words, Iran must start to fear."

Israel's Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh has been telling reporters in recent days that Israel may, in fact, be forced to attack Iran if no one else is willing to stop Ahmadinejad from going nuclear. "I am not advocating an Israeli preemptive military action against Iran," Sneh said Friday. "I consider it a last resort. But even the last resort is sometimes the only resort."

That said, I am not convinced Israel has the capacity -- or the will -- at the moment to neutralize the Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile threat. After her less than spectacular war with Hezbollah this summer, Israelis inside and outside of the government have told me, "If we can't convincingly defeat Nasrallah in Lebanon, are we really about to take on Ahmadinejad by ourselves?"

From an American perspective, I don't believe it is wise for the U.S. to outsource our national security. If President Bush believes Iran needs to be neutralized (and I believe he does), and he is convinced that military action is the only way (I don't believe he is there right now), then the U.S. should take the lead. Only we have military forces on three sides of Iran -- in Afghanistan, Iraq and Turkey. Only we have several aircraft carrier groups in the region. Only we have the force projection to get the job done. It will not be easy be any means. The cost of war with Iran will be very high, and we should not fool ourselves into thinking otherwise. If there is another way to get the job done besides military force, we should vigorously pursue those options by all means.

But Olmert's message to Bush no doubt will be: we're running out of time. And he's right. If anyone is going to stop Iran from threatening the world with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, it has to be soon, perhaps no later than the end of 2007. After all, 2008 is an American election year. 2009 will be the start of a new administration. By then it may be too late. The thermonuclear genie may be out of the bottle.

That said, Olmert should not hold his breath with anticipation that the U.S. is going to move militarily against Iran if Israel doesn't. The emergence of Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Reid means President Bush has almost no political capital left in the bank, and precious few allies in Washington (much less in Europe or the Middle East) for embarking on yet another preemptive war.

So where do things stand? A new Hitler is rising in Iran. Ahmadinejad and his radical Shiite eschatology threatens the peace of the world. Tehran poses a clear and present danger to the U.S., Israel and our allies in the region. But no one seems willing or able to stop Iran before it's too late. No wonder the Psalmist urges us to "pray for the peace of Jerusalem."

[zendog64]

From what I've read, Olmert's approval rating in Israel is even lower than Bush's in the US. Which means that the Israeli people support a war with Iran as much as Americans support the war in Iraq. With the outcome of our recent elections, I don't think it will be long before Olmert changes his tune, especially now that America probably won't be there to pitch in with the war effort.

The latest word coming out of Washington is that Bush will promise not to attack Iran from Iraq if Iran agrees to our conditions. This is truly sad, because I believe the biggest advantage we have is our current ability to hit Iran from our military installations in Iraq. Manyof us believed that that was one of the main objectives in the Iraq war, being able to set up bases where we can bomb the hell out of Iran. If Bush did make that agreement with Iran, it pretty much makes this entire war pointless, rendering the loss of thousands of American lives as a waste.

[Mickulz]

geminibleeding said:

now that the dems have taken the reins and are doing their best to raise taxes, socialize medical care and pull out of iraq ....

Wow...In the country I live in, we have to wait until the terms start before policy is made.

[zendog64]

Even though we're in a lame-duck situation, all signs seem to point in the direction of Bush rolling over and giving the dems everything they want.

[sayten]

and I ran... Iran so far away.... who gives a fuck

[geminibleeding]

mickulz...

hell, they're already talking all kinds of smack about what they're going to do and it's scaring the shit out of me.

zendog...

for the past several years that bush has been "behind the wheel" the dems have been whining "gimme the keys, we'll drive!" and now it appears that bush has simply given them not only the keys but also enough rope to hang themselves with. they now have two years to drive, hang themselves and ruin any chance they have for the all important 08 elections.

sayten...

once iran has nukes -everyone- will care because they will do their best to dominate the middle east as well as annihilate israel and israel knows this and will thus do everything in their power to stop them before it is too late.

israel's best chance is a pre-emptive strike while we're still in theater to support them and they know this, thus the meetings between olmert and bush lately.

yes, olmert is already on thin ice for the hez debacle.

but the israelis can always bring back bibi...

and bibi, aka benjamin netanyahu, being the hawk that he is, -will- do what needs to be done even if olmert won't.

but we're talking about survival of the motherfucking jewish state here and even olmert won't go down without a fight if need be.

we certainly live in interesting times.

things will get ugly on a global scale within the next two years.

word.

[sayten]

I don't care about these things anymore..... I just can't

There isn't enough time in my day to worry about what these 5 or 6 douche bags are going to do with their respective countries....

I wouldn't piss on Israel if it was on fire.... I don't care... I care about the few acres in PA that my ass sleeps at....

nobody in my life time is going to take that away from me... if they try... yeah there will be some problems then....

but until then.... fuck it.... I'm going to go to my job and be with my family and go see shows in Harristurd....

[scotchboy]

zendog64 said:

The latest word coming out of Washington is that Bush will promise not to attack Iran from Iraq if Iran agrees to our conditions. This is truly sad, because I believe the biggest advantage we have is our current ability to hit Iran from our military installations in Iraq.

How fucking pathetic are you? Let's be stupid and start another war. Our unblemished record shows our ability to win under our current 'commander-in-cheif.' Maybe that's why people voted the democrats into office. To stop the war hawk from causing any more headaches!

[sayten]

awesome read... fyi

[zendog64]

Just because millions of morons elected even bigger morons to congress and the house doesn't mean it's a good thing.

