If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   Iran threatens pre-emptive strike if tensions do not ease. What sort of savage, barbaric, war-mongering super villain would attack another country pre-emptively? We really need to ... oh, wait   (msnbc.msn.com) divider line 174
    More: Asinine, pre-emptive strike, TEHRAN, Iran, Fars News Agency, Bushehr, teaching methods, Iranian nuclear, IRNA, gifted students  
•       •       •

5919 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Feb 2012 at 9:23 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



174 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-21 08:22:22 AM  
There is a difference between pre-emptive strikes, who can be justified and just, versus just outright attacking a country, subby.
 
2012-02-21 08:22:55 AM  
January 15, 2012
You have an Obama administration who, just recently, expended a chunk of political capital on releasing oil from the strategic oil reserves to drive down prices to help boost the economy. In come the AIPAC sanctions, and Obama pleads to ease the impact of the penalties to avoid driving up oil prices. He loses. Oil prices go up over the nonsense that occurs afterwards, negatively affecting the US economy. Bonus? China Gets Cheaper Iran Oil as U.S. Pays for Hormuz Patrols. A varied group of other people, with the run up to the Iraq war fresh on their minds, arent too happy with this and with the televison media coverage. One example of this is from Robert Baer and Engel on Matthews. Baer is one of the very respected experts in the area. Another is from U.S. defense leaders that are increasingly concerned that Israel is preparing to take military action against Iran, over U.S. objections, and have stepped up contingency planning to safeguard U.S. facilities in the region in case of a conflict (fark doesn't like WSJ links, just google that sentence).

JTA
J Street has a dependable cadre of 40-50 members of the U.S. House of Representatives ready to heed its voting recommendations. Congressional insiders say J Street's green light in December for Iran sanctions nudged the bill from the super majority that traditional lobbying by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee usually turns out to officially "overwhelming": 412-12. That sent the Obama administration a clear message to hurry it on up, the insiders say.

NPR Dec 2011
The powerful pro-Israel lobby and a leading Jewish advocacy group on Wednesday endorsed tough sanctions on Iran's Central Bank as Congress wrestles with an Obama administration plea to ease the impact of the penalties to avoid driving up oil prices.

In a letter to lawmakers, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee said the sanctions would contribute to the U.S. effort to pressure Tehran economically and could dissuade Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon. Separately, the American Jewish Committee wrote to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta backing the penalties that would target foreign financial institutions that do business with the Central Bank.

Last week, the Senate voted 100-0 for an amendment by Sens. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and Bob Menendez, D-N.J., to add the sanctions to a broad defense bill. House and Senate negotiators are meeting this week to try to iron out the differences between their respective bills and produce a final version of the legislation for President Barack Obama's signature.


NJ Jewish News
Menendez said their opposition undermined a compromise he struck with Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) on legislation that was eventually passed in the Senate by a vote of 100-0.

The White House countered that the Kirk-Menendez amendment could actually help the Iranian economy if foreign banks resisted American unilateral efforts.

This week Menendez stood by his approach on sanctions, which he developed in consultation with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Repost Dec 05, 2011

With AIPAC and Israel lobbying against accepting Iranian olive branches,and with no major political campaign in favor ofa U.S.-Iran rapprochement,changing course on Iran had no political downside.(Conoco's efforts to reverse the decision were hopelessly unsuccessful.) "From a political standpoint,nobody pays a price to be tough on Iran,"Ross commented. 188

(it should be noted how oil companies fought against it, unsuccessfully my point)

AIPAC launched a formidable lobbying campaign and managed to win extensive support for the bill-the Iran Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA)-on Capitol Hill. ILSA went beyond the executive orders that President Clinton had promulgated sixteen months earlier,because it targeted both American and non-American companies that invested $40 million or more in the Iranian oil and gas sector.The official aim ofthe bill was to deny Iran and Libya revenues that could be used to finance international terrorism and limit the flow ofresources necessary to obtain weapons ofmass destruction. The Clinton administration balked.Robert Pelletreau,assistant secretary ofstate at the time,testified in Congress against the bill, arguing that extraterritorial sanctions would be counterproductive by alienating countries whose cooperation the United States needed to cripple the Iranian regime."We want to isolate the Iranians,not become isolated ourselves,"he told the House International Relations Committee. But Clinton was no match for AIPAC's influence in Congress.The bill passed the House ofRepresentatives 415 votes to 0 and was reluctantly signed into law by the president in August 1996. 188

