Fox news: Israel planning nuclear strike on Iran nuclear sites

[MonsterMark]

...we should have left rather than sit there and become targets.

I'm rather ashamed I read that.

 

[TheDude]

No, I don't support it anymore, since I've given this some thought, Al-Ahmadinejohnny. I know being intellectually honest is something that's foreign to you, as is being thoughtful, but nevertheless, I believe that although we were right to remove Saddam and free the Iraqis, we should have left rather than sit there and become targets.

Yet you called anyone that you thought implied that we should "Cut and Run" cowards, liberal wussies, terrorist sympathizers, gutless etc. All that talk about if we leave we'll be handing Iraq to Iran who will use it as a terrorist breeding ground... So I ask you now, what will happen to the Iraqis if we just "Cut and Run" like so many "spineless" Democratic leaders suggested in the past?

In a twist of irony, I am all for Bush sending in more troops, if that is what it takes to finally get the job done and Iraq stabilized, then so be it. Though I do not hold high hopes for this admin actually doing it.

 

[fossten]

Yet you called anyone that you thought implied that we should "Cut and Run" cowards, liberal wussies, terrorist sympathizers, gutless etc. All that talk about if we leave we'll be handing Iraq to Iran who will use it as a terrorist breeding ground... So I ask you now, what will happen to the Iraqis if we just "Cut and Run" like so many "spineless" Democratic leaders suggested in the past?

In a twist of irony, I am all for Bush sending in more troops, if that is what it takes to finally get the job done and Iraq stabilized, then so be it. Though I do not hold high hopes for this admin actually doing it.

I'm not suggesting we cut and run. I'm suggesting we increase troop levels and go after Iran, smash them to bits and then come home. Man you people CANNOT READ! If we go after Iran and slash and burn their ability to wage war against Iraq, how will they be able to use Iraq as a terrorist breeding ground?

DUH.

By the way, Deville, the ONLY REASON this admin won't do it, as you say, will be because the Democrats cut funding or refuse to add more money to the war effort. Bush is determined to do it, so I support him in that. But these Sunnis and Shiites do not like each other, and no amount of nicey-nice talkie talk will change that.

The minute we leave there they will start up again, regardless of the so-called Iraqi security. You know that Maliki is an Iran supporter? You people remember history? The ONLY REASON they didn't fight each other under Saddam was because he locked them down with brutal force. The moment we leave, they won't be locked down anymore. Use your common sense, people, these are religious fanatics that use violence to settle their disputes.

 

[TheDude]

I'm not suggesting we cut and run. I'm suggesting we increase troop levels and go after Iran, smash them to bits and then come home. Man you people CANNOT READ! If we go after Iran and slash and burn their ability to wage war against Iraq, how will they be able to use Iraq as a terrorist breeding ground?

DUH.

By the way, Deville, the ONLY REASON this admin won't do it, as you say, will be because the Democrats cut funding or refuse to add more money to the war effort. Bush is determined to do it, so I support him in that. But these Sunnis and Shiites do not like each other, and no amount of nicey-nice talkie talk will change that.

The minute we leave there they will start up again, regardless of the so-called Iraqi security. You know that Maliki is an Iran supporter? You people remember history? The ONLY REASON they didn't fight each other under Saddam was because he locked them down with brutal force. The moment we leave, they won't be locked down anymore. Use your common sense, people, these are religious fanatics that use violence to settle their disputes.

I read what you write.

In reference to Iraq:

...we should have left rather than sit there and become targets.

In the past, anyone who said we should leave/pull out of Iraq you said "Liberal... blah...blah...wussies...blah...blah...cut and run..."

I agreed, there has to be a civil war in Iraq where one side is the clear and absolute winner. They have lived "under the sword" for generations, they will not change overnight, another reason why I thought going into Iraq in an attempt to stabilize it was a poor move. The only way they know peace is when they(the fanaticals) have some a-hole like Saddam putting boot to neck, sad but true.

 

[fossten]

I read what you write.

In reference to Iraq:
In the past, anyone who said we should leave/pull out of Iraq you said "Liberal... blah...blah...wussies...blah...blah...cut and run..."

I agreed, there has to be a civil war in Iraq where one side is the clear and absolute winner. They have lived "under the sword" for generations, they will not change overnight.

Yeah, I know what I said. I've altered my thinking a little. I still support Bush's effort to stabilize Iraq, ok? I'm saying that instead of nation-building, we should have focused more on nation-smashing, ESPECIALLY when it comes to Muslim extremist terrorist harboring dictatorships. If we had gone into Iraq, found Saddam, smashed his military, established bases, and then immediately gone into Iran, we probably wouldn't be in this predicament right now. Saudi and Syria would have capitulated out of fear, and the rest of the world would be saying, "Don't mess with the Americans! They're crazy!" Which of course would be a good thing, no?

If we assume the offensive, which we haven't since Baghdad fell, and went after either Iran or Syria, and wiped them out, the rest of the Middle East would sue for peace. Think about it. Look what happened to Libya when we went after Iraq. They announced they were backing down from their nuke program, and now we're on the verge of normalizing relations with them. Muammar Qaddafi and the US friends? Unheard of!