So let's suppose Iran builds a nuke and they show all signs of using it. Let's suppose they decide to attack America first. Are you saying we shouldn't respond? And if Iran does manage to drag us into a war, wouldn't it be strategically wise to stage our offensive from a place in close proximity to the frontlines? Obviously now that won't be likely to happen. And when Iran does build that nuke and announce plans to use it, we will all know who to blame when the shit hits the fan, and it won't be Bush for once.

[scotchboy]

You're building an absolute war out of hypotheticals. That is so retarded.

[geminibleeding]

scotchboy said:

You're building an absolute war out of hypotheticals. That is so retarded.

what cave have you been living in?

have you been paying attention to world events or just watching michael moore documentaries?

[zendog64]

When the evidence is strong, it's usually a good idea to consider it to be an absolute. That's generally regarded as a sign of intelligence, because by planning for a worst-case scenario you protect yourself regardless of the outcome of a given situation.

You pretty much just exemplified what is wrong with liberals. Take Bin Laden for example. Clinton had numerous chances to catch him, but he figured that he wasn't that much of a threat. Because of his underestimation, look what happened.

The same exact thing will happen with Iran with the Democrats in power.

[sayten]

I heard that Israel has between 200 and 400 nuclear weapons with worldwide ICBM capability.

again I heard.... any truth?

[geminibleeding]

israel has all kinds of nukes and a plan to use them called the "samson option" however we'd rather not have things come to that as that would spell the beginning of the end.

[zendog64]

the beginning of the end? i think we reached that point the day after election day, haha.

[sayten]

zendog64 said:

the beginning of the end? i think we reached that point the day after election day, haha.

the election has nothing to do with the beginning of the end.... It started long ago

“It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen—he is still a Japanese.”

[scotchboy]

geminibleeding said:

scotchboy said:

You're building an absolute war out of hypotheticals. That is so retarded.

what cave have you been living in?

have you been paying attention to world events or just watching michael moore documentaries?

Michael Moore films are comedic and best served with a grain of salt or a thousand. He makes some interesting points, but obviously edits the truth to make his statement work.

I believe if we put ourselves in place to attack a country, that country will respond by being prepared for an attack. If we weren't there, there wouldn't be a war.

[zendog64]

You're exactly right. But I think you have it the wrong way around. We never vowed to destroy Iran, but they have made it clear that the want to destroy us and destroy Israel. Don't fool yourself and don't be naive, Iran is the the one who has violated countless UN demands and laughed in the face of the global community, they are the aggressors.

[geminibleeding]

amen.

[sayten]

Really though.... they have every right to hate us....

just for a moment imagine that someone did that to us..... came in to our country and completely changed the way of life... and not necessarily for the better... don't you think you'd harbor just a bit of resentment....

I say.... viva la flock of seagulls

[zendog64]

Well people do have the right to hate whoever they want, for any reason whatsoever. That doesn't entitle them to blow everyone up though.

[sayten]

why not... we blow people up on a regular basis... and we don't hate them.....

[zendog64]

yeah but we're America. it's different.

[seanx]

they're still talking smack.......

Israel: US report on Iran may spark war By LAURIE COPANS, Associated Press Writer
Sat Dec 15, 11:35 AM ET

JERUSALEM - Israel's public security minister warned Saturday that a U.S. intelligence report that said Iran is no longer developing nuclear arms could lead to a regional war that would threaten the Jewish state.

In his remarks — Israel's harshest criticism yet of the U.S. report — Avi Dichter said the assessment also cast doubt on American intelligence in general, including information about Palestinian security forces' crackdown on militant groups. The Palestinian action is required as part of a U.S.-backed renewal of peace talks with Israel this month.

Dichter cautioned that a refusal to recognize Iran's intentions to build weapons of mass destruction could lead to armed conflict in the Middle East.

He compared the possibility of such fighting to a surprise attack on Israel in 1973 by its Arab neighbors, which came to be known in Israel for the Yom Kippur Jewish holy day on which it began.

"The American misconception concerning Iran's nuclear weapons is liable to lead to a regional Yom Kippur where Israel will be among the countries that are threatened," Dichter said in a speech in a suburb south of Tel Aviv, according to his spokesman, Mati Gil. "Something went wrong in the American blueprint for analyzing the severity of the Iranian nuclear threat."

Dichter didn't elaborate on the potential scenario but seemed to imply that a world that let its guard down regarding Iran would be more vulnerable to attack by the Islamic regime.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had disputed the U.S. intelligence assessment this month, saying that Iran continues its efforts to obtain components necessary to produce nuclear weapons. Tehran still poses a major threat to the West and the world must stop it, Olmert said.

Israel has for years been warning that Iran is working on nuclear weapons and backed the United States in its international efforts to exert pressure on Iran to stop the program. Israel considers Iran a significant threat because of its nuclear ambitions, its long-range missile program and repeated calls by its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for the disappearance of Israel.

Iran says its nuclear program is for purely peaceful purposes.

Israel will work to change the American intelligence agencies' view of Iran, said Dichter, a former chief of Israel's Shin Bet secret service agency.

"A misconception by the world's leading superpower is not just an internal American occurrence," Dichter said.

Any future faulty U.S. intelligence on the actions of Palestinian security forces could damage peace efforts, Dichter said.

"Those same (intelligence) arms in the U.S. are apt to make a mistake and declare that the Palestinians have fulfilled their commitments, which would carry with it very serious consequences from Israel's vantage point," Dichter said.