"We are ready to attack Iran..."

Tosh5457

The neo-conservatives, the Middle East wars (which are connected to the neo-conservatives) and this news don't have anything to do with each other? This would be another Middle East war... I only assumed that if something is obviously connected to this news, it should be posted, and that's what I did.

I meant: When you want to go to a war, you're the one who has to give reasons for it.

I know turbo was pushing an anti-war stance, and what I said was that he doesn't have to defend his position at this point (war's negative consequences are too well known, is it even worth it posting them here?), when nobody even gave any reason for going to war - the people who are pro-war are the ones who have to defend their position right now. And since there wasn't any discussion before, he wasn't detracting from the discussion. If it was on a middle of a discussion, with people presenting arguments in favor of war, then I agree he'd be detracting from the discussion.

Bobbywhy

Nobel winner Günter Grass faults Israel for claiming a “first-strike” justification
To attack Iran, as it destroyed both Iraq’s reactor and Syria’s nuclear installation
His poem “What Must Be Said” was derided with “anti-Semitic!” condemnation
And his unwanted permission to visit Israel with visa was subjected to revocation
Israel’s clamoring to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities is a propaganda manipulation
An adversary’s development of nuclear capability equals a “casus belli” violation
Such that it requires immediate diplomatic, clandestine, and military mobilization

Israeli poet Itamar Yaoz-Kest counter-attacked Grass with great moral indignation
Using a fantastic interpretation of news reports to design a fabricated motivation
Claiming in stentorian tones the “Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map” allegation
And using his status as a Holocaust survivor to bolster his own pronunciation
While ignoring Charlie Rose’s public interview with Ahmadinejad’s explanation:

“The Soviet Union doesn't exist on the map anymore, now it’s Russia.
Doesn't mean all Russians are dead.
In South Africa the apartheid regime doesn't exist anymore.
Doesn't mean that all South Africans are dead.”

Yaoz-Kest’s false propaganda argument is obviously a fallacy by equivocation
And he continued with arrogant authority to spew out the following vulgarization:

“Nevertheless, there is a right belonging only to the Jews. This is the right to take with us as we are being annihilated this satiated world, grand libraries and spiritually uplifting music and all – into the nothingness, to share our ruin and our descent into the grave. Then radioactive rays will poison the four directions of the sky for all the inhabitants of earth.

Yes, we have the right!/ and this is also my right!/ the right of the people of Israel to close shut the creaking gates of the world/ upon its final descent from the stage of history/with the power of the final weapon/ and we have the right to declare/ at the price of the great fear born of three thousand years/ “If you force us again to descend from the face of the earth to its depths/,the entire globe will be turned back into nothingness.”

zoobyshoe

Which lends much credence to what i said in post #13. The US is probably not rattling its saber here to intimidate Iran so much as to mollify Israel.

ThomasT

The title of the thread says that the US is ready to attack Iran, and, from what I've read, that seems to be the case. In my opinion, in line with the stated positions of the Israeli and US governments, Iran can't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

It does, however, seem that Iran is stalling in order to have time to develop nuclear weapons. So, I have to conclude that some sort of attack by Israel and the US is imminent.

zoobyshoe

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/wo...ear-talks.html

QuarkCharmer

This might sound ignorant (especially considering I know nothing of politics) but why exactly are we so concerned with Iran developing nuclear technology? Was the United States appointed governor of the known world? Who decides that country A can do something and that country B cannot? The UN? What if said country did not want to be a part of the UN?

tiny-tim

john donne, 1572-1631, dean of st paul's cathedral …

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
…
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

(http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/no-man-is-an-island/)

SHISHKABOB

Powerful country wants something. Powerful country has the ability to do that, so it goes and does that.

Weak country wants something. Probably won't get it.

That's how I see it. Power rules.

Bobbywhy

QuarkCharmer, good questions! On the one hand, it seems like a smart thing to try to limit more nations from getting nuclear weapon capability in the interest of everyone’s safety and security. Here’s who has them now: United States, Russia (successor state to the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, France, and China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...uclear_weapons

But on the other hand, are these Nuclear Powers the only “privileged” ones? Do they have the authority to deny Iran the capability to make “the bomb? Why is it we “allow” Pakistan and Israel, for example, to keep atomic bombs and not Iran?

