Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran

Email Print posted by s10129107 10/05/2008 08:56:42 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
October Surprise?

Who wants to bet that Iran will be bombed after the last debate and before the election?  Am I being way to cynical?
< Read This Story about a Kind Stranger | Obama Presses Red Button to Release K-Bombs >

Poll

Will Bombs Drop on Iran before election day?
Yes 30%
No 69%

Votes: 13
Results | Other Polls
 Display:
Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran | 19 comments (19 topical, 0 hidden)
Not gonna happen. (none / 0)
It just isn't. Israel has already asked us to bomb Iran and we gave 'em a big fat no a few months back.

Bombing Iran will only further destablize the region and the repubs all have their fingers crossed that the fragile stable situation in Iraq will hold off long enough to give McCain a change in winning (he man's only "success" is the so-called-surge).

So I highly doubt it.

y.

by chrisandyasemin on 10/05/2008 09:56:15 PM EST

Bush doesn't want to go to prison. (none / 0)

He'll do everything in his power to avoid it.  Besides, there doesn't seem to be enough support for bombing Iran in the Israeli Kenesset.  Even they seem resigned to having an Arab superpower.

by EveningStarNM on 10/05/2008 10:08:15 PM EST

I hope by Arab superpower.... (none / 0)
...you are not refering to Iran, because Iran is not an Arab nation. They are ethnically Persian (and Persian is an Indo European language).

Y

by chrisandyasemin on 10/06/2008 01:21:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes, I know (none / 0)

Unfortunately, the only words we have to refer to the entire area are "The Middle East".  It would be more accurate to refer to them as a Middle Eastern superpower -- which they are right now.  They have the strongest economy and are more influential than even Saudi Arabia.  They're even winning political friends among the Shi'ites.  It will be Iran that settles Iraq's problems because we have no credibility there (thanks again, Mr. Bush).  They're a superpower in the Arab part of the Middle East as well as in Persia (which they would be even if they were the poorest nation on earth).

Persian Gulf.  Arabian Gulf.  I dunno.  You can't even say they're all Islamic because they've got so many Jews, Christians, and Hindus living amongst them.

by EveningStarNM on 10/06/2008 11:05:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Great Potential for Iran Bombing IMO (none / 0)

As far as I am concerned, there is a significantly high risk of Israel bombing the nuclear stations in Iran for 2 reasons.

First of all, Israeli jets have already flown practice missions in and around those facilities (i.e. dry runs).

Secondly, some political analysts spoke of this earlier this year. Some have said (no not as in "some say" FOX), that Bush would like to see Iran attacked by Israel if for no other reason but to leave an even more disastrous mess for Obama's gov't to have to deal with upon taking office.

I'm sure you (US Citizens) are all more aware than I am, that IF Israel does attack Iran, that the US will have little choice but to enter into that war, simply due to its Nato/UN responsibilities.

Furthermore, knowing how the government of Israel thinks and works (take a look at Palestine/Occupation) and the lobbying on behalf of Israel in your gov't, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Bush is even "encouraging" Israel to attack Iran.

Sure, much of what I have said here is speculation based largely on my own opinions, but as mentioned, this has been a topic of conversation at least on Canadian Television.

BTW- a little Factoid - Which is the ONLY nuclear nation "not" subject to regular inspections ? You guessed right if you picked Israel. Now why is that ?

PS> I have no religious affiliations. I am humanitarian.

by SnowTiger on 10/05/2008 11:32:05 PM EST

nooo (none / 0)
If Israel attacked Iran and it was unprovoked (which would be the ONLY situation because Ahmadinejad has made it perfectly clear that he would not strike first) than we are not obligated to follow in on an unjustified war. Otherwise everyone and their brother would be trying to get us to back them in a war. That's just not how it works.

It is only if Israel is attacked that we go in to help them, otherwise they are on their own (if they decide to attack someone), which is why they won't attack without our help cause they know they can't do it alone.

Y.

by chrisandyasemin on 10/06/2008 01:19:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Unprovoked? (none / 0)

Illegally refining uranium with a goal of creating a nuclear bomb is not provocation?

If Israel chooses to take out Iran's nuclear facilities that Iran will not allow IAEA inspections in accordance with International law, that action is NOT unprovoked.

Look, there was a situation with Iraq in 2003 where the IAEA clearly stated that they believed Iraq was in compliance with International law.  Dr. ElBaradei won a Nobel prize for his unsuccessful efforts to try to stop the US invasion of Iraq.  Iraq had periodically evicted the Weapons Inspectors because Iraq said there were US inspectors who were spying on Iraq.  Guess what?  Those inspectors WERE spying on Iraq, in preparation for a US invasion.