This is my point - don't fight a minimalist war, go after ALL your enemies that threaten you, and don't stop smashing and killing until the bad guys say "Uncle." It's really very simple. And every time an insurgent kills an American soldier it is an ACT OF WAR BY IRAN ON THE UNITED STATES. Get that point.

 

[fossten]

With a traditonal tactical airstrike: The usual, "Israel is a terrorist state", "America is using Israel as it's long-arm" etc. etc. etc. and Israel may or may not be attacked again, maybe Hezbollah at the command of Iran will start firing their rockets (again). But if Israel uses nukes, then I seriously think that will work as a greater rallying tool for Israel/America hating Islamic Nations and WWII era rockets will be the least of Israel's worries. Point being, the Middle East is a huge mess, no need to make it worse with upping up the ante and dropping nukes.

On the flipside, what would happen to Iran if they used a low-yield nuke on Israel first? America/Israel would completely flatten them.

Sorry, I just now noticed this. You do realize that you have tacitly admitted that the media (who presumably would be making or publishing all these statements) is decidedly anti-Israel and even anti-America. You've also admitted that Iran is fighting a war with one of our allies by proxy.

By the way, I completely disagree that using nukes would be so bad for Israel. If we condone nukes and Israel uses them, I believe the Middle East will display shock and disbelief, but also fear and respect. I don't think Israel will have much to worry about from its neighbors after such an attack, having shown a willingness to go that far. The only enemy that would be able to have an effect is the propaganda that is so willingly abetted by our mainstream press, which would turn the tide of public opinion against Israel.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

No, I don't support it anymore, since I've given this some thought, Al-Ahmadinejohnny. I know being intellectually honest is something that's foreign to you, as is being thoughtful, but nevertheless, I believe that although we were right to remove Saddam and free the Iraqis, we should have left rather than sit there and become targets.

:eek2: :eek2: I can't believe what I'm reading!! CRAP! There goes our perfect record of 100% disagreement! (took you long enough to finally come around, though)

 

[fossten]

:eek2: :eek2: I can't believe what I'm reading!! CRAP! There goes our perfect record of 100% disagreement! (took you long enough to finally come around, though)

I doubt that we really agree on this, not for the same reasons. You hate Bush, and that's the basis of your opinion. You also don't really think we should defend ourselves against terrorism, and I doubt you really think we should go after Iran and anybody else until the job is done. Furthermore, I will never come around to "BuSh Sucks" like you, I actually just gave this some careful thought.

I doubt you can debate with somebody in an entire thread without getting nasty. You do it every time. And don't say I do the same thing, either. While I can get nasty, I'm calm much of the time, you never are.

 

[TheDude]

Sorry, I just now noticed this. You do realize that you have tacitly admitted that the media (who presumably would be making or publishing all these statements) is decidedly anti-Israel and even anti-America. You've also admitted that Iran is fighting a war with one of our allies by proxy.

By the way, I completely disagree that using nukes would be so bad for Israel. If we condone nukes and Israel uses them, I believe the Middle East will display shock and disbelief, but also fear and respect. I don't think Israel will have much to worry about from its neighbors after such an attack, having shown a willingness to go that far. The only enemy that would be able to have an effect is the propaganda that is so willingly abetted by our mainstream press, which would turn the tide of public opinion against Israel.

The media sways either way, always has, I do not believe "it" is strictly liberal, the point was that Israel is usually seen as the "bad guy" by the rest of the world and little more than America's puppet regardless of circumstances. Perfect example, look what happened in the last Israel/Lebanon-Hezbollah conflict... Hezbollah fires rockets aimed at Israeli civilians, it's seen as "They have to do, what they have to do", Israel demolishes an apartment complex because it is being used as a munitions depot for said rockets, it's seen as 'They're killing women and children out of bloodlust, why are the attacking so much!" I have no doubt that Iran or Iranian groups are funding Hezbollah or at least one of the contributors.

Certainly a possibility, but I wouldn't want to chance a mini-nuke set off in Tel Aviv to find out. Like I said, America/Israel shouldn't be the one to open that box first.

 

[fossten]

The media sways either way, always has, I do not believe "it" is strictly liberal, the point was that Israel is usually seen as the "bad guy" by the rest of the world and little more than America's puppet regardless of circumstances. Perfect example, look what happened in the last Israel/Lebanon-Hezbollah conflict... Hezbollah fires rockets aimed at Israeli civilians, it's seen as "They have to do, what they have to do", Israel demolishes an apartment complex because it is being used as a munitions depot for said rockets, it's seen as 'They're killing women and children out of bloodlust, why are the attacking so much!" I have no doubt that Iran or Iranian groups are funding Hezbollah or at least one of the contributors.

Certainly a possibility, but I wouldn't want to chance a mini-nuke set off in Tel Aviv to find out. Like I said, America/Israel shouldn't be the one to open that box first.