Though AIPAC's efforts had helped eliminate billions ofdollars worth of trade with Iran,the pro-Israel lobby felt that ILSA actually should be welcomed by American businesses because it primarily targeted foreign companies."We promulgated ILSA ...to level the playing field,"explained Weissman ofAIPAC."We wanted to show that we were not penalizing American business for foreign policy reasons....But nobody [in the busi- ness community] liked it.Maybe it was naïve ofus."Much ofcorporate America was infuriated by the bill.Even though the ILSA sanctions targeted foreign companies,they still posed a danger to American companies because ofthe potential threat ofcountersanctions by European and Asian governments.To make matters worse,even though it pressed for U.S.sanctions,Israel itselfcontinued to purchase Iranian goods through third countries."There were many times over the years that a few ofthe things Israel did vis-à-vis Iran admittedly allowed people to perceive that we [the United States] were harder-line than they [Israel] were,"Weissman admitted. 189

These contradictions aside,ILSA was a major success for AIPAC and Israel-not as a result offorcing a change in Iranian foreign policy,because it never did.In retrospect,Indyk admits that ILSA "was counterproductive to our efforts to try to change Iranian behavior because it split us from our allies,the Europeans." Rather,the success ofILSA lay in the almost irremovable political obstacle it created to any effort at improving U.S.-Iran relations-a critical objective ofIsrael as a result ofits fear that a dialogue between Washington and Tehran would come at the expense ofIsrael's strategic role."We were against it [U.S.-Iran dialogue] ...because the interest ofthe U.S.did not coincide with ours,"Israeli Deputy Defense minister Sneh admitted. 189
 
2012-02-21 08:25:32 AM  
 
2012-02-21 08:25:58 AM  

Tatsuma: There is a difference between pre-emptive strikes, who can be justified and just, versus just outright attacking a country, subby.


So how are we going to play this? Japan in 1941 just? Germany? Or is the rule more simple: Israel good, everyone else bad.
 
2012-02-21 09:18:37 AM  

Tatsuma: There is a difference between pre-emptive strikes, who can be justified and just, versus just outright attacking a country, subby.


If Iran is such an imminent threat to Israel then invade already. No one is stopping you. In fact the only thing holding Israel back is logic. Iran doesn't have nuclear weapon capabilities, and if it did it's not a suicidal actor. Any nuclear weapon used in a terrorist attack that's tied to Iran would cause the end of the dictatorship there. Every action Israel claims Iran will do the minute it gains nuclear weapons ends in the total destruction of the Iranian state. You can't enjoy being a dictator if you're dead.

I shall let Mr. Zakaria spell it out better. (new window)
 
2012-02-21 09:28:19 AM  

Tatsuma: There is a difference between pre-emptive strikes, who can be justified and just, versus just outright attacking a country, subby.


You're right. The USA has proven to be a threat to peace around the world and should be stopped from terrorizing sovereign nations.
 
2012-02-21 09:28:43 AM  

GAT_00: Tatsuma: There is a difference between pre-emptive strikes, who can be justified and just, versus just outright attacking a country, subby.

So how are we going to play this? Japan in 1941 just? Germany? Or is the rule more simple: Israel good, everyone else bad.


EX-ACTLY!
 
2012-02-21 09:28:48 AM  
Well we only did it to defend ourselves from a near third world country on the other side of the planet that couldn't project power past its own borders. We could have died had we done nothing!

I mean, these Iranians simply can't claim they need to defend themselves. They're acting like they're surrounded by a hostile force and have been hit by terrorist proxies recently or something.
 
2012-02-21 09:28:58 AM  
WTF Indeed

Tatsuma: There is a difference between pre-emptive strikes, who can be justified and just, versus just outright attacking a country, subby.

If Iran is such an imminent threat to Israel then invade already. No one is stopping you. In fact the only thing holding Israel back is logic. Iran doesn't have nuclear weapon capabilities, and if it did it's not a suicidal actor. Any nuclear weapon used in a terrorist attack that's tied to Iran would cause the end of the dictatorship there. Every action Israel claims Iran will do the minute it gains nuclear weapons ends in the total destruction of the Iranian state. You can't enjoy being a dictator if you're dead.


Invade them? No one is going to invade Iran......blast them to kingdom come? Well, yes, that is a valid option.
 
2012-02-21 09:29:31 AM  

GAT_00: Tatsuma: There is a difference between pre-emptive strikes, who can be justified and just, versus just outright attacking a country, subby.