Now, IAEA unequivocally states that they believe that Iran is engaging in illegal unranium enrichment activities.

I'm not suggesting that taking out those illegal nuclear facilities is the most appropriate action.  But if that is what ends up happening, you can hardly call it unprovoked.

by rbruck on 10/06/2008 09:21:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
coming from Israel ... (none / 0)
...such a measure would not go down well with the rest of the world since, ehem, it is no secret that Israel herself has time and time again refused to put its atomic program under the monitoring of the International Atomic Energy Agency conference of 145 nations. It wouldn't be the first act of hypocracy when starting a war, but for the sake of this thread's topic, Iran is years away from harnessing the power of nuclear energy to make a bomb so if Israel goes off on a hunch and tries to pull a Bush "we're sure they got them there WMDs;" bombs Iran and comes up short of evidence (as we have) they will have started an unjust war. The point is, they wont take such a risk without our help. And we have already told them no, so unless Israel suddenly grows a pair and wakes up suicidal one morning, they are not going to attack Iran.

Y

by chrisandyasemin on 10/06/2008 09:55:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Not Talking about Starting a War (none / 0)

In 1981, Israel used air raids to take out Iran's Osiris reactor at Tamuz.  Had they not done this, the Gulf War would have had very different results.  Israel had no intention of starting a war or effecting regime change.  They just wanted to thwart Iraq's ability to create a nuclear bomb, which they did.  There was no war.

So, please don't be alarmist and claim that taking out illegal nuclear bomb production facilities is starting a war.  It is not.

Also Israel was a founding member of the IAEA in 1957, and is a party to several Nuclear Non-proliferation treaties.  It is a foolish argument to try to equate the dangers of Israel having nuclear weapons with the dangers of Iraq having nuclear weapons.

Because of aggressive and/or unstable governments, Pakistan and North Korea nuclear capabilities are a problem.  Nuclear Iran would be an even greater threat to regional and world peace.

IAEA believes there is a serious problem in Iran.  They did not think there was a problem in Iraq in 2003 and they do not believe there is a problem in Israel.  I trust ElBaradei's opinion on this.

Would you rather wait until Israel is no longer capable of taking out Iran's nuclear bomb production facilities?  Would you rather wait until Iran has a nuclear bomb and can use it to retaliate?

I don't have the information to know whether this is the right thing to do or not.  But I trust that if Israel takes action on this, it is the right thing to do.

by rbruck on 10/06/2008 11:20:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
How to unite Russia and China in One Easy Lesson (none / 0)

...and the U.S. would defend Israel with what forces, exactly?

Yeah, I suppose we could make the Earth uninhabitable for human life.  But I'd like to avoid that, if possible.

by EveningStarNM on 10/06/2008 11:56:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No Need to Defend Israel (none / 0)

Israel taking out illegal Iranian nuclear facilities will not start a war.  Iran would have LESS reason to attack Israel than they do now.

by rbruck on 10/06/2008 01:22:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Iran will not attack Israel (none / 0)
The very initial premise is flawed:

Ahmadinejad said it in his Larry King interview, Israel is not a factor in their foreign policy agenda unless they get attacked by Israel. Ahmadinejad said they have no reason to attack Israel.

People like to quote Ahmadinejad about saying Israel is a rotting corpse and that they will get destroyed etc. Yes, Ahmadinejad calls Israel a rotting corpse (which is a terrible thing to say) but in all reality when he talk about the state's downfall he never says "we're gonna be the ones to destroy it" its always passive. So all this crap about Iran wanting to attack Israel is just that, its crap made up by McCain and friends to scare the living shit out of us. Look into it a bit more and you'll see that Iran would not be the first to attack. Period.

y

by chrisandyasemin on 10/06/2008 02:57:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
retaliate? (none / 0)
Would you rather wait until Iran has a nuclear bomb and can use it to retaliate

If we don't randomly attack other nations there would be no reason for Iran to "retaliate" anything. You can't tell me Israel is a stable country when they've been trying to provoke an American attack on Iran.

Israel is only as stable and "wise" as the current American administration is. If we are erratic and foolish so will Israel be...

So you're pulling a Palin on us too huh? We can't second guess Israel you say "I trust that if Israel takes action on this, it is the right thing to do." Very interesting.

The thing that I think is also disturbing people who would like to see Iran loose its power status in the middle east but be that they don't attack first. They like to play the "mazlum" role or the innocent. So if Israel or America is waiting for them to strike first, they will wait forever... Which is why I think the argument against them getting nukes is insane. America has nukes, and we used them, we as a nation have a history of violence. We encouraged Saddam to use his biological weapons on Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war and its OK. But when Iran, as a nation who has NOT started any major wars in the near past, wants to enrich uranium its aweful and unacceptable.