Show me where in my post I used the word "liberal." Your lack of attention to detail is stunning. I said "anti-Israel." And you just re-affirmed my point about the media being "anti-Israel." Look at the coverage they got during the last conflict, CNN talking about the poor Lebanese civilians who were being used AS HUMAN SHIELDS BY HEZBOLLAH, while ignoring the poor Israeli civilians who had been TARGETED BY HEZBOLLAH. You have to know that the media and most of the world hates Israel, simply because they have the audacity to exist. But our own media has no excuse for their hateful coverage.

I could argue that Iran has already opened the nuke box by building weapons and threatening Israel with total destruction. I could also argue that there's nothing wrong with using nuclear weapons. They are very effective and unless you are using a city-buster, not that dangerous (except to their targets). Furthermore, I think you are afraid of Iran, evidenced by your apprehension at Israel somehow provoking Iran by using nukes, and oh what a scary prospect that would be. Israel has the ability to defeat Iran completely, do you realize that?

Finally, you are more afraid of Israel using nukes than you are of Iran using nukes. That shows a mixup of priorities. Israel has not threatened nor has she attacked anyone without provocation. Iran cannot make that claim, you have already admitted. So which country would you rather see use nukes, Israel or Iran? Because I can almost guarantee it's going to be one or the other. Choose carefully, and "neither" is not an option (just for the sake of the argument).

I predict you will waffle on the question, because you don't want to admit that Israel can be responsible with nukes, nor can you admit that I might be right.

 

[TheDude]

Show me where in my post I used the word "liberal." Your lack of attention to detail is stunning. I said "anti-Israel." And you just re-affirmed my point about the media being "anti-Israel." Look at the coverage they got during the last conflict, CNN talking about the poor Lebanese civilians who were being used AS HUMAN SHIELDS BY HEZBOLLAH, while ignoring the poor Israeli civilians who had been TARGETED BY HEZBOLLAH. You have to know that the media and most of the world hates Israel, simply because they have the audacity to exist. But our own media has no excuse for their hateful coverage.

I could argue that Iran has already opened the nuke box by building weapons and threatening Israel with total destruction. I could also argue that there's nothing wrong with using nuclear weapons. They are very effective and unless you are using a city-buster, not that dangerous (except to their targets). Furthermore, I think you are afraid of Iran, evidenced by your apprehension at Israel somehow provoking Iran by using nukes, and oh what a scary prospect that would be. Israel has the ability to defeat Iran completely, do you realize that?

Finally, you are more afraid of Israel using nukes than you are of Iran using nukes. That shows a mixup of priorities. Israel has not threatened nor has she attacked anyone without provocation. Iran cannot make that claim, you have already admitted. So which country would you rather see use nukes, Israel or Iran? Because I can almost guarantee it's going to be one or the other. Choose carefully, and "neither" is not an option (just for the sake of the argument).

I predict you will waffle on the question, because you don't want to admit that Israel can be responsible with nukes, nor can you admit that I might be right.

I was responding to the bigger picture that the "MSM is Liberally Biased", something which you have said many since I joined this forum. How's that for "attention to detail"? No argument there, I said above the Israel has and will probably be always seen as the "bad guy", who's not paying attention now?

Yea you could make a good argument out of those points, but I feel that America needs to be the better country and not go there first. That's the 3rd or fourth time you tried to label me a coward by saying I am somehow afraid of Iran, I know and agree that Israel could uppercut Iran out of the ring, that doesn't mean I think they should open the nuclear genie bottle. Bringing nukes into use and effectively making them an option is a lose-lose for everyone.

That's a B.S. question in relevance to my argument. I am not "more afraid" of either, while I do realize that Israel isn't a country to use nuclear weapons in a city like Iran, that isn't the basis of my argument. It is simplify that the use of nuclear weapons shouldn't be brought into the equation. I seriously doubt Iran will ever use a nuke first though, they know such an action WILL guarantee their complete destruction; I feel they want it as a bargaining chip; a "don't mess with us or else.", like the N. Koreans. Should they have that bargaining chip and can they be fully trusted with it? I don't think so, but taking it away with the use of nukes is a poor option I think.

Your prediction is wrong merely because it is based on false claims, Israel has nukes and I never argued they shouldn't.

 

[Calabrio]

Public relations aside, is really worse to use a precision tactical nuclear BUNKER BUSTER than it is to drop a 20,000lb Daisy Cutter or MOAB?

The real story here is why is Israel finding itself left alone to make the tough decisions regarding Iran? Europe and the rest of the free world are too cowardly to make the difficult decisions, confident that Israel will make it for them, and then they can vilify Israel and take the "higher ground"- while privately comforted by the fact they no longer will be threatened by Iran with mid-range nuclear weapons, or nuclear weapons a days drive from their capitol cities.

 

[fossten]

I was responding to the bigger picture that the "MSM is Liberally Biased", something which you have said many since I joined this forum. How's that for "attention to detail"? No argument there, I said above the Israel has and will probably be always seen as the "bad guy", who's not paying attention now?

