Who is going to take out the Iranians first? Israel or the US?

**DaNinjew** · 01-11-2007, 00:28

I've been digesting the President's speech on Iraq, he made some not so subtle (or idle) threats towards Iran's interference in Iraq. We are currently moving another carrier strike group into the Persian Gulf. I just don't see too many options where we won't eventually be in direct military conflict with Iran. There have also been reports released to the press of Israeli plans to take out Iran's nuclear facilities with a tactical nuke air strike. Who do you think will strike first?

**Brian Dugger** · 01-11-2007, 07:45

One must bear in mind the history of Ehud Ohlmert and consider events since May of 1948. Israel has nuclear capability [although it isn't publisized] and being completely surrounded by Arab countries geographically, they will not consider the slightest probability of being attacked.

**TicTac** · 01-11-2007, 10:25

I don't see how Israel can NOT strike. The Arab world that surrounds them hates them with a fervor not known since Nazi Germany. If they have the ability to completely destroy Israel they will. It is only a matter of time.

**Brian Dugger** · 01-11-2007, 10:38

Oh, it will be preemptive

which makes it all the more unsettling. I'm fascinated as why it hasn't already happened. More importantly, the strength of the thread(s) that have kept things from completely unraveling is equally baffling to me.

**DaNinjew** · 01-11-2007, 12:37

Brian,
I agree, I thought that Iran's Holocaust denial convention would be the last straw and it may have been. The 1973 Arab-Israeli war tought the Isrealis to not under estimate warnings and threats....they swore to strike first if threatened. This will be a dangerous year in the middle east.

PS The Iranians have to know its coming one way or another. Maybe they have a Nuke already.

**Brian Dugger** · 01-11-2007, 14:07

Originally Posted by DaNinjew

Brian,
I agree, I thought that Iran's Holocaust denial convention would be the last straw and it may have been. The 1973 Arab-Israeli war tought the Isrealis to not under estimate warnings and threats....they swore to strike first if threatened. This will be a dangerous year in the middle east.

PS The Iranians have to know its coming one way or another. Maybe they have a Nuke already.

On the ruminations of the President's address, George W. would not have suggested or mentioned anything at all if the support and positioning were not already underway if not already in place.

At the moment, there is only one man alive from the Camp David peace accords which represented each of the families of Shem, Ham and Japeth. Begin and Sadat have long been dead. I am fairly certain that he has had to do some work he lately for the present sitting President.

**coralreefer** · 01-19-2007, 06:51

Though I think it should be Isreal to deal with this issue more than anyone, since they are the once in the biggest amount of danger by a nuclear armed Iran, I think Isreal rests comfortably in the notion that the US will likely do the dirty work for them.

As much as I hate to see the US involved in ther issue, and even though Isreal is more than capable of dealing with Iran, as well as the other neighbors, I believe it will be the US to start that front, and further inflame hatred for Americans in the Middle East.

Todd

**Brian Dugger** · 01-19-2007, 07:01

Originally Posted by coralreefer

As much as I hate to see the US involved in ther issue, and even though Isreal is more than capable of dealing with Iran, as well as the other neighbors, I believe it will be the US to start that front, and further inflame hatred for Americans in the Middle East.

Shameful, but true. I don't like our country finding itself in such precarious positions.

**Ramirez** · 01-19-2007, 08:14

Originally Posted by coralreefer

Though I think it should be Isreal to deal with this issue more than anyone, since they are the once in the biggest amount of danger by a nuclear armed Iran, I think Isreal rests comfortably in the notion that the US will likely do the dirty work for them.

As much as I hate to see the US involved in ther issue, and even though Isreal is more than capable of dealing with Iran, as well as the other neighbors, I believe it will be the US to start that front, and further inflame hatred for Americans in the Middle East.

Todd

Todd you sound like an old style conservative, Pat Buchanan for example.

It is odd how conservatism did a complete about face on foreign intervention.

**starkjudo** · 01-19-2007, 08:35

Warlike as it may be, i've got my popcorn and my pom-pom and i'm rooting for Israel to stomp the dogcrap out of 'em.

**dao** · 01-19-2007, 09:01

I love pharses like "taking out". What exactly does that mean? I think that a strong case could be made that the USSR "took out" Apghanistan during the 80's and that has been such a success....

For those who don't know, in an attempt to stablize the government after a coup, the USSR invaded, killed lots of people, destroyed the infrastructure and destroyed the government. And after its solders left a civil war started that killed more people and effectively prevented any progress being made toward a peaceful environment for families to raise their children. The need for stability enabled the repressive Taliban government to rise to power which instead of trying to solve it's countries multiple problems survives by scapegoating "the evil west" for everything that is wrong. Now the US has invaded and is attempting to "fix" it. And yet in spite of all the turmoil Apghanistan is still physically present, there are still people whose ancestors lived there for who knows how many generations attempting to make a living and raise their children, there is still a Apghan culture. In every way that matters Apghanistan is still there. I think the notion that one country can "take out" another is actually pretty riduculous. The only thing that can happen is that countries can force cultural changes.

The reason I don't think Isreal or the Arab counties have resorted to nuclear attacks yet is that even the most fanacitcal realize the collatoral damage to their own countries would be too great. Self preservation is too strong of a force and even self matrydom loses it's appeal when you realize that nobody is going to be around to mourn for you and remember your "heroism". Ever notice that it is never the leaders who self sacrifice?

**STORMCROW34** · 01-19-2007, 09:08

I think Israel will strike pre-emptively.

1) The rhetoric and threats coming out of Iran are on a significant increase.

2) You can't reason with the unreasonable and you can't make peace with an entity that is hell bent on your destruction.

3) Israel has done it before. In 1981 Israel destroyed a French built nuclear power plant in Baghdad with airstrikes.

4) The entire Israeli nation is a frontline. That's why you occasionally see 17 year old girls in civilian clothes, walking around with Uzi's.

5) One well placed nuke and it's all over for Israel.

I would love to see this resolved peacefully, but with Israels back against a wall, what choice do they have?

**coralreefer** · 01-19-2007, 09:18

Originally Posted by Ramirez

Todd you sound like an old style conservative, Pat Buchanan for example.

It is odd how conservatism did a complete about face on foreign intervention.

Wow, now that's a surprise. I have never been called a conservative, and certainly never compared to Pat Buchanan. Given as though I don't really get into the whole "lib-turd and Neo-con" arena, if my comments make some believe that I am a conservative, then so be it. I have no problem being thought of as conservative or liberal.

Guess I should chalk it up to coming from the same district as Jesse Helmes

Todd

**STORMCROW34** · 01-19-2007, 09:31

Originally Posted by STORMCROW34

I think Israel will strike pre-emptively.

I'm quoting myself to clarify.

I don't think Israel is going to "take out" anyone as a nation, culture, etc.

I do think Israel will likely be forced to "take out" any nuclear plants in the region with which they are threatened.

**Brian Dugger** · 01-19-2007, 09:36

Originally Posted by STORMCROW34

I think Israel will strike pre-emptively.

1) The rhetoric and threats coming out of Iran are on a significant increase.

2) You can't reason with the unreasonable and you can't make peace with an entity that is hell bent on your destruction.

3) Israel has done it before. In 1981 Israel destroyed a French built nuclear power plant in Baghdad with airstrikes.

4) The entire Israeli nation is a frontline. That's why you occasionally see 17 year old girls in civilian clothes, walking around with Uzi's.

5) One well placed nuke and it's all over for Israel.

I would love to see this resolved peacefully, but with Israels back against a wall, what choice do they have?

Whew! Now, that's a perspective. No argument, nope--none.

Originally Posted by STORMCROW34

I would love to see this resolved peacefully, but with Israels back against a wall, what choice do they have?

It's not a choice, the Israelis have said what they will do, which validates our preemptive strike statement.

**Ramirez** · 01-19-2007, 09:45

Originally Posted by coralreefer

Wow, now that's a surprise. I have never been called a conservative, and certainly never compared to Pat Buchanan. Given as though I don't really get into the whole "lib-turd and Neo-con" arena, if my comments make some believe that I am a conservative, then so be it. I have no problem being thought of as conservative or liberal.

Guess I should chalk it up to coming from the same district as Jesse Helmes

Todd

Didn't mean to compare you to Buchanan, I used him as an example of the isolationist view that conservatives used to have. It now seems "liberals" are the isolationists.

**STORMCROW34** · 01-19-2007, 09:50

Regardless of who uses Isolationism as a platform, I think history will show that Isolationism is a VERY bad idea.

**starkjudo** · 01-19-2007, 09:55

Originally Posted by STORMCROW34

Regardless of who uses Isolationism as a platform, I think history will show that Isolationism is a VERY bad idea.

Definitely. And to clarify my previous, I agree with Michael on his points - I think Israel with attack tactically, taking out military assets.

**Ramirez** · 01-19-2007, 10:16

Originally Posted by STORMCROW34

Regardless of who uses Isolationism as a platform, I think history will show that Isolationism is a VERY bad idea.

the problem is resources, right now there seem to be too many targets that should be dealt wit. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and North Korea are all volatile. India and Pakistan are quiet right now but who knows when things could explode there. China is some odd mix of capitalism being run by a totalitarian government.

Where do you even start to intercede? Can you even intercede in India , Pakistan and China given they are part of the nuclear club?

**David Craik** · 01-19-2007, 10:16

Originally Posted by STORMCROW34

Regardless of who uses Isolationism as a platform, I think history will show that Isolationism is a VERY bad idea.

A matter of degree, I think. On the other end of the spectrum I think it's a bad idea to meddle too much in the business of sovereign nations and to heavy-handedly and unilaterally attempt to force one's will on others - particularly matters which should be the purview of the U.N.