Islrael gets the nod

[B. Max]

Maybe an attack would keep Irans nose out of Iraq. With a couple of carrier fleets parked in the gulf Iran would be wise to take their lumps and like it.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/7/...0257.shtml?s=ic

[IXthAmendment]

It would be very regretable if by chance this report from this very questionable source were true.

The United States should not allow itself to be implicated in further illegal attacks against foreign states. Our reputation is already badly compromised and can scarcely withstand further knocks.

[bush_cheney2004]

Excellent...Israel did a fine job in 1981 against the French built Osirak plant in Iraq, after Iran botched the job during the Iran-Iraq war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak

Dick Cheney (aka "God") was very pleased.

[ScottSA]

It would be very regretable if by chance this report from this very questionable source were true.

The United States should not allow itself to be implicated in further illegal attacks against foreign states. Our reputation is already badly compromised and can scarcely withstand further knocks.

When useful fools hold forth...

[kimmy]

Since many people consider "Newsmax" to be a garbage source of information, here is the Israel Today article to which this Newsmax report refers:

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?...d=178&nid=13407

I suspect that an Israel strike against Iran, even if it avoids harming anything other than nuclear research sites, would be the start of something huge.

I'm not opposed to the idea, because the idea of that idiot having nuclear weapons at his command is rather unsettling. But lordy, the after-effects might be with us for decades.

-k

[August1991]

From link abve:

Lieberman said the Western powers acknowledged the severity of the Iranian nuclear threat to the Jewish state, but said that ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are “going to prevent the leaders of countries in Europe and America from deciding on the use of force to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities,” even if diplomacy ultimately fails.

IOW, diplomacy has yet to be exhausted.

This comment is just another way to ratchet up the diplomatic pressure.

[IXthAmendment]

It would be very regretable if by chance this report from this very questionable source were true.

The United States should not allow itself to be implicated in further illegal attacks against foreign states. Our reputation is already badly compromised and can scarcely withstand further knocks.

When useful fools hold forth...

I'm trying to note the 'absence of jerkhoodness', but it's difficult.

Edited July 15, 2007 by IXthAmendment

[ScottSA]

It would be very regretable if by chance this report from this very questionable source were true.

The United States should not allow itself to be implicated in further illegal attacks against foreign states. Our reputation is already badly compromised and can scarcely withstand further knocks.

When useful fools hold forth...

I'm trying to note the 'absence of jerkhoodness', but it's difficult.

Sorry. I was just noting the useful foolishness of perpetuating the ridiculous myth that some "illegal attack" took place. I guess I shouldn't assume that foolish things always have to originate in the mouth of a fool.

[Mad_Michael]

Maybe an attack would keep Irans nose out of Iraq. With a couple of carrier fleets parked in the gulf Iran would be wise to take their lumps and like it.

That is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen anyone ever post in a discussion forum.

And boy-oh-boy have I seen some doozies.

Iraq would be wise to take the beating they got from Uncle Sam too.

One quagmire and foreign policy fuckup isn't enough? Gotta double-down now to make up your loses?

[Bonam]

I suspect that an Israel strike against Iran, even if it avoids harming anything other than nuclear research sites, would be the start of something huge.

Probably, however, something huge is going to happen there eventually anyway. Tensions are building and building. The international community has been clamping down for decades to try to prevent the tensions from erupting into full out war. Sooner or later though the situation is going to explode. And if something has to happen, better that it happens before Iran has nuclear weapons, rather than after, imo. Of course, it'd be nice if the UN managed to get Iran to stop its nuclear research program through diplomatic means, but somehow I don't have very high confidence that that's gonna happen.

[AndrewL]

Maybe an attack would keep Irans nose out of Iraq. With a couple of carrier fleets parked in the gulf Iran would be wise to take their lumps and like it.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/7/...0257.shtml?s=ic

Assuming the US just bombs and does not invade the absolute best they could do is delay the nulcear programs of iran. Iran will most likely seek to make iraq even more difficult for america. Iranians themselves will rally around their extremist leader. And once again, america will play the part of the complete fool.

But you know what? Somebody will make some big fat profits.