So how are we going to play this? Japan in 1941 just? Germany? Or is the rule more simple: Israel good, everyone else bad.


Egypt in 1967
 
2012-02-21 09:30:01 AM  
Subby went full retard.
 
2012-02-21 09:30:15 AM  

GAT_00: Tatsuma: There is a difference between pre-emptive strikes, who can be justified and just, versus just outright attacking a country, subby.

So how are we going to play this? Japan in 1941 just? Germany? Or is the rule more simple: Israel good, everyone else bad.


ANTI-SEMITE!
 
2012-02-21 09:30:59 AM  
Completely expected headline from an MSNBC reader. Nothing to see here, moving on.
 
2012-02-21 09:31:28 AM  
the deputy head of the Islamic Republic's armed forces was quoted by a semi-official news agency as saying Tuesday.

"Our strategy now is that if we feel our enemies want to endanger Iran's national interests, and want to decide to do that, we will act without waiting for their actions,'' Mohammad Hejazi


Provided that is an accurate statement it is a stupid thing to say. It seems like this is all heading down the you can't stop it like Iraq route. But I don't see the US getting involved before the election that's for sure. So all you chicken hawks will have to wait atleast a little longer.
 
2012-02-21 09:31:38 AM  

Tatsuma: There is a difference between pre-emptive strikes, who can be justified and just, versus just outright attacking a country, subby.


Well, Israel has nukes, and isn't part of the NNPT, so it represents a clear and present danger to Iran.
 
2012-02-21 09:32:13 AM  
My fake coughs didn't make it into my posts but yeah, Israel attacking Egypt in '67 counts as a cowardly attack.
 
2012-02-21 09:32:28 AM  

Tatsuma: There is a difference between pre-emptive strikes, who can be justified and just, versus just outright attacking a country, subby.


justification is in the eye of the beholder
 
2012-02-21 09:33:27 AM  
Dear subby,


30.media.tumblr.com


Sincerely,

People who can think in shades of grey and not just black and white.
 
2012-02-21 09:33:39 AM  
I don't know about the rest of you, but I love that Tatsuma runs in to these threads and bangs the drum of war safe in the knowledge that the US is still up for fronting the majority of men and money for such a war.
 
2012-02-21 09:35:07 AM  

JeffDudeLebowski: My fake coughs didn't make it into my posts but yeah, Israel attacking Egypt in '67 counts as a cowardly attack.


how? closing an international body of water to a foreign nation has always been seen as an act of war
 
2012-02-21 09:36:05 AM  
If the Israeli welfare queens want to start wars with their neighbors, it shouldn't be on the US dime. Cut them off at the knees.
 
2012-02-21 09:36:18 AM  

karnal: WTF Indeed

Tatsuma: There is a difference between pre-emptive strikes, who can be justified and just, versus just outright attacking a country, subby.

If Iran is such an imminent threat to Israel then invade already. No one is stopping you. In fact the only thing holding Israel back is logic. Iran doesn't have nuclear weapon capabilities, and if it did it's not a suicidal actor. Any nuclear weapon used in a terrorist attack that's tied to Iran would cause the end of the dictatorship there. Every action Israel claims Iran will do the minute it gains nuclear weapons ends in the total destruction of the Iranian state. You can't enjoy being a dictator if you're dead.

Invade them? No one is going to invade Iran......blast them to kingdom come? Well, yes, that is a valid option.


Then that's pretty stupid, since I think a full out invasion/occupation is the only thing that's going to *prevent* them from getting nukes. An airstrike is only going to push them back a bit (assuming it magically manages to hit every. Single. Refinement site.), and at the same time make them *more determined* to get them. Hell, it might even push Russia and China to helping out more overtly than they already are.
 
2012-02-21 09:36:44 AM  

bulldg4life: I don't know about the rest of you, but I love that Tatsuma runs in to these threads and bangs the drum of war safe in the knowledge that the US is still up for fronting the majority of men and money for such a war.


He's a coward. He's been claiming for years he wants to join the IDF but never has.
 
2012-02-21 09:37:29 AM  

Descartes: Dear subby,


[30.media.tumblr.com image 363x310]


Sincerely,

People who can think in shades of grey and not just black and white.


Even in shades of grey, the U.S. comes off as a asshat for the invasion of Iraq which presented less of a threat than Iran does now.
 
2012-02-21 09:37:30 AM  
Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.......... NO !
 
2012-02-21 09:38:13 AM  

Tatsuma: There is a difference between pre-emptive strikes, who can be justified and just, versus just outright attacking a country, subby.