You weren't paying attention to detail because you strayed off topic. You inserted something out of context and then made zero points with it.

Yea you could make a good argument out of those points, but I feel that America needs to be the better country and not go there first.

Ok, first of all, I never mentioned America going there first, I mentioned Israel. Not paying attention to detail again, but let's move on and assume you meant Israel. Your sentence sounds so namby-pamby and shallow I almost don't know where to begin. You 'feel?' And what set of FACTS are you basing this FEELING on? Be the better country? What the hell does that mean? What is this, some sort of progressyve, liberal conflict-resolution problem?

And how does sitting on your hands while being threatened make you the 'better country?' Iran would view that as you being the 'weaker country' and the 'easier target.' This is war, man. You don't win wars by 'being the better person.' You win wars by eliminating your enemy's desire to fight, usually by killing his people and smashing his toys. I remind you YET AGAIN, Iran HAS ALREADY GONE THERE FIRST by threatening Israel with nukes. That's the 3rd or 4th time I've had to remind you of that.

That's the 3rd or fourth time you tried to label me a coward by saying I am somehow afraid of Iran, I know and agree that Israel could uppercut Iran out of the ring, that doesn't mean I think they should open the nuclear genie bottle. Bringing nukes into use and effectively making them an option is a lose-lose for everyone.

Explain precisely how Israel using nukes is a lose-lose for everyone. You haven't made any kind of case backing up your statement, you just throw it out there like it's the gospel truth. Let's analyze this, shall we?

The only time nukes have ever been used has been by the United States, a benevolent country, against a malevolent aggressor. This was done twice in 1945. The net effect was to abruptly bring WWII to an end and stave off an imminent invasion of the Japanese homeland, which would have cost MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of Japanese and American lives. I believe that would be called a WIN-WIN, not a LOSE-LOSE. We won the war, and Japan got to keep their lives.

Furthermore, (and I'm speculating here) showing our willingness to use nuclear weapons may have even caused the Soviets to pause in their plans for world domination in the upcoming decade due to a potential nausea over the possibility that we would nuke the hell out of them if they tried to take over Western Europe. Thanks to anti-nuke anti-war activists, and also thanks to a superior technologically advanced conventional military, we have departed from that willingness quite a bit.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think nukes should be used as a first resort, but it looks as if Israel may NEED to use them in order to penetrate Iran's facilities. This would be a tactical strike aimed at hitting precise targets, and would cause little damage to the surrounding country.

That's a B.S. question in relevance to my argument.

Just as I predicted. You dodged the question.

I am not "more afraid" of either, while I do realize that Israel isn't a country to use nuclear weapons in a city like Iran [Iran is a country not a city - detail again], that isn't the basis of my argument. It is simplify that the use of nuclear weapons shouldn't be brought into the equation.

Again, you shed zero light on why this should be. You offer no alternatives in accomplishing the military objective of destroying Iran's nuclear facilities, yet you issue this blanket statement in a knee-jerk fashion. You sound like you are just all teary-eyed and guilty over the fact that Israel even possesses nuclear weapons and can't we all just sing "Give peace a chance" and "Kumbayah." Meanwhile, Iran is singing "Let's kill the Jews" and "Death to America." And that is not hyperbole.

I seriously doubt Iran will ever use a nuke first though, they know such an action WILL guarantee their complete destruction; I feel they want it as a bargaining chip; a "don't mess with us or else.", like the N. Koreans.

That just shows that you know nothing about Iran's leader. Let me clue you in: He has an apocalyptic world view. He believes that he is the one who will usher in the coming of the 12th Imam, a perfect being who will hasten the destruction of Israel and the West (that's us, by the way). This guy was also identified as one of the hostage-takers back in 1979.

Ahmadinejad does not believe that we or Israel have the will to either preemptively use or respond against nuclear weapons, and probably that is due to the fact that people like you, the Democrats, and the media are so against having or using them, and you don't even know why.

You need to brush up on your Middle East knowledge. Learn how Arab and Persian children are taught that Jews are apes and pigs and that they drink blood. Read about how they are taught from three years old that being a suicide bomber is the ultimate sacrifice to Allah, and that He will reward them with paradise. I'll bet you don't even know that children's cartoons in Arab countries depict suicide bombers killing Jewish trucks, and they are portrayed as heroes.

I guarantee you: if he gets nukes, he will use them, not just on Israel, but on us. Oh, I'm sure he'll use terrorists to do this, but nevertheless, it will come from him.

Should they have that bargaining chip and can they be fully trusted with it? I don't think so, but taking it away with the use of nukes is a poor option I think.

And again you have no idea why you said what you just said. Maybe you are a pacifist, maybe you just don't believe the Iranian leader is truly evil. Maybe you just want Israel destroyed and America weakened. Maybe you are just ignorant of the real threat in the Middle East. Maybe you don't know that the insurgents in Iraq who are killing our soldiers are being funded and supplied DIRECTLY by Iran. Whatever the reason, just saying that surely makes you feel better that you can't be labeled as some sort of hating warmonger. I assure you, that kind of thinking makes us weaker and the world more dangerous. Go back and read up on the writings of Neville Chamberlain back in the 30's. He was convinced that Hitler posed NO THREAT to Europe. He was wrong.