Moral questions aside, I agree with ThomasT and SHISHKABOB, that considering the recent troop and ship buildup in the Persian Gulf, it sure looks like the U.S. and its allies (including Israel) are not going to allow Iran to gain that capability.

Gunboats, Super-Torpedoes, Sea-Bots: U.S. Navy Launches Huge Iran Surge
By Spencer Ackerman
March 16, 2012
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012...-persian-gulf/
Navy says it will add ships to Persian Gulf amid Iran threats
March 17, 2012
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/worl...sian-gulf.html

Navy deploys 2nd aircraft carrier to Persian Gulf; USS Enterprise joins Abraham Lincoln strike group
April 9, 2012 7:15 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-...-strike-group/

United States Nuclear Sub Heads Towards Persian Gulf
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
http://theintelhub.com/2012/02/01/us...-persian-gulf/

ThomasT

The Obama administration wants to delay any military action until after the election. The Netanyah administration wants to strike before the enrichment and other facilities become impregnable. Delays (arguably) increase Obama's chances of reelection, but diminish the prospects of preventing Iran from eventually developing nuclear weapons. Just my current opinion.

It comes down, imo, to how real one thinks Iran's threats to destroy Israel are. Would a nuclear-weapons-capable Iran effectively destroy itself in order to destroy Israel?

No way to know. But it seems to me that Israel can't afford to take the chance. So, I expect airstrikes (by Israel on certain Iranian targets) in the forseeable future.

Ryan_m_b

Where's the evidence that Iran has a political mandate that it wants to do this and that it is working towards pulling it off? Aggressive statements from political figures is a very different thing from active policy.

Also has anyone given serious thought to the long term ramifications of any action? IMO it's beyond the scope of the US military (and economy) to occupy Iran, especially for any length of time. Therefore there's a restriction to precision air strikes; OK so let's say that this happens and their nuclear infrastructure is completely destroyed. How will the ~80 million Iranians react to that? How is that going to affect the political landscape of the future?

ThomasT

Point taken. The problem is that key Iranian political figures have made such statements. Should the government of Israel ignore them, or take them seriously? If Israel can possibly deter or prevent Iran, via airstrikes, from developing nuclear weapons, then there seems to me to be good reason to believe that Israel will do that.

These are important questions, but are beyond the scope of the OP, imo.

Generally speaking, if one perceives an immediate threat to one's survival, than one deals with that regardless of possible entailments.

KiwiKid

To play devil's advocate for a moment, there have also been plenty of US senators and political figures in Israel who have made similar statements towards Iran. If people claim to want to destroy my country and have nukes, I'd want nukes, too - if only to avoid the aforementioned thing from happening.

russ_watters

It isn't very complicated:

1. Yes, indeed, Iran (and most countries) is forbidden from having nuclear weapons by international law (treaty): They signed the Non-Proliferation treaty.

2. As a more practical political matter, Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, who says or hints on a regular basis that they have violent intentions toward us and our allies. Even without the NPT, a nuclear armed Iran is not seen as a peaceful influence.

3. Being the biggest kid on the block, we have the responsibility - if we choose to accept it - of being the primary enforcer of international law in the world.

4. Yes, Iran could drop out of the UN and the NPT, but doing so would be a very hostile act and one that would risk full isolation from the world community (see: North Korea). Since Iran's wealth comes from selling oil, that would be very bad for them.

russ_watters

How so? Well that's what has to be weighed. On the one hand you have to speculate about how an anti-nuclear strike would affect the political landscape of Iran in the future and on the other hand you have to speculate about how a nuclear strike would affect the physical landscape of Tel Aviv and New York. Both action and non-action carry risks.

ThomasT

Point taken. I'm not expressing any opinions about the justifiability of Iran's nuclear program. Just that I think that Iran having nuclear weapons is seen as being contrary to US and Israel interests by US and Israel administrations, and that I agree that both the US and Israel are ready to attack Iran.

russ_watters

Have there? I'd like to see those statements to see just how similar they are.

I'd also note that a senator is not the President.