I've always been on the side of Israel, but considering how long Israel and the US have discussed attacking Iran I would say a pre-emptive strike on their side is justified if not foolhardy.
 
2012-02-21 09:43:07 AM  

WTF Indeed: I shall let Mr. Zakaria spell it out better. (new window)



Yeah, I saw that the other day. Summing up the logic:

1. Drinking lime descaler is exactly like drinking lemon juice, because they're both acidic.
2. Last time Frank drank lemon juice it was pretty unpleasant, but he didn't die.
3. Therefore, it's safe for Bob to drink lime descaler.

I've read some pretty insightful stuff from Fareed Zakaria before, but for an expert in world affairs -- as well as for CNN -- this is op-ed was an absolute embarrassment.
 
2012-02-21 09:44:45 AM  

Tatsuma: There is a difference between pre-emptive strikes, who can be justified and just, versus just outright attacking a country, subby.


This looks like a clearly justifiable act. If two nuclear armed nations are fixing to attack you, you don't wait for their bombs to start killing your people.
 
2012-02-21 09:45:03 AM  

i feel bad posting about what is going on, because the usual suspects are bleating away about israel and it might distract from their agenda, but still:

Lock down on internet sites in Iran

February 21 2012 at 04:00pm
By Reuters

Comment on this story
iol scitech jan 19 google iran pic afp

AFP

Iranians faced a second and more extensive disruption of Internet access, just a week after email and social networking sites were blocked.

Tehran - Iranians faced a second and more extensive disruption of Internet access on Monday, just a week after email and social networking sites were blocked, raising concerns about state censorship ahead of parliamentary elections.

The latest Internet blockade affected the most common form of secure connections, including all encrypted international websites outside of Iran that depend on the Secure Sockets Layer protocol, which display addresses beginning with "https".

"Email, proxies and all the secure channels that start with 'https' are not available," said a Tehran-based technology expert who declined to be identified.

"The situation regarding accessing these websites is even worse than last week because the VPNs are not working."

Many Iranians use virtual private network, or VPN, software to get around the extensive government Internet filter which aims to prevent access to a wide range of websites including many foreign news sites and social networks like Facebook.

Last week, millions of Iranians suffered serious disruption in accessing email and social networking sites amid concerns the government is extending its surveillance on ordinary citizens.

Iranians have grappled with increased obstacles to using the Internet since opposition supporters used social networking to organise protests after the disputed 2009 re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The government denied any fraud in the vote which ignited large-scale street protests that were crushed by security services after eight months.

Iran is preparing to hold parliamentary elections on March 2, the first national election since 2009. - Reuters
 
2012-02-21 09:45:42 AM  
Felgraf

karnal: WTF Indeed

Tatsuma: There is a difference between pre-emptive strikes, who can be justified and just, versus just outright attacking a country, subby.

If Iran is such an imminent threat to Israel then invade already. No one is stopping you. In fact the only thing holding Israel back is logic. Iran doesn't have nuclear weapon capabilities, and if it did it's not a suicidal actor. Any nuclear weapon used in a terrorist attack that's tied to Iran would cause the end of the dictatorship there. Every action Israel claims Iran will do the minute it gains nuclear weapons ends in the total destruction of the Iranian state. You can't enjoy being a dictator if you're dead.

Invade them? No one is going to invade Iran......blast them to kingdom come? Well, yes, that is a valid option.

Then that's pretty stupid, since I think a full out invasion/occupation is the only thing that's going to *prevent* them from getting nukes. An airstrike is only going to push them back a bit (assuming it magically manages to hit every. Single. Refinement site.), and at the same time make them *more determined* to get them. Hell, it might even push Russia and China to helping out more overtly than they already are.



The answer is obvious - Iran's nuclear program can be crippled by hitting targets other than the country's nuclear sites....some sites known to be deep
underground, with some reportedly positioned near civilian zones.
 
2012-02-21 09:45:48 AM  
Iran and Israel are too valuable to each other as boogey men. Nothing of consequence will happen.
 
2012-02-21 09:49:16 AM  
Dear Iran:

Would you like to launch a "preemptive strike"? Simple: Offer Iranian oil contracts at oh, say $30-$40 per barrel to anyone that wants to buy.

The affects on the oil market would be interesting, to say the least. We'll see how long international "support" for Israel's little game holds up when you're offering crude for 1/3 the price of everyone else..

Let the free market decide.
 