Anyway, can we agree that taking away Iran's nukes is a good option by itself? So what would be the big deal about using a nuclear-tipped bunker-buster to wipe out nukes, other than the hilarious irony?

 

[fossten]

Public relations aside, is really worse to use a precision tactical nuclear BUNKER BUSTER than it is to drop a 20,000lb Daisy Cutter or MOAB?

The real story here is why is Israel finding itself left alone to make the tough decisions regarding Iran? Europe and the rest of the free world are too cowardly to make the difficult decisions, confident that Israel will make it for them, and then they can vilify Israel and take the "higher ground"- while privately comforted by the fact they no longer will be threatened by Iran with mid-range nuclear weapons, or nuclear weapons a days drive from their capitol cities.

Actually, Iranian missiles can now reach Europe, and soon they will have the capability to reach our Eastern seaboard. Then, just add some nuclear tips, and voila!

 

[Calabrio]

Actually, Iranian missiles can now reach Europe, and soon they will have the capability to reach our Eastern seaboard. Then, just add some nuclear tips, and voila!

Exactly- so all the while, Europe and the Americas sit, unwilling to make the rough decisions regarding Iran, confident that Israel will do it for them. And after Israel does the dirty work for them, they'll be the first to condemn it.

And while Israel is in Iran's sites, it's not the only country. Iran can easily hit the EU countries. And once a truck enters a EU country, it moves unrestricted throughout the continent. The risk to Europe is staggering.

 

[fossten]

Exactly- so all the while, Europe and the Americas sit, unwilling to make the rough decisions regarding Iran, confident that Israel will do it for them. And after Israel does the dirty work for them, they'll be the first to condemn it.

And while Israel is in Iran's sites, it's not the only country. Iran can easily hit the EU countries. And once a truck enters a EU country, it moves unrestricted throughout the continent. The risk to Europe is staggering.

Good point. I'm telling you, if we just went in and knocked Iran out of the picture, I bet we'd have Middle Eastern countries surrendering by the bucketful. It's such a shame nobody has any guts anymore.

The world has NEVER been this dangerous, not in its entire history.

 

[Calabrio]

Good point. I'm telling you, if we just went in and knocked Iran out of the picture, I bet we'd have Middle Eastern countries surrendering by the bucketful. It's such a shame nobody has any guts anymore.

The world has NEVER been this dangerous, not in its entire history.

I don't know if it's the most dangerous, I mean, the potential death and destruction during the cold war was great, but it's probably among the most unpredictable times, and that's made more serious given how small the world has become.

Which touches on another subject- terrorists aren't going to kill us all. Biological attacks aside, even if terrorist had suitcase nukes, they're not going to be able to destroy the country. Maybe 100k people would die. Maybe even a million. That leave about 299,000,000 people left.

But what these attacks would do to our security, our confidence, our economy, and our culture- that's where the real damage occurs.

Imagine just six suicide bombers targeted a handful of large Malls the day after Thanksgiving last year. What would that have done to the economy? How many business would have gone out of business over the holidays and how would the affect the rest of the system.

It's little stuff like that which can have massive consequences on the country.

I don't think it's possible to "knock Iran out of the picture." I'd just assume the U.S. not get involved in another nation building exercise within that region right now, especially before the technique is refined and better understood while applied in Iraq.

Lots will argue that there is a progressive segment of the Iranian population who would embrace Western reform. For example, Ahmadinejad's party didn't see overwhelming support in the last election there.

The problem here is that the real threats come from non-state actors. And the Muslims aren't a population that takes military humiliation well. We don't want to trigger a billion of them to think we are at war with them all.

 

[TheDude]

You weren't paying attention to detail because you strayed off topic. You inserted something out of context and then made zero points with it.

Ok, first of all, I never mentioned America going there first, I mentioned Israel. Not paying attention to detail again, but let's move on and assume you meant Israel. Your sentence sounds so namby-pamby and shallow I almost don't know where to begin. You 'feel?' And what set of FACTS are you basing this FEELING on? Be the better country? What the hell does that mean? What is this, some sort of progressyve, liberal conflict-resolution problem?

And how does sitting on your hands while being threatened make you the 'better country?' Iran would view that as you being the 'weaker country' and the 'easier target.' This is war, man. You don't win wars by 'being the better person.' You win wars by eliminating your enemy's desire to fight, usually by killing his people and smashing his toys. I remind you YET AGAIN, Iran HAS ALREADY GONE THERE FIRST by threatening Israel with nukes. That's the 3rd or 4th time I've had to remind you of that.


Explain precisely how Israel using nukes is a lose-lose for everyone. You haven't made any kind of case backing up your statement, you just throw it out there like it's the gospel truth. Let's analyze this, shall we?

The only time nukes have ever been used has been by the United States, a benevolent country, against a malevolent aggressor. This was done twice in 1945. The net effect was to abruptly bring WWII to an end and stave off an imminent invasion of the Japanese homeland, which would have cost MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of Japanese and American lives. I believe that would be called a WIN-WIN, not a LOSE-LOSE. We won the war, and Japan got to keep their lives.

Furthermore, (and I'm speculating here) showing our willingness to use nuclear weapons may have even caused the Soviets to pause in their plans for world domination in the upcoming decade due to a potential nausea over the possibility that we would nuke the hell out of them if they tried to take over Western Europe. Thanks to anti-nuke anti-war activists, and also thanks to a superior technologically advanced conventional military, we have departed from that willingness quite a bit.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think nukes should be used as a first resort, but it looks as if Israel may NEED to use them in order to penetrate Iran's facilities. This would be a tactical strike aimed at hitting precise targets, and would cause little damage to the surrounding country.

Just as I predicted. You dodged the question.

Again, you shed zero light on why this should be. You offer no alternatives in accomplishing the military objective of destroying Iran's nuclear facilities, yet you issue this blanket statement in a knee-jerk fashion. You sound like you are just all teary-eyed and guilty over the fact that Israel even possesses nuclear weapons and can't we all just sing "Give peace a chance" and "Kumbayah." Meanwhile, Iran is singing "Let's kill the Jews" and "Death to America." And that is not hyperbole.

That just shows that you know nothing about Iran's leader. Let me clue you in: He has an apocalyptic world view. He believes that he is the one who will usher in the coming of the 12th Imam, a perfect being who will hasten the destruction of Israel and the West (that's us, by the way). This guy was also identified as one of the hostage-takers back in 1979.

Ahmadinejad does not believe that we or Israel have the will to either preemptively use or respond against nuclear weapons, and probably that is due to the fact that people like you, the Democrats, and the media are so against having or using them, and you don't even know why.

You need to brush up on your Middle East knowledge. Learn how Arab and Persian children are taught that Jews are apes and pigs and that they drink blood. Read about how they are taught from three years old that being a suicide bomber is the ultimate sacrifice to Allah, and that He will reward them with paradise. I'll bet you don't even know that children's cartoons in Arab countries depict suicide bombers killing Jewish trucks, and they are portrayed as heroes.

I guarantee you: if he gets nukes, he will use them, not just on Israel, but on us. Oh, I'm sure he'll use terrorists to do this, but nevertheless, it will come from him.

And again you have no idea why you said what you just said. Maybe you are a pacifist, maybe you just don't believe the Iranian leader is truly evil. Maybe you just want Israel destroyed and America weakened. Maybe you are just ignorant of the real threat in the Middle East. Maybe you don't know that the insurgents in Iraq who are killing our soldiers are being funded and supplied DIRECTLY by Iran. Whatever the reason, just saying that surely makes you feel better that you can't be labeled as some sort of hating warmonger. I assure you, that kind of thinking makes us weaker and the world more dangerous. Go back and read up on the writings of Neville Chamberlain back in the 30's. He was convinced that Hitler posed NO THREAT to Europe. He was wrong.

Anyway, can we agree that taking away Iran's nukes is a good option by itself? So what would be the big deal about using a nuclear-tipped bunker-buster to wipe out nukes, other than the hilarious irony?

It's getting tiring rehashing and rehashing...

Yes, America and by proxy Israel should be the better country(s) and not be the first ones to use nukes, as you pointed out, they haven't been used in nearly 70 years, no need to start now. One person starts nuking, others will follow, lose-lose. Back then, we were the only ones with the capability, now several countries have nukes and some like Russia, China and N. Korea can't be trusted not to sell to anyone with money.

I know Iran is not a city... I meant that Israel wouldn't be a country to use nukes against a city unless they had too, like Iran might. It was poor wording on my part.

If you seriously think I am arguing my "No Nuke" stance simply because I care what others may label me, you should really know me better than that by now. I couldn't care less about labels.

I never argued that not attacking their nuclear production is wrong or a bad idea, but bringing the use of nukes has a great potential to escalate into greater warfare in the future. IF you could prove that Iran has or is making a nuke with 100% certainty and the ONLY way to destroy said weapons would be with a nuke, then sure, cornered to a wall, you gotta do what ya gotta do. But logically speaking, there probably are other ways to doing it. And yes, the irony is funny.

 

[Calabrio]

I never argued that not attacking their nuclear production is wrong or a bad idea, but bringing the use of nukes has a great potential to escalate into greater warfare in the future. IF you could prove that Iran has or is making a nuke with 100% certainty and the ONLY way to destroy said weapons would be with a nuke, then sure, cornered to a wall, you gotta do what ya gotta do. But logically speaking, there probably are other ways to doing it. And yes, the irony is funny.

We are absolutely certain they are developing nuclear capability. Even if you want to believe what they tell to the Western media (but not what they tell the Iranian population), and that they aren't planning on weaponizing it, this still means they would have the ability to do so very, very quickly.

To move forward with any discussion under the guise Iran isn't, or isn't going to, develop nuclear weapons is foolish and a distraction. So let's just establish that point before going any further. Iran is certainly developing it's nuclear capability. And they are doing so without international oversight. And they are in violation of the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

If you have any concerns about this, now will be the ONLY time left to act, and time is quickly running out. The world needs to do something fast.

These aren't stupid people. When Iraq was attempting to develop nukes, Israel had to go and bomb the facilities by themself. Iran learned from this. Their facilities are scattered around the country, and many are deep underground. This means that most conventional weapons will not have the ability to strike them. Tactical, low-yield, nuclear weapons are probably the only thing the Israelis have that will have the power to destroy these facilities.

Would it be better if the Israelis dropped 20,000lb conventional bombs instead? Bombs that actually have MORE destructive power?

We need to answer: 1. Can Iran be permitted to defiantly continue their nuclear program.

If not, 2. we need to end this politically correct notion of warfare. This issue demonstrates how mindless it is completely- people will oppose the use of these tactical weapons and instead support the use of much bigger, destructive, and less refined bombs in their place.

Dropping a small nuclear weapon necessary to burrow within the earth and then explode is supposedly bad- but dropping a MOAB is absolutely fine.

 

[RRocket]

I've said it a million times, and I'll say it again. The US has little interest in stopping terrorism until they straighten out Saudi Arabia. That is the largest cauldron for the brewing of terrorism right there. Even Fossten has agreed with me on this point. (though he might not admit it!! ) Everything else the US does in the name of preventing terrorism is a joke until they clean up Saudi Arabia...

 

[MonsterMark]

What we really need to do is infiltrate their religion, mosques, etc. We have to have people on the inside if we are going to win. Moles and lots of 'em is what it is going to take to stop them BEFORE they can do anything.

 

[fossten]

I've said it a million times, and I'll say it again. The US has little interest in stopping terrorism until they straighten out Saudi Arabia. That is the largest cauldron for the brewing of terrorism right there. Even Fossten has agreed with me on this point. (though he might not admit it!! ) Everything else the US does in the name of preventing terrorism is a joke until they clean up Saudi Arabia...

Actually, I admit it. I agree with you 100% on this point.

I differ with Bryan on the infiltration point because Islam is not just the religion, but the government in, for example, Iran. That means any dissident voice is squashed. Permanently. And as long as children in schools are being taught that Jews drink blood and America is Satan and the greatest service to do for Allah is to become a suicide bomber, there is no "winning their hearts and minds." Rather, the only solution is to "break their arms and legs," Allah be praised.

 

[Marcus]

Which touches on another subject- terrorists aren't going to kill us all. Biological attacks aside, even if terrorist had suitcase nukes, they're not going to be able to destroy the country. Maybe 100k people would die. Maybe even a million. That leave about 299,000,000 people left.

But what these attacks would do to our security, our confidence, our economy, and our culture- that's where the real damage occurs.

Imagine just six suicide bombers targeted a handful of large Malls the day after Thanksgiving last year. What would that have done to the economy? How many business would have gone out of business over the holidays and how would the affect the rest of the system.

It's little stuff like that which can have massive consequences on the country.

I tried to make a similar point a while back, but because of the way I worded it, I was labelled as someone who doesn't care about Americans getting killed, an "America-Hater", and the usual drivel.

Ah, I found it. Here's what I said...

Do you think for one minute that Osama bin Laden and all his minions have the ability to destroy this nation? The answer to that is HELL NO. The only people who can accomplish that are the American people. How? By handing over more and more of our rights to our government and turning us into a fortress/military-state, all in the name of "safety". What I fear most from the next terrorist attack isn't the loss of life, it's the loss of what remains of our rights and freedoms and the abandonment of our most sacred values, as cowards like you gladly hand them over to the state. If it's true that Osama hates us for our freedoms, then he will have successfully eliminated them, and HE will be the victor.

Regrettably, I admit I was a bit belligerent, but I still stand by my point, which is that the damage to our society and our way of life will come from how we choose react to another attack, not from the attack itself. By the way, that last sentence should have read, "If it's true that Osama hates us for our freedoms, then WE will have successfully eliminated them, and HE will be the victor".

Yeah I know, I'm a prick.

 

[Marcus]

These aren't stupid people. When Iraq was attempting to develop nukes, Israel had to go and bomb the facilities by themself. Iran learned from this. Their facilities are scattered around the country, and many are deep underground. This means that most conventional weapons will not have the ability to strike them. Tactical, low-yield, nuclear weapons are probably the only thing the Israelis have that will have the power to destroy these facilities.

Would it be better if the Israelis dropped 20,000lb conventional bombs instead? Bombs that actually have MORE destructive power?

We need to answer: 1. Can Iran be permitted to defiantly continue their nuclear program.

If not, 2. we need to end this politically correct notion of warfare. This issue demonstrates how mindless it is completely- people will oppose the use of these tactical weapons and instead support the use of much bigger, destructive, and less refined bombs in their place.

Dropping a small nuclear weapon necessary to burrow within the earth and then explode is supposedly bad- but dropping a MOAB is absolutely fine.

The problem no one has addressed yet is the very high probablility that fallout from the bunker busters would kill thousands, if not millions more across the whole region. It is a myth that "bunker busters" can burrow far enough underground to contain the radioactive debris. On the contrary, it sends tons of dust into the atmosphere, which makes them, ironically, more dangerous than aerial detonations.

See a flash animation here (sound required):
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html

If that site is too left-wing for you, here's a fair and balanced report:

Joseph Cirincione (search), director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said that while the RNEP would cause less ground damage than the bombs America dropped on Japan, the radiation fallout would be much greater.

"Nuclear fallout increases the deeper you go with a nuclear weapon, because it throws up hundreds of tons of debris," Cirincione said. "Radiation increases with increased ground penetration because all that earth is then irradiated, thrown up and scattered downwind."

An Energy official who asked not to be named acknowledged "some fallout" was inevitable, but told FOXNews.com that the consequences of deploying a nuclear weapon are the reasons the threshold for using them is so high.

.................................

Both Cirincione and Nelson cited studies showing that conventional weapons would be as effective in disabling underground facilities and would cause fewer casualties. Non-nuclear munitions and materials could be used to seal entrances and exits, block ventilation and cut off power and water supplies. Thermobaric weapons can also be used to destroy biological and chemical weapons with minimal explosive possibility, Nelson said.

 

[MAC1]

Despite all of Ahmadinejad's blustering, he isn't stupid enough to attack Israel. As Deville pointed out, if they did, we would flatten them, and they know it. From Iran's point of view, this is all about deterrence. Compare and contrast how we dealt with Iraq and how we are dealing with North Korea. How we deal with Iran is certainly open to debate, but let's not fool ourselves into believing that Iran will bomb Israel the first chance they get. Ahmadinejad is no religious zealot, and has no desire to be a martyr, just like Saddam. Even passing weapons on to terrorists would be an unacceptable risk, because it would inevitably be traced back, and BOOM goes Tehran.

Don't you think it's pretty stupid of Ahmadinejad to bluster about wiping Isreal off the map? And if Ahmadinejad is that stupid don't you think he may indeed be just stupid enough to use a nuclear weapon, especially since he apparently believes he has been chosen to bring about the end of the word so his divine saviour, Mahdi, believed to be a descendant of the Mohammad, comes back and establishes Islam as the world's only religion.

Here is just a sample of some of Ahmadinejad's comments:

"The Islamic umma (community) will not allow its historic enemy to live in its heartland..." Ahmadinejad, October 2005

"Anyone who signs a treaty which recognises the entity of Israel means he has signed the surrender of the Muslim world" Ahmadinejad, October 2005

In a video distributed by an Iranian web site in November, Ahmadinejad described how one of his Iranian colleagues claimed to have seen a glow of light around him as he began his speech to the UN.

"I felt it myself too," Mr Ahmadinejad recounts. "I felt that all of a sudden the atmosphere changed there. And for 27-28 minutes all the leaders did not blink…It's not an exaggeration, because I was looking.

"They were astonished, as if a hand held them there and made them sit. It had opened their eyes and ears for the message of the Islamic Republic." Telegraph.co.uk

Ahmadinejad threatens the elimination of the United States as well as Israel:

I must say that you have chosen a very valuable title for your gathering [World Without Zionism]. Many are sowing the seeds of defeat and despair in this all-out war between the Islamic world and the Infidel Front, hoping to dishearten the Islamic world. Such people are using words like "it's not possible". They say how could we have a world without America and Zionism? But you know well that this slogan and goal can be achieved and can definitely be realised. Ahmadinejad, November 2005.

So, Ahmadinejad has threatened to obliterate both Israel and the United States and has no problem threatening any country that would dare enter into a peace agreement with Israel. Does that sound like a person who is merely "blustering?"

It turns out that the last person to bluster like Ahmadinejad followed through on his threats. Of course, I'm referring to Adolf Hitler who was ignored until it was too late. I think it's very important to understand the nature of the threat before concluding that there is no threat. If Ahmadinejad does acquire nuclear weapons his so-called "blustering" just may turn into action much like what Adolf Hitler did when he concluded that the world will not retaliate against his attacks because the world's leaders don't have the stomach for war. Well, he was right! At least until the United States entered the War.

The problem is that today the world does not have the luxury of sitting back and assuming Ahmadinejad is just blustering. If he should acquire multiple nuclear weapons his power and ability to inflict damage will increase 1000-fold. He will wheeled tremendous power and will be able to use not only Iranian oil, but also, nuclear bombs to threaten the world and presumably its weak government leaders.

The question becomes what is the best option given Ahmadinejad's apparent intentions as he described. Should Israel wait and see? Should the world presume he is a harmless blusterer? Can the world afford to ignore him and his ilk?

It's one thing to be sitting in a nice comfortable chair in the United States debating these questions, but it is another thing to be contemplating them as a citizen of Israel.

I believe Ahmadinejad should be dealt with NOW--Not when it's too late.