thurstonxhowell: netcentric: Kind of ironic huh? They attacked their neighbors nuclear program (specifically to slow down the program they suspected was making a bomb).

But they don't want anyone attacking their program.....

That's actually the complete opposite of ironic.

America sent troops to Iraq, but, for some reason, we get all touchy when other nations suggest doing the same to us. How ironic, amirite?

We would get touchy, and it would be ironic. When America intervenes militaritly in other countries, we have to accept that someone may want to retaliate. We prepare for it.

....as does Iran.

Because they cannot stand before anyone and say "hey, we've never attacked a neighbors nuclear program" They have.....

netcentric: threadjackistan: netcentric: fireclown: netcentric: Iran was the first country to attack Iraqs nuclear program. First chance they got. Two F-4 Phantoms.......

There was a war on, ya know.


Yep, but none the less . The first opportunity Iran got, they took.
And it was really the first time that a preventive attack on a nuclear site (which aimed to forestall the development of a nuclear weapon). It did not achieve its objective beause France later repaired the reactor for Iraq).

So Iran griping is very ironic.

Wouldn't that also make any Israeli complaints about the killing of civilians very ironic?

I honestly don't know what your coment means. ?

Iran was the first nation to attack a neighbors nuclear program (Iraq's).

Maybe you have to elaborate, but how does that correlate to killing civilians?.

Are you making the assertion that Israel was the first nation to ever kill a civilian? We better GOOGLE that. Because world history would probably say differently....

Hah! That's your assertion? That Iran was the first country to attack a neighbor's nuclear program with the interest of slowing or stopping their development of nuclear weapons? For someone who suggests that other open history books, you obviously dont open very many.

/Operation Gunnerside

So....should I keep my passport handy ?

So net score here for those of you following along at home. Obama and the democrats: postponing the initiation of conflict until after an election via arms-trade bribery in 2012. Reagan and the GOP: postponing the resolution of a conflict until after an election via arms-trade bribery in 1978.

cman: GAT_00: omnibus_necanda_sunt: [img571.imageshack.us image 400x600][img36.imageshack.us image 400x600]

Holy shiat I'm in a card.

I'm jealous

I'm amazed. Also, my Internet ego has become gigantic suddenly.

The very best thing that could possibly happy to the US is for Israel and Iran to wipe each other off the face of the earth. Even if that meant the loss of the hot Persian and IDF chicks. They are immortalized on the internet anyway.

I Said: Wow. So one country was planning to attack another, and the US offered the first country some items in order to prevent the attack? You mean, like, negotiations instead of war? Like, diplomacy? Wow.

just curious if you had the same lax ambivalent attitude when W did similar shiat?

or was it a war crime then, but just diplomacy now?

This leak is from the Israeli side. The discussion probably went something like this:

Obama: sure the future of Israel is important, but I have an election to win.
Bibi: Can you guarantee the safety of Israel? Where will you be when Iran tries to nuke Tel Aviv?
Obama: we'll clean up the mess
Bibi: go fark yourself
Obama: get in line

WTF Indeed: Tatsuma: And I think that you are really misreading your average American.

The average American cares about finding a job, keeping a roof over their head, and how the bills will get paid. If anyone is misreading the average American it's Bibi. He is assuming that every American is pro-Israel because those the government talk a strong game because they fund their campaigns.

Outside of the Jewish community in America there are three groups of Americans that Israel has to deal with. The 10% that are Klan and think all Jews should die, the 10% that a hippie liberals who think Israel is owed a beating because of their treatment of Palestinians, and the 80% that have no strong feel about Israel either way.

I propose the following numbers:

2% Klan
20% "Hippie liberals" that think Israel's aggro policies have made the world a more dangerous place for everyone, especially themselves.
10% Jewish Lobby
~68% Wants Israel the fark off their lawn, and to "keep it down over there".

threadjackistan: /Operation Gunnerside

Yea, I know about WWII attacks on German Heavy water production. No reactor capable of a bomb was even existance. I think you tried to assert (or another poster) the last time bombing Iran was discussed. Apples, oranges.

That is not the same as attacking a working nuclear reactor. Especially in more contemporary times.....and specific to the region. And specific to the origional post.

Iran attacked their neighbors nuclear program (and reactor building). They were not very good at air attacks. The bombs did little damage. The French repaired it.

Now Iran is pissy because someone wants to bomb theirs. (?) The comment still stands.

They are more than pissy, they are worried. Because they know that those who want for forestall their program to build a bomb, are very good at bombing tactics. Very, very good.