So my point come back to: retaliate what? If any Iran has a right to protect itself against other crazies who have attacked them.

So what, we should trust in Israel to take action now? That's what we are trusting? Trigger happy Israel? Of course, they would never jump the gun without justification. Palin smiles somewhere in Alaska...

Y

by chrisandyasemin on 10/06/2008 02:51:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Provoke America to Attack Iran? (none / 0)

Why would you think that?

49 countries were part of the "Coalition of the Willing" for the invasion of Iraq.  You know what country was NOT part of the Coalition of the Willing?  Israel.  Why?  Not because they had any love for Saddam.  Saddam paid the families of Suicide bombers for their service.  Israel opposed the US invasion of Iraq because they felt it would destabilize the region.  They also felt that Iraq was no longer enough of a threat to warrant the risk.

They were right.

I have no idea what basis you have for believing that Israel would support a US invasion of Iran.

If sanctions or bargaining won't keep Iran from pursuing a nuclear bomb, then the best choice is to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities.  No invasion.  No regime change.  Just gut their centrifuges.  There is no better choice.

by rbruck on 10/06/2008 03:54:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Iran Not Started Wars in the Recent Past? (none / 0)

I don't know about starting, but they certainly provoke and perpetuate them.

There is no question that Iran was screwed up by their introduction into capitalism complements of the US-backed Shah.

But Iran has a long history of conflicts.  Their recent history includes:

The war with Iraq.

US Hostages held by Ayatollah Khomeini.

Support for Hezbollah and other Insurgent acts (including assasination) in Lebanon.

Support, including arms shipments, for the Insurgency in Iraq.

I'm no expert on Iran, and these are just the things that come off the top of my head.  You talk as if Iran is a peaceful and peace loving country.  Under their current oppressive theocracy (and under the Shah's dictatorship before it) they are and were not peaceful.

by rbruck on 10/06/2008 04:19:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
bad examples (none / 0)
The war with Iraq was started by.... Iraq.

And the other examples are not examples of starting war. They didn't start bombing people. Were they wrong? Hell yeah.

Dude, have you listened to anything I've said, are are you just injecting your own ideas of why I may be playing devils advocate here? You think I'm an Iran supporter and that I am biased and think Iran is a peaceful nation. Where did I say that?

What I've been saying over and over again on this post is that Iran like to "play" the innocent role, thus we should not have to worry about them launching an attack unprovoked, which is the basis of my argument in this thread.

Their whole national identity is based upon being the victim, and whether you buy into that or not is up to you, but what I have been saying (if you could read these posts without "assuming" stuff) is that Israel would have to strike first, that's it. You show me a single instance where I say "Iran is a peaceful nation."

I'm just trying to get you guys to ask some questions about the "other" that the Bush administration has painted for us. Take it with a grain of salt, that's all I'm saying.  I mean come on people, McCain in the debate was saying that Ahmadinejad was in New York talking about exterminating Israel. Its not true, he didn't say that at the UN. So look shit up before believing what people say about Iran.

Check out my other post on Ahmadinejad:
http://www.theyoungturks.co m/story/2008/10/2/04621/960 6/Diary/Problems-with-Ahmad inejad-s-UN-address

I'm not an Ahmadinejad supporter, but do the Iranians have a right to protect themselves just like anyone else if they are attacked? Yes. Should they be going around attacking other nations? No. Do I think they'll ever wake up one morning and attack Israel? No. But I guess that is just my opinion based on what I am seeing.

But I love this conversation, I'm having a great time. I guess we'll never know until shit goes down (this is all speculation, no matter how confident we sound when we make out points), and we'll expect it to go down until it does even if it takes a zillion years. It will never NOT go down, cause it could tomorrow, or the next day, or...

y.

by chrisandyasemin on 10/06/2008 08:06:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Unfortunately true (none / 0)
We pretty much know for a fact at this point that Iran is trying to create a nuclear bomb but are years away from it.

by jarett on 10/06/2008 02:26:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My question is (none / 0)
How will bombing yet another country when America is desperate to get out of the two cluster fucks its already in going to help Bush or McCain?

by Chinese Democracy on 10/06/2008 03:05:24 AM EST

Because (none / 0)
Most Americans think that Mccain is stronger on national security and foreign policy.  I dont know why that is but it is.  If there was a new conflict it shifts focus from the Economy back to foreign policies and foreign wars.

by s10129107 on 10/06/2008 09:19:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran | 19 comments (19 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: