If a countries leader threatens another with annihilation

[Guest Peeves]

or justifiable for a covert response? The assassination of certain Iranians and others elsewhere is being condemned on one hand and I'm sure applauded by others.

I'm suggesting here that any actions short of perhaps invasion or war can be a justifiable response to such openly warlike rhetoric.

I don't mean that type of ploy as used by Germany, but rather open threats by one of a countries leaders against another country.

Would a threatened country be expected to just sit on their hands or react in defense?

IFthe state of Israel responds with covert actions can they be seriously faulted by other countries and should their allies be supportive.

If the threat is unprovoked,is it not reasonable to consider the threat as requiring a defensive strategy?

Does the UN allow a member country to suggest the annihilation of another.

Iran like Korea is a rogue country.

I might personally deem other countries as rogue as well, South American perhaps. I think that if a country is openly suggesting action against another they make themselves a target for a justifiable response.

I suggest the degree of response might be judged in one way publicly and yet another sotto voce.

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm

[sharkman]

Uh-oh, cue the Israel haters...

The Iranian president could have kept his mouth shut, really. He could have made his plans to wipe Israel out, or as the Iranian defenders like to say, made a regime change in Israel(by wiping Israel's armies off the map and what the difference is I fail to see). Could have quietly gone about his business and made things much easier for himself. But no, he had to open his trap and beak off about Israel.

What did he do it? It just doesn't make sense from a rational point of view.

[cybercoma]

Another thread on this topic of Iran-Israel... really?

[Guest Peeves]

Another thread on this topic of Iran-Israel... really?

So sorry I missed your announcement that any problem has now been resolved.

So really. I posed a question answer or withdraw, your choice.

[bud]

when did iran threaten to annihilate israel?

what is your definition of rogue state?

[Guest Peeves]

Uh-oh, cue the Israel haters...

The Iranian president could have kept his mouth shut, really. He could have made his plans to wipe Israel out, or as the Iranian defenders like to say, made a regime change in Israel(by wiping Israel's armies off the map and what the difference is I fail to see). Could have quietly gone about his business and made things much easier for himself. But no, he had to open his trap and beak off about Israel.

What did he do it? It just doesn't make sense from a rational point of view.

Not only a situation with Iran suggests this option. The Afghani Taliban is at war with the UN forces.

Yet the Pakistani arm is targeted for attack IN PAKISTAN. Justifiably I would argue since he is a professed enemy.

If bombs are being made by someone and used against your country isn't the bomb maker a justifiable target?

Covert action is a reasonable response in some cases and even overt acts can be justified in others in my opinion.

If someone declares your country an enemy, threatens you, commits acts against you, then they might reasonably expect a response.

"PESHAWAR, Pakistan (Reuters) - The leader of the Pakistani Taliban, the militant movement that poses the gravest security threat to the country, is believed to have been killed by a U.S. drone strike, four Pakistan intelligence officials told Reuters on Sunday.

The officials said they intercepted wireless radio chatter between Taliban fighters detailing how Hakimullah Mehsud was killed while travelling in a convoy to a meeting in the North Waziristan tribal region near the Afghan border.

A senior military official told Reuters there was no official confirmation that the Pakistani state's deadliest enemy had been killed. The Pakistani Taliban issued a denial."

Certainly if a leader of Iran has suggested a nuke strike is coming on your country, then those working on the nuke capability might expect to be targeted, by someone.

[Guest Peeves]

when did iran threaten to annihilate israel?

what is your definition of rogue state?

Read the op.

My definition would be a state that threatens other countries, has a capability for use of weapons of mass destruction/death and provokes conflict. Korea does that. Fits the description. It has sunk a South Korean ship.

Iran falls a bit short but certainly could launch mass destruction attacks on other Middle Eastern countries. Iran has threatened nuclear destruction when it's capability is realized.

[bush_cheney2004]

Read the op.

My definition would be a state that threatens other countries, has a capability for use of weapons of mass destruction/death and provokes conflict. Korea does that. Fits the description. It has sunk a South Korean ship.

So does the United States and to a lesser degree Canada. Methinks you are conflating matters of state with military readiness / capabilities. Foolish is the nation that waits for an explicit existential threat to be uttered by another nations political leadership. Long before that, and on a continuous basis, the actual capabilities and doctrine of nations are studied, evaluated for threat level, and responded to in kind, either unilaterally or through collective defense.

Iran falls a bit short but certainly could launch mass destruction attacks on other Middle Eastern countries. Iran has threatened nuclear destruction when it's capability is realized.

Right...Iran is a regional power that is counterbalanced by overwhelming force. It could not prevail in a protracted conflict without significant (but as of yet uncommitted) allied forces. Iran is considered to be "contained" until the status quo changes vis-a-vis nuclear weapons or actions against shipping in the Gulf.