Andrew

Edited July 16, 2007 by AndrewL

[Mad_Michael]

But you know what? Somebody will make some big fat profits.

The profits that are presently accruing due to the Iraqi adventure are quite handsome indeed!

There is a reason that President Eisenhower warned the American citizenry about the dangers and overbearing political muscle of the 'military-industrial complex'.

Edited July 16, 2007 by Mad_Michael

[B. Max]

That is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen anyone ever post in a discussion forum.

And boy-oh-boy have I seen some doozies.

Iraq would be wise to take the beating they got from Uncle Sam too.

One quagmire and foreign policy fuckup isn't enough? Gotta double-down now to make up your loses?

It would only be stupid to an appeaser. The Clinton appeasement years brought us 911 along with numerous other attacks before that that should have been a wake up call to the fact that someone was making war on us. Yet after all that, what do we get from the appeasers, more appeasement, and they are quite prepared to let our enemies build nukes which they will undoubtedly use against us. Pakistan is now learning the lesson's of appeasement after the deal they made with the devil and sooner or later we're going to have to cut the head off that snake as well.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...&show_article=1

[ScottSA]

One quagmire and foreign policy fuckup isn't enough? Gotta double-down now to make up your loses?

I'm not sure you're even dimly aware of things going on around you, much less anything to do with foreign policy. You obviously can't differentiate between the war and the occupation, and dragging that ridiculous old "military industrial complex" nonsense into the equation is much like wearing a dunce hat to the corner store. Any modern nation is a "military industrial complex" among other things.

[B. Max]

Wow check this out. The anti Semitic's and apologists for the Islamic butchers have really gone off the deep end.

http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=11282

So let these facts settle into your head. Iran says it seeks to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, as it is legally entitled to do under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. There is no evidence to contradict that. Iran has said repeatedly that it has no desire to acquire a nuclear weapon. It has never – despite the propaganda based on a misquotation – ever threatened Israel or the United States, or, for that matter, anyone else.

[Bonam]

Lol that's a pretty pathetic article.

[Moxie]

Wow check this out. The anti Semitic's and apologists for the Islamic butchers have really gone off the deep end.

http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=11282

So let these facts settle into your head. Iran says it seeks to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, as it is legally entitled to do under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. There is no evidence to contradict that. Iran has said repeatedly that it has no desire to acquire a nuclear weapon. It has never – despite the propaganda based on a misquotation – ever threatened Israel or the United States, or, for that matter, anyone else.

Nice try but that Nutter AKA the President of Iran has called repeatedly for the distruction of Israel, he's barking mad. Even the people of Iran respect the west, he's barking mad he believes Allah is coming to show him the way. I wish he would with a bomb attached to his dress. Israel hasn't threatened Iran, yet Iran is funding "Freedom Fighters in Irag" harbouring Bin Ladens loyal followers by the dozen. That man's evil. Nice try with the misquotation but he has called for the distruction of Israel repeatedly. He's another Wahhabi Islam worshiper, an evil retard that would be better suited in a rubber room with the foilers.

[Black Dog]

That is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen anyone ever post in a discussion forum.

And boy-oh-boy have I seen some doozies.

Ah, you must be new to B. Max's posting habits. The term "bottomless pit" comes to mind.

[B. Max]

Ah, you must be new to B. Max's posting habits. The term "bottomless pit" comes to mind.

Tell us something black dog. When you look up is there a bridge over your head.

[Black Dog]

Tell us something black dog. When you look up is there a bridge over your head.

No. BTW: questions are generally indicated by the prescence of question marks. Got it?

But let's go back a bit....

It would only be stupid to an appeaser. The Clinton appeasement years brought us 911 along with numerous other attacks before that that should have been a wake up call to the fact that someone was making war on us. Yet after all that, what do we get from the appeasers, more appeasement, and they are quite prepared to let our enemies build nukes which they will undoubtedly use against us.

Bad logic for a couple of reasons:

1) Iran's use of nuclear weapons, should they aqcuire them, is anything but inevitable.

2) You assume your perferred course of action would prevent Iran from getting nukes when that too is no sure bet.