NYPost citing an Israeli tabloid citing unnamed sources?

I'm convinced.

So the US is going to give Israel bombs and such, which the Israelis would like to use to bomb Iran, but the US is saying that they can't use them to bomb Iran. So why would Israel want that stuff? It'd be like if I bought a bunch of condoms and took my son to a hooker but told him he couldn't use bang the hooker.

FTFA: Under the proposed deal, Israel would not attack Iran until 2013, after US elections in November this year.

I gotta admit, I didn't think it would end this way.

Dinki: Only the most radical paranoid people think that Iran having a nuke is a threat to Israel. They fail to understand that for all its religious bloviating, Iran is a rational actor and knows that any nuke attack on Israel would result in utter devastation of Irans major cities. They will never drop a nuke, unless Israel did it first.

Yep, the country that has been vowing to wipe you off the face of the earth for decades shouldn't be taken seriously at all. Iran is rational? Hahahahahahahahaha no.

cman: Dinki: Only the most radical paranoid people think that Iran having a nuke is a threat to Israel. They fail to understand that for all its religious bloviating, Iran is a rational actor and knows that any nuke attack on Israel would result in utter devastation of Irans major cities. They will never drop a nuke, unless Israel did it first.

When certain people feel that it is rational to commit suicide for the glory of god, normal rationality is thrown out the window

The Israelis don't generally CALL it committing suicide. They call it compulsory military service. Common mistake.

Is this how the Right excuses the hardline Israeli position for not actually doing anything after having been called out on all their bluster? Someone says "if you don't like what we're doing, suggest additional non-war activities or make your case for war" and their explanation for the lack of meaningful response is to circulate rumors that Obama bought them off?

Do they even realize what that implies about Israel if it *were* true? Because you don't accept a pay-off if you *seriously believe* you're facing an existential threat. You don't agree to not bomb someone for another year if you *seriously believe* they're going to have a nuclear weapon any day now. It makes Israel look no different than N Korea: shaking their sabre to get a hand-out.

And they think this rumor makes *Obama* look the villain...

Dinki: Only the most radical paranoid people think that Iran having a nuke is a threat to Israel....

Like Obama and several other countrie's leaders?

9beers: Dinki: Only the most radical paranoid people think that Iran having a nuke is a threat to Israel. They fail to understand that for all its religious bloviating, Iran is a rational actor and knows that any nuke attack on Israel would result in utter devastation of Irans major cities. They will never drop a nuke, unless Israel did it first.

Yep, the country that has been vowing to wipe you off the face of the earth for decades shouldn't be taken seriously at all. Iran is rational? Hahahahahahahahaha no.

Yeah, they've been vowing to wipe Israel off the face for decades just like they've been five years from getting a nuclear weapon for decades.

cameroncrazy1984: Yeah, they've been vowing to wipe Israel off the face for decades just like they've been five years from getting a nuclear weapon for decades.

Well then I guess we should ignore their continued work on enrichment and continued blocking of inspections, right?

Aqua Vishnu: Honestly what do we get from backing Israel? They are more of a liability to the US than anything. They don't produce anything we can use that we can't get elsewhere, they don't provide us with political stability in the region and they are in the process of systemically eliminating the Palestinians.

Peace for the Suez Canal zone.

9beers: cameroncrazy1984: Yeah, they've been vowing to wipe Israel off the face for decades just like they've been five years from getting a nuclear weapon for decades.

Well then I guess we should ignore their continued work on enrichment and continued blocking of inspections, right?

Who said anything about ignoring?

cameroncrazy1984: cman: Dinki: Only the most radical paranoid people think that Iran having a nuke is a threat to Israel. They fail to understand that for all its religious bloviating, Iran is a rational actor and knows that any nuke attack on Israel would result in utter devastation of Irans major cities. They will never drop a nuke, unless Israel did it first.

When certain people feel that it is rational to commit suicide for the glory of god, normal rationality is thrown out the window

The Israelis don't generally CALL it committing suicide. They call it compulsory military service. Common mistake.

Pretty sure he was talking about suicide bombers there. While Israel does many horrible things, suicide bombers aren't one of them. They don't need them.

cman: Dinki: Only the most radical paranoid people think that Iran having a nuke is a threat to Israel. They fail to understand that for all its religious bloviating, Iran is a rational actor and knows that any nuke attack on Israel would result in utter devastation of Irans major cities. They will never drop a nuke, unless Israel did it first.

When certain people feel that it is rational to commit suicide for the glory of god, normal rationality is thrown out the window

So...the terrorists have won. Got it.

9beers: "Yep, the country that has been vowing to wipe you off the face of the earth for decades shouldn't be taken seriously at all."

Are you talking about the country that has been agitating since at least the early 1980s for a pre-emptive war against Iran over a nuclear weapons program that all intelligence agencies agree they *still haven't even started*? Because, I agree with you: that sounds like a dead-serious war-mongering bunch of assholes whose collective sanity we should be pretty goddammed concerned about. And even if we felt they *were* bluffing or blustering, they should probably be kept well the fark away from having control over nuclear weapons, just in case.

netcentric: threadjackistan: /Operation Gunnerside

Yea, I know about WWII attacks on German Heavy water production. No reactor capable of a bomb was even existance. I think you tried to assert (or another poster) the last time bombing Iran was discussed. Apples, oranges.

That is not the same as attacking a working nuclear reactor. Especially in more contemporary times.....and specific to the region. And specific to the origional post.

Iran attacked their neighbors nuclear program (and reactor building). They were not very good at air attacks. The bombs did little damage. The French repaired it.

Now Iran is pissy because someone wants to bomb theirs. (?) The comment still stands.

They are more than pissy, they are worried. Because they know that those who want for forestall their program to build a bomb, are very good at bombing tactics. Very, very good.

But you didnt say anything about a reactor, you just said: And it was really the first time that a preventive attack on a nuclear site (which aimed to forestall the development of a nuclear weapon). Which describes Gunnerside.

You do realize that Iran and Iraq were in a shooting war, right? Millions of dead on both sides, chemical weapons being used regularly, ballistic missiles raining down on cities? And don't plagarise Wikipedia, it makes me feel stupid for arguing with you.

netcentric:
And it was really the first time that a preventive attack on a nuclear site (which aimed to forestall the development of a nuclear weapon). It did not achieve its objective beause France later repaired the reactor for Iraq).

wikipedia:
It was also the first instance of a preventive attack on a nuclear reactor which aimed to forestall the development of a nuclear weapon, though it did not achieve its objective as France later repaired the reactor.

Dinki: cman: When certain people feel that it is rational to commit suicide for the glory of god, normal rationality is thrown out the window

9beers: Yep, the country that has been vowing to wipe you off the face of the earth for decades shouldn't be taken seriously at all. Iran is rational? Hahahahahahahahaha no.



Because we all know the leaders of Iran would willing destroy their entire country, just as long as they could take Israel with them. Because we all know they are insane and suicidal. Every one of them, right?

They are SO suicidal, in fact, that they have yet to actually get close to any sort of weapons-grade uranium, or any real program since the 1980s.

I don't think Israel is really cares if Obama is re-elected. If fact, I would guess they prefer he wasn't.

Bombs Away!

Hurt the election? If anything this would boost his cred with conservatives. They're the ones who cream in their jeans for Israel.

I don't know what to say in the face of these arguments, so I will just ask the question "Do you understand what you are talking about?"

Iran is not that far away from having a nuclear weapon, Iran funds and supplies terrorists, Iran continues to destabilize the region and has done so every since the revolution and Iran does not have any friends in the Middle East. An attack by Israel on Iran would not result is a massive counter attack by Iran, because Iran has no means to reach Israel for a strike. Saudi Arabia hates Iran and has already given Israel permission to fly over their airspace for an attack against Iran. Any counter attack by Iran would be a useless jester at this point and it is far more likely that they would do nothing, because they don't want to risk war with the rest of the Middle East. Iran makes these grand claims in order to gain the support of its people for the government and much like the high school bully if you punch Iran in the nose it will lose the support of its people.

Now Iran armed with a nuke would change the whole nature of the game. Iran probably would never strike anyone with the nuke, but they would use it as a tool to gain an advantage in all negotiations and it would be a deterrent for any future action against them. Iran would definitely sell nuclear weapons to terrorists once they could produce small enough devices.

Those of you saying leave Iran be are walking a dangerous road that I personally do not want to travel with you.

I can understand the love of peace, but there are some people who only understand the communication of force and Iran is one of these. You can give your message of peace and love until you are blue in the face and they are not going to change their course of action, because peace in not in their best interest.

WTF Indeed: How about this. When Israel attacks Iran, and they will, we allow a one time renouncing of your citizenship for all the teabaggers and conservatives that feel so strongly about the protection of Israel. They can go over there and fight for Israel against what will surely be a massive retaliatory strike by Iran and it's non-governmental actors.