[dre]

or justifiable for a covert response? The assassination of certain Iranians and others elsewhere is being condemned on one hand and I'm sure applauded by others.

What we are seeing in Iran is terrorist attacks... maybe state sponsored terrorist attacks (we dont know for sure). Either state sponsored terrorist attacks to achieve political goals are acceptable or they arent, and if Iran was sponsoring car bombings in other countries then we would never hear the end of it.

IF its shown that a nation state was behind these terrorist attacks, they should be placed on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. If they arent, then all this anti-terror bluster is nothing more than hot air.

[dre]

So does the United States and to a lesser degree Canada. Methinks you are conflating matters of state with military readiness / capabilities. Foolish is the nation that waits for an explicit existential threat to be uttered by another nations political leadership. Long before that, and on a continuous basis, the actual capabilities and doctrine of nations are studied, evaluated for threat level, and responded to in kind, either unilaterally or through collective defense.

Right...Iran is a regional power that is counterbalanced by overwhelming force. It could not prevail in a protracted conflict without significant (but as of yet uncommitted) allied forces. Iran is considered to be "contained" until the status quo changes vis-a-vis nuclear weapons or actions against shipping in the Gulf.

Right...Iran is a regional power that is counterbalanced by overwhelming force. It could not prevail in a protracted conflict without significant (but as of yet uncommitted) allied forces. Iran is considered to be "contained" until the status quo changes vis-a-vis nuclear weapons or actions against shipping in the Gulf.

It could not prevail in a protracted conflict no matter what. If theres a war between Iran and a western coalition they will get destroyed, and they know it as well as we do. That explains why Iran MIGHT be trying to develop nuclear weapons, or at least nail down the technology so they can weaponise it relatively quickly in the future. That explains statements about the shipping as well. They are trying provide some reasons NOT to attack them, with the hopes it wont happen. Because they know they are DONE if it does. Theyre basically saying, "youll win, but we can make it hurt".

The current Iranian regime will lose no matter what kind of conflict shaped up. Theyre losing right now already. But the west could lose as well, if they are drawn into another massive multi trillion dollar nation building adventure. The west is flat ass broke, and cant even fund their own governments never mind another long nation building war.

Edited January 15, 2012 by dre

[Post To The Left]

If a countries leader threatens another with annihilation When is it deemed unacceptable to react? or justifiable for a covert response? The assassination of certain Iranians and others elsewhere is being condemned on one hand and I'm sure applauded by others.

Doesn't this justify Saddam Hussein's moves against the Bushes? America's leader, Bush Sr and Jr, threatened Iraq with regime change same as Iran's leader threatened to wipe out the Israeli political leadership with regime change. So by saying the Israeli political regime has a right to defend itself so too did the Saddam Regime?

Edited January 16, 2012 by Post To The Left

[Topaz]

Let's put all these world leaders that what to go to war in a huge cage and the last person standing wins!

[The_Squid]

Let's put all these world leaders that what to go to war in a huge cage and the last person standing wins!

American Republican presidential wannabees would outnumber every one else! All but Ron Paul are All in favour of war with Iran!

[bud]

Read the op.

My definition would be a state that threatens other countries, has a capability for use of weapons of mass destruction/death and provokes conflict.

israel would fit your definition. not only that, but israel continues to disregard international law which is another characteristic of a rogue state.

Iran has threatened nuclear destruction when it's capability is realized.

show me where iran has done this and as you suggested in the title, 'threatened with annihilation'.

[bush_cheney2004]

Doesn't this justify Saddam Hussein's moves against the Bushes? America's leader, Bush Sr and Jr, threatened Iraq with regime change same as Iran's leader threatened to wipe out the Israeli political leadership with regime change.

No, it was actually a matter of American Public Law passed by the US Congress during the Clinton administration (Iraq Liberation Act of 1998). Iraq was promptly bombed in December of that year (UK/USA) at about 100 sites in hopes of "decapitating" Saddam's regine. So, it was more than just a threat. Actions speak louder than words.

So by saying the Israeli political regime has a right to defend itself so too did the Saddam Regime?

Sure did...but it failed miserably at doing so.

Edited January 16, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[jbg]

when did iran threaten to annihilate israel?

what is your definition of rogue state?

Here comes the Jew-haters.

[DogOnPorch]

Sure did...but it failed miserably at doing so.

Ah, yea olde Iraqi Minister of Information...how we miss thee.

Iran would meet a similar fate in a ground war. But, somehow I think that isn't really needed in this case...just some well placed smart bombs.

