Iran
- Thread starter afups
- Start date
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
Guess what? You could put up the same sign with an Islamic Crescent in this country...no difference. We tolerate Islam about as well as they tolerate Christians. A perfect illustration of the idiocy of religion(s) is their intolerance of each other.
"Western commentary has made much of how the Arab dictators allegedly support the U.S. position on Iran, while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the population opposes it – a stance too revealing to require comment.
Concerns about Israel’s nuclear arsenal have long been expressed by some observers in the United States as well. Gen. Lee Butler, former head of the U.S. Strategic Command, described Israel’s nuclear weapons as “dangerous in the extreme.” In a U.S. Army journal, Lt. Col. Warner Farr wrote that one “purpose of Israeli nuclear weapons, not often stated, but obvious, is their ‘use’ on the United States” – presumably to ensure consistent U.S. support for Israeli policies."
Concerns about Israel’s nuclear arsenal have long been expressed by some observers in the United States as well. Gen. Lee Butler, former head of the U.S. Strategic Command, described Israel’s nuclear weapons as “dangerous in the extreme.” In a U.S. Army journal, Lt. Col. Warner Farr wrote that one “purpose of Israeli nuclear weapons, not often stated, but obvious, is their ‘use’ on the United States” – presumably to ensure consistent U.S. support for Israeli policies."
"AIPAC does not drive Middle Eastern policy in the United States. I am afraid it is worse than that. AIPAC is one of an array of powerful and well-funded neoconservative institutions that worship force and drive our relations with the rest of the world. These neoconservatives choose an enemy and then our compliant class of journalists, specialists, military analysts, columnists and television commentators line up to serve as giddy cheerleaders for war. Moments like these always make me embarrassed to be a reporter. Our political elite, Republican and Democrat, finds in this ideology a simple, childish allure. This ideology does not require cultural, historical or linguistic literacy. It reduces the world to black and white, good and evil. The drumbeat for war with Iran sounded by AIPAC is part of this broad, sick, binary vision of a world that can be subjugated by force, a world where all will be made to kneel before these corporate and neoconservative elites, where none, including finally us, will be permitted to whisper dissent. "
FOCUS | AIPAC Works for the 1 Percent
FOCUS | AIPAC Works for the 1 Percent
The Washington Monthly - The Magazine - We Can Live with a Nuclear Iran
The trouble with this image of Iran is that it does not reflect actual Iranian behavior. More than three decades of history demonstrate that the Islamic Republic's rulers, like most rulers elsewhere, are overwhelmingly concerned with preserving their regime and their power-in this life, not some future one. They are no more likely to let theological imperatives lead them into self-destructive behavior than other leaders whose religious faiths envision an afterlife. Iranian rulers may have a history of valorizing martyrdom-as they did when sending young militiamen to their deaths in near-hopeless attacks during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s-but they have never given any indication of wanting to become martyrs themselves. In fact, the Islamic Republic's conduct beyond its borders has been characterized by caution. Even the most seemingly ruthless Iranian behavior has been motivated by specific, immediate concerns of regime survival. The government assassinated exiled Iranian dissidents in Europe in the 1980s and '90s, for example, because it saw them as a counterrevolutionary threat. The assassinations ended when they started inflicting too much damage on Iran's relations with European governments. Iran's rulers are constantly balancing a very worldly set of strategic interests. The principles of deterrence are not invalid just because the party to be deterred wears a turban and a beard.
If the stereotyped image of Iranian leaders had real basis in fact, we would see more aggressive and brash Iranian behavior in the Middle East than we have. Some have pointed to the Iranian willingness to incur heavy losses in continuing the Iran-Iraq War. But that was a response to Saddam Hussein's invasion of the Iranian homeland, not some bellicose venture beyond Iran's borders. And even that war ended with Ayatollah Khomeini deciding that the "poison" of agreeing to a cease-fire was better than the alternative. (He even described the cease- fire as "God's will"-so much for the notion that the Iranians' God always pushes them toward violence and martyrdom.)
The trouble with this image of Iran is that it does not reflect actual Iranian behavior. More than three decades of history demonstrate that the Islamic Republic's rulers, like most rulers elsewhere, are overwhelmingly concerned with preserving their regime and their power-in this life, not some future one. They are no more likely to let theological imperatives lead them into self-destructive behavior than other leaders whose religious faiths envision an afterlife. Iranian rulers may have a history of valorizing martyrdom-as they did when sending young militiamen to their deaths in near-hopeless attacks during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s-but they have never given any indication of wanting to become martyrs themselves. In fact, the Islamic Republic's conduct beyond its borders has been characterized by caution. Even the most seemingly ruthless Iranian behavior has been motivated by specific, immediate concerns of regime survival. The government assassinated exiled Iranian dissidents in Europe in the 1980s and '90s, for example, because it saw them as a counterrevolutionary threat. The assassinations ended when they started inflicting too much damage on Iran's relations with European governments. Iran's rulers are constantly balancing a very worldly set of strategic interests. The principles of deterrence are not invalid just because the party to be deterred wears a turban and a beard.