2012-02-21 09:51:58 AM  

21-7-b: i feel bad posting about what is going on, because the usual suspects are bleating away about israel and it might distract from their agenda, but still:


this actually illustrates a bigger problem, this is not Iraq in 1981. If someone does bomb Iran is will set back the Green Revolution. The Iranian government is on the clock and they know it. If they have nukes no one is going to stop them from killing their own people but, if we bomb them the government will be bolstered. I think the better option is keep going with things like Stuxnet and sanctions to slow them down while supporting the democratic movement in the country. Cool the rhetoric and keep up pressure on the IRNG bank accounts and front operations.
As long as Iran doesn't try a replay of Argentina 94' I see no reason to go with the military option.
 
2012-02-21 09:52:19 AM  
Looks like Israel is going to have to do this on its own, which apparently it is too scared to do. This is an election year and Obama is in no hurry to flush his chances down the toilet by invading yet another country just to make the Israelies feel superior. Must piss them off that Obama refuses to be their slave (yea I went there!).

Fix it your damn self.
 
2012-02-21 09:54:07 AM  

shpritz: Iran and Israel are too valuable to each other as boogey men. Nothing of consequence will happen.


Pretty much this ^^^

also
saying it again.

As much as I dislike Iran, they are a sovereign nation.
A shiatty theocracy to boot, but a Sovereign nation.

They are also living in a nuclear neighborhood. Just about everyone around them has nukes. China, Russian, Pakistan, India, Israel.
More importantly if you have nukes you don't get your Sh*t invaded by the US.
M.A.D. is a valid defense policy. We used it for a good number of years, and to a point still do.

I think Iran should be free to develop a nuclear program, for weapons and power. (I think Thorium power plants are the real future btw, and you can't weaponize them). However Iran needs to understand, that should it ever use a nuclear weapon on its neighbors, specifically a neighbor who happens to be a friend of ours, even a friend of convenience, would mean that its sh*t is about to be blasted back in to the stone age, and I mean more then just its religious practices.

Realistically it is impossible to keep 50+ year old technology out of a nations hands that really wants it.
 
2012-02-21 09:55:50 AM  

Tatsuma: There is a difference between pre-emptive strikes, who can be justified and just, versus just outright attacking a country, subby.


And there's a difference between taking care of your own business and tricking your latest host into doing your dirty work.
 
2012-02-21 09:56:02 AM  
t1.gstatic.com
 
2012-02-21 09:56:02 AM  
The day when, as the "good guy", you would wait for them to throw the first punch are over.
 
2012-02-21 09:58:14 AM  
zedster

this actually illustrates a bigger problem, this is not Iraq in 1981. If someone does bomb Iran is will set back the Green Revolution. The Iranian government is on the clock and they know it. If they have nukes no one is going to stop them from killing their own people but, if we bomb them the government will be bolstered. I think the better option is keep going with things like Stuxnet and sanctions to slow them down while supporting the democratic movement in the country. Cool the rhetoric and keep up pressure on the IRNG bank accounts and front operations.
As long as Iran doesn't try a replay of Argentina 94' I see no reason to go with the military option.


agree 100%. our role is supportive
 
2012-02-21 09:59:16 AM  
None the less....

Iran gets irate that several nations want to slow their nuclear program.

It's been brought up before....

Iran was the frist country in the region to bomb a neighboring countries Nuclear Facilities. Yet they get all pissy that someone wants to bomb theirs. Too funny.

"It was also the first instance of a preventive attack on a nuclear reactor which aimed to forestall the development of a nuclear weapon... "

Iran's hypocrisy.
 
2012-02-21 10:03:51 AM  

Party Boy: JTA

J Street has a dependable cadre of 40-50 members of the U.S. House of Representatives ready to heed its voting recommendations. Congressional insiders say J Street's green light in December for Iran sanctions nudged the bill from the super majority that traditional lobbying by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee usually turns out to officially "overwhelming": 412-12. That sent the Obama administration a clear message to hurry it on up, the insiders say.



Wait, I was told that it is the Arab nations that are pushing for war with Iran!
 
2012-02-21 10:09:04 AM  
Missing from this discussion is that Iran threatens people all the time, and never follows through. Israel has something like 100 nukes, and the top-of-line missile defense available today. You think Iran wants a piece of that?
 
2012-02-21 10:11:07 AM  

Party Boy: The powerful pro-Israel lobby and a leading Jewish advocacy group on Wednesday endorsed tough sanctions on Iran's Central Bank as Congress wrestles with an Obama administration plea to ease the impact of the penalties to avoid driving up oil prices.
...
Congressional insiders say J Street's green light in December for Iran sanctions nudged the bill from the super majority that traditional lobbying by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee usually turns out to officially "overwhelming": 412-12. That sent the Obama administration a clear message to hurry it on up, the insiders say.
...
Last week, the Senate voted 100-0 for an amendment by Sens. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and Bob Menendez, D-N.J., to add the sanctions to a broad defense bill.


I have a hard time taking seriously someone who claims the Jews run the world. The impression from your post would be that they not only control a majority of Congress, they control just about all of it (100-0, 412-12, etc.). Part of my problem is that "the Jews control everything" is not exactly a new theory, and not one backed up by historical evidence.

I suppose it's completely impossible for the various Senators and Representatives to have believed they were good bills, instead of being influenced by the shadowy Jewish cabal?
 
2012-02-21 10:13:32 AM  

orclover: Looks like Israel is going to have to do this on its own, which apparently it is too scared to do.


When Israel bombed Osirak, it was a surprise to everyone. When it bombed the Syrian facility a few years ago, it was also a surprise to everyone.

When Israeli politicians want to win elections despite doing piss-poor jobs, they talk about how they are the only ones that can deal with the "existential threat" that is Iran. The IDF, the Mossad and the Shin Bet are all against bombing Iran. Iran isn´t getting bombed.
 
2012-02-21 10:14:01 AM  

zedster: If someone does bomb Iran is will set back the Green Revolution.


It will?

More seriously, "Green Revolution" is a catchphrase romanticizing a movement that the western world would like to still see happening in Iran, but that actually got snuffed out two years ago. In general bombing anything sets things back a bit, yes, but it's disingenuous to suggest that there's something extra magical going on in Iran and we shouldn't look at them wrong lest we stop their populist march toward becoming a free and democratic society.
 
2012-02-21 10:14:35 AM  

netcentric: None the less....

Iran gets irate that several nations want to slow their nuclear program.

It's been brought up before....

Iran was the frist country in the region to bomb a neighboring countries Nuclear Facilities. Yet they get all pissy that someone wants to bomb theirs. Too funny.

"It was also the first instance of a preventive attack on a nuclear reactor which aimed to forestall the development of a nuclear weapon... "

Iran's hypocrisy.


This is pretty stupid. War doesn't operate on the "do unto others" rule. You bomb them to gain an advantage, but you don't turn around and say "Well ok, you can bomb me too now, lest I be accused of hypocrisy."

Not supporting Iran or anything, just had to shoot that one down.
 
2012-02-21 10:15:32 AM  

Tatsuma: There is a difference between pre-emptive strikes, who can be justified and just, versus just outright attacking a country, subby.


And what might that difference be? Iran is being attacked so I guess you could say they were justified in doing any pre-emptive attack. We weren't when we hit Iraq. Frankly, we don't need to be getting involved. If Israel wants to fight, let them... alone.
 
2012-02-21 10:19:49 AM  

shpritz: Iran and Israel are too valuable to each other as boogey men. Nothing of consequence will happen.


And we're done here.

Just like the USA and USSR had a tacit agreement to never let the Cold War turn hot, this is just a bunch of grandstanding and sabre rattling on both sides.

Also:
"I'm not afraid of the man country who wants ten nuclear weapons, Colonel. I'm terrified of the man who only wants one."
 
2012-02-21 10:20:33 AM  

Tatsuma: There is a difference between pre-emptive strikes, who can be justified and just, versus just outright attacking a country, subby.


Finally, we know Judith Miller's Fark handle.
 
2012-02-21 10:21:26 AM  

karnal: The answer is obvious - Iran's nuclear program can be crippled by hitting targets other than the country's nuclear sites....some sites known to be deep
underground, with some reportedly positioned near civilian zones.


That's actually not an answer. The best estimate I've heard is that a very aggressive strike that actually hit all known sites would set their program back a few years, maybe 5 at the most.

Not to mention the effect it would have on the populace, who would once again rally around their repressive government in the face of a common outside threat.

So yeah, unless you want to be in perpetual war with Iran, bombing them every few years without any guarantee of efficacy, there isn't really a REAL military option to stop them from getting nukes short of all-out invasion.

Like someone was saying upthread, there aren't really any options at all to totally stop a sovereign nation from developing weapons using 50+ year old technology if they want to.
 
Displayed 50 of 174 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report