[Guest Peeves]

What we are seeing in Iran is terrorist attacks... maybe state sponsored terrorist attacks (we dont know for sure). Either state sponsored terrorist attacks to achieve political goals are acceptable or they arent, and if Iran was sponsoring car bombings in other countries then we would never hear the end of it.

IF its shown that a nation state was behind these terrorist attacks, they should be placed on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. If they arent, then all this anti-terror bluster is nothing more than hot air.

Personally I differentiate between a terrorist attack on say the world trade center, 9-11 the bombing of a pizza parlor, a wedding, a Mosque or church, a Bali night club, a railway station etc. and that of a a preemptive surgical strike in Iran or Pakistan against a regime that has called for your country and peoples demise.

But that's just me.

I also don't discount the nation states of Iran-Syria as being actively in support both financially and by supplying rockets etc. for terrorist purposes, but I'm sure they must be on a list of state sponsors of terrorism..

..R I G h t

When halal pigs fly.

Edited January 16, 2012 by Peeves

[Guest Peeves]

Here comes the Jew-haters.

Ah, but,

Nothing wrong with them exposing their position is there?

[Guest Peeves]

Uh-oh, cue the Israel haters...

The Iranian president could have kept his mouth shut, really. He could have made his plans to wipe Israel out, or as the Iranian defenders like to say, made a regime change in Israel(by wiping Israel's armies off the map and what the difference is I fail to see). Could have quietly gone about his business and made things much easier for himself. But no, he had to open his trap and beak off about Israel.

What did he do it? It just doesn't make sense from a rational point of view.

"What did he do it? It just doesn't make sense from a rational point of view.

That brings up a different topic.

Perhaps if we accept for argument, that the Persians desire to be the Islamic head of power, or, the Iranian Shia center of faith. After all, Persians have always shown a superior attitude (over Arabs.)

I wonder at times why Arabs are willing to let Iranians (Persians) or Turkey (Eurasians) become masters of their religion or region.

They need to be seen as a leader in all things of Islam ans so the bluster and provocative militancy of their leaders.

I think that frightens other Muslim states, but it has also caused Turkey to move for a position of leadership as well.

The Arab spring has opened doors for those that want power in Muslim countries.

The Muslim brotherhood will be the wild card. I think we will see more gesturing by both Iran and Turkey as they make their moves.

[GostHacked]

What we are seeing in Iran is terrorist attacks... maybe state sponsored terrorist attacks (we dont know for sure). Either state sponsored terrorist attacks to achieve political goals are acceptable or they arent, and if Iran was sponsoring car bombings in other countries then we would never hear the end of it.

IF its shown that a nation state was behind these terrorist attacks, they should be placed on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. If they arent, then all this anti-terror bluster is nothing more than hot air.

I can get behind this statement.

[sharkman]

I'm not so sure. Terrorism's goal is to create terror and it is done by killing as many citizens as possible.

This effort in Iran is obviously not trying to kill as many citizens as possible or is it trying to create terror. If that were the case they could place the bombs for many more deaths. Much bigger bombs too. The goal is to slow down or stop an illegal industry. If it's terrorism, it's a pretty weak effort.

[GostHacked]

I'm not so sure. Terrorism's goal is to create terror and it is done by killing as many citizens as possible.

I don't think that is the case, creating terror does not need to have as many victims as possible. The results of the attacks are to create panic and fear. You don't need to kill a whole lot of people to accomplish that.

This effort in Iran is obviously not trying to kill as many citizens as possible or is it trying to create terror. If that were the case they could place the bombs for many more deaths. Much bigger bombs too. The goal is to slow down or stop an illegal industry. If it's terrorism, it's a pretty weak effort.

It's similar to one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter, or another person's covert agent.

[Guest Peeves]

I'm not so sure. Terrorism's goal is to create terror and it is done by killing as many citizens as possible.

This effort in Iran is obviously not trying to kill as many citizens as possible or is it trying to create terror. If that were the case they could place the bombs for many more deaths. Much bigger bombs too. The goal is to slow down or stop an illegal industry. If it's terrorism, it's a pretty weak effort.

Spot on. The goal in the Iranian assassination was a specific individual. That's not a terrorism tactic at all.

As I see it, it's little different than a drone attack on an individual as in the Pakistan assassination yesterday.

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — The leader of the Pakistani Taliban, the militant movement that poses the gravest security threat to the country, is believed to have been killed by a U.S. drone strike, four Pakistan intelligence officials told Reuters on Sunday.

[bud]

Read the op.

My definition would be a state that threatens other countries, has a capability for use of weapons of mass destruction/death and provokes conflict.

israel would fit your definition. not only that, but israel continues to disregard international law which is another characteristic of a rogue state.

Iran has threatened nuclear destruction when it's capability is realized.

show me where iran has done this and as you suggested in the title, 'threatened with annihilation'.