If the stereotyped image of Iranian leaders had real basis in fact, we would see more aggressive and brash Iranian behavior in the Middle East than we have. Some have pointed to the Iranian willingness to incur heavy losses in continuing the Iran-Iraq War. But that was a response to Saddam Hussein's invasion of the Iranian homeland, not some bellicose venture beyond Iran's borders. And even that war ended with Ayatollah Khomeini deciding that the "poison" of agreeing to a cease-fire was better than the alternative. (He even described the cease- fire as "God's will"-so much for the notion that the Iranians' God always pushes them toward violence and martyrdom.)
moreluck
golden ticket member
I just knew that Maxine & Sheila would be involved!!!
| Friday, March 9, 2012 @ 1:41 pm | [h=2]House Democrats Propose Bill Forcing Obama To Negotiate With Iran “Without Preconditions”…[/h]
| Friday, March 9, 2012 @ 1:41 pm | [h=2]House Democrats Propose Bill Forcing Obama To Negotiate With Iran “Without Preconditions”…[/h]
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Just_another_day_at_work
Well-Known Member
The west's colonies approve an attack on Iran:
Prosor: Arab Countries Support an Attack on Iran - Middle East - News - Israel National News
Prosor: Arab Countries Support an Attack on Iran - Middle East - News - Israel National News
klein
Für Meno :)
I guess that means, Israel has the flying airpace it needs. (only a matter of time now, if the above report is correct).
wkmac
Well-Known Member
$30k per household. Put that in the family budget and then tell me again about the need for following lunatics into another war!
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Iran is not enough of a threat to the United States to justify any sort of a pre-emptive attack.
Iran is enough of a threat to Israel for Israel to justify a pre-emptive attack.
The question is what level of involvement...if any...should the United States have in an Israeli strike on Iran.
We have long-range bombers, stealth aircraft, and bunker-buster bombs that can destroy hardened underground targets. We also have aircraft carriers and access to air bases in Iraq and Saudi Arabia from which to launch strikes.
Israel has none of these things. They will have to overfly hostile airspace with aircraft that are incapable of getting to Iran and back without refueling. They have no bunker buster bombs, so the only way for them to decisively destroy the underground Iranian nuclear facilities is to use low-yield tactical nuclear warheads of their own. Israel is believed to possess between 200 and 300 such weapons, based upon estimates of the plutonium output of their Dimona reactor.
My personal opinion is that the "least worst" option would be for us to sell or loan Israel the weaponry it needs to do the job itself with conventional weapons and without our involvement. I would also like to see the Arab nations that are so strongly advocating a strike on Iran to put up or shut up and be willing to (a) commit their own forces to the attack and/or (b) swallow their hate and agree to permit Israeli overflights of their airspace and/or access to airbases from which to refuel during such an attack. The Arabs are secretly rooting for an Israeli attack anyway, they need to quit chering and start contributing.
Iran is enough of a threat to Israel for Israel to justify a pre-emptive attack.
The question is what level of involvement...if any...should the United States have in an Israeli strike on Iran.
We have long-range bombers, stealth aircraft, and bunker-buster bombs that can destroy hardened underground targets. We also have aircraft carriers and access to air bases in Iraq and Saudi Arabia from which to launch strikes.
Israel has none of these things. They will have to overfly hostile airspace with aircraft that are incapable of getting to Iran and back without refueling. They have no bunker buster bombs, so the only way for them to decisively destroy the underground Iranian nuclear facilities is to use low-yield tactical nuclear warheads of their own. Israel is believed to possess between 200 and 300 such weapons, based upon estimates of the plutonium output of their Dimona reactor.
My personal opinion is that the "least worst" option would be for us to sell or loan Israel the weaponry it needs to do the job itself with conventional weapons and without our involvement. I would also like to see the Arab nations that are so strongly advocating a strike on Iran to put up or shut up and be willing to (a) commit their own forces to the attack and/or (b) swallow their hate and agree to permit Israeli overflights of their airspace and/or access to airbases from which to refuel during such an attack. The Arabs are secretly rooting for an Israeli attack anyway, they need to quit chering and start contributing.
moreluck
golden ticket member
Sunday, March 11, 2012 @ 12:54 pm | [h=2]Ahmadinejad Taunts West: “We Don’t Give a Damn About Your Bombs”…[/h]
BrownMeetPurple
Well-Known Member
Majority of the world does not give a damn about Israel the terrorist state. Certainly they don't share your lust for war. Go join the IDF cowards!
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Upon what basis do you say that I have a "lust for war"? In the very first sentence of my post I stated that Iran was NOT enough of a threat to us to justify a preemptive attack. I was merely pointing out that we may soon find ourselves in a position where the only way we can prevent a nuclear exchange is to supply conventional weapons and or logistical support to Israel and/or the Arab nations who are equally concerned about a nuclear-armed Iran.
Similar threads