It makes everyone happy. Israel feels safe, conservatives defend the country they really love, and America gets rid of all the morons in the country.

I give your trolling attempt a 1/10.

cman: Dinki: Only the most radical paranoid people think that Iran having a nuke is a threat to Israel. They fail to understand that for all its religious bloviating, Iran is a rational actor and knows that any nuke attack on Israel would result in utter devastation of Irans major cities. They will never drop a nuke, unless Israel did it first.

When certain people feel that it is rational to commit suicide for the glory of god, normal rationality is thrown out the window

Here's a question I've always had about suicide bombers. Many millennia from now, when machine intelligence is the norm, is it going to be seen as more or less barbaric to use a computer-guided missile than a kamikaze attacker? At least with the kamikaze, you're not asking another class of being, that cannot even form the concept of "this is wrong, screw that", to go over there and take out those humans, you're asking another human, with the capability of forming disagreement.

DNRTFA, but that doesn't sound asinine to me. If Obama cuts a weapons deal to keep Israel from trying to drag us into another disastrous futile war, at least until after the election, then I'm OK with it.

Christianity has what, 5 centuries on Islam and Judaism far longer, Islam is the new kid in town, practically a teenager in comparison to the other Abrahamic faiths.

Telling adolescents they can't have something the adults enjoy, be it cigarettes, alcohol, sex or nuclear weapons is a horrible strategy in my opinion, one bound to backfire and motivate the kids even more.

If I were Israel's leader I would have just acted all nonchalant about Iran's nuclear program -- maybe point out to the global community how pathetic it is that the once great Persian people have sunk so low that their national pride now hinges on developing 60 year old technology that even shiatholes like North Korea, Pakistan and apartheid South Africa pulled off, all while the Iranian GDP sinks to par with my local farmer's market.

And if Iran ever comes out and declares itself a nuclear-armed power, "welcome to the club, here's the MAD rulebook, ask the Japanese if you have any doubt about America's willingness to use nukes."

Half Right: Meh, John Stewart's coverage of this whole situation on Tuesday pretty much said it all--this is all posturing, but all three parties.

/If Israel does something stupid, we should not rescue them. They need to stop settling and Palestine should be recognized as a nation by all parties. It's the only thing that makes any sense.

The Palistinian Authority is such a good model of civil government. Especially with the hands off approach by Hezbulla,andI Iran. What you smoking dude?

Why "asinine," Subby? Israel made it clear that if they don't get this "advanced weaponry," they'll attack now (because their existing weapons are not good enough to penetrate the additional defenses Iran is currently building). I think Obama did the right thing (for once).

cman: "

Enjoy your free month of TF

Oh nice, thank you, sir!

thamike: xcv: If I were Israel's leader I would have just acted all nonchalant about Iran's nuclear program

Has it ever occurred to that Israel is just as dangerously untrustworthy as any other nuclear entity in the region?

I don't follow that leap...

And other nuclear-armed entities in the region? As in the presence of forces from America, the UK and France?

cman: Enjoy your free month of TF

This thread is dead now, so for some more thoughtful commentary than usual:

Honestly, I think Iran should be allowed to develop weapons. First, it's impossible to keep them from getting them. If they're really devoted to it, we won't be able to stop them, and by all accounts, they're really devoted to it. I'm not saying we should lift sanctions, but we need a dialog. Tell them they can develop them, but conditions must be made clear. They cannot, CANNOT use them as an offensive weapon, that must be made abundantly clear, they must join the NPT, though they should be allowed a few tests, that kind of thing. Nukes aren't great offensive weapons, not when your enemy has them. Israel has around 200 nukes. If Iran fires off one, Israel empties their storehouse and you don't win. What you need is balance, and that's what an Iranian nuke would give. Israel can dictate to the region, and that is simply unbalanced. They are the regional superpower, backed by the only worldwide superpower. That is incredibly unbalanced. I think the region would actually calm down if Iran had a nuke, because everyone would have to calm the fark down. There would then be an effective retaliation for extreme rhetoric and people would have to go to the table. That's better than what we have today.

We simply cannot convince Iran not to develop a nuke. They are literally surrounded by US bases and subject to a regional and worldwide superpower. Anyone in that situation would want a nuke for defense. What we need to do is accept it and force them to be on the level. That's what the sanctions are ultimately designed to do.

xcv: Oh nice, thank you, sir!

Fair warning. The site is much more fun as a TFer but it is addictive as shiat.