• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Panetta concerned Israel months from striking Iran

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Defense Secretary
Leon Panetta
is expressing new concerns about Iran's underground nuclear program, this time telling Washington Post columnist David Ignatius he's worried
Israel
may decide to attack it as early as this spring.
Traveling with the defense secretary in Brussels to cover his meeting with NATO defense ministers, Igantius writes, "Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June.”

This is the first time we've heard such a specific timeframe. Fox News has previously reported concerns from former members of President Obama's national security team that a unilateral strike from Israel could occur sometime in 2012.

Secretary Panetta and the administration have made clear in recent weeks that Iran would cross a "red line" by developing a bomb and that if that occurred all options, including military action, would be on the table.
But Israel is less patient. It appears Israeli officials' red line will occur when Iran develops the capacity to build a bomb. In other words, it appears they think by this spring Iran will have stockpiled enough highly enriched uranium to produce a nuclear warhead.

By that point it will be too late for Israel to act alone. Unlike the United States, Israel does not have the capacity to strike Iran's hardened enrichment facilities 200 feet underground. That, along with Iran's arsenal of missiles that can reach Israel, give reason for Panetta's concerns that Israel is ready to strike first.



Read more @:
Panetta Concerned Israel Months From Striking Iran | Fox News

No! No! No!
Stop! Take some breaths and lets think about this.. This frightens the **** out of me.. War is on the horizon. Just want we need. Just want the world needs..
First sanctions. Then Threats. Then war. God damnit!

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?


 
Iran is purposely trying to provoke Israel, because they know Israel's history.
 
i'm left wondering why this was announced. there must be motivations. i doubt that this announcement will cause Iran to comply.

either way, the US cannot participate in any more preemptive wars. we need to build our own nation. if the world wants Iran to stop building weapons, cut off the funding by replacing oil. war is the poorest way to address this problem.
 
Read more @: [/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]Panetta Concerned Israel Months From Striking Iran | Fox News

No! No! No!
Stop! Take some breaths and lets think about this.. This frightens the **** out of me.. War is on the horizon. Just want we need. Just want the world needs..
First sanctions. Then Threats. Then war. God damnit!

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?



Then let Israel attack Iran. Or let Israel (with US support) attempt to resolve this thru the UN. It's time for some of these paper tiger countries to settle disputes themselves without killing our boys and costing American taxpayers billions. Enough, already!!
 
Israel isn't like the USA in that they don't go around looking to start a war as the US did with Iraq and Hussein.

Israel takes very seriously the threats that Iran has made and only idiots would do otherwise.
 
World War 3 is a serious policy concern of mine and I hereby pledge to vote for any candidate that promises to start it.
 
I'm all for it. The Iranian regime should've been eradicated years ago.

Along with the North Koreans to name just two.

That fact that the rest of the world allows such dictatorial and fundamentally evil regimes to continue to exist is an insult to all humanity.
 
Iranian nuclear sites are hardened, numerous and located far away from Israel across foreign airspace. While the Israeli's may be able to pull off a couple of strikes, I doubt they have the capability to do more than slow down Iranian progress.
 
Yeah, it's scary.... Israel should hurry up, months might be too late.
 
World War 3 is a serious policy concern of mine and I hereby pledge to vote for any candidate that promises to start it.

I agree. Nothing like a big bad ass war to stimulate the economy :peace
 
I agree. Nothing like a big bad ass war to stimulate the economy :peace

Or two.

Wait, that didn't turn out so well....
 
Or two.

Wait, that didn't turn out so well....

Your miles may vary...Industrialist and defense contractors disagree with you

But here's the scoop

Israel won't attack Iran without our tacit permission. I don't know the precise nature of our defense arrangements with the government of Iraq, but I can easily picture a situation where US radar picks up the Israeli flight, and does & says nothing. IRAQI radar does not. WE didn't give Israel permission to overfly Iraq, we just tell the Iraqis that they were doing so.


The Iraqi government is then free to express mild outrage at the violation of their national airspace, the Israelies apologize, and everyone gets to enjoy the column of smoke rising from Tehran, etc.
 
Something is bound to happen with the Iranian Regime, things can not continue like this.... two? three? four months? more or less?.....

War is a sad affair. But not as sad as madmen religious fanatics having a nuclear bomb and using it in all of us.
 
Then let Israel attack Iran. Or let Israel (with US support) attempt to resolve this thru the UN. It's time for some of these paper tiger countries to settle disputes themselves without killing our boys and costing American taxpayers billions. Enough, already!!
I would agree with this in principle. There is one serious problem with this though, and that is the strait of Hormuz. If that is lost, there will be some serious financial implications that go with it. We need that strait real bad. I would say let Israel defend itself from Iran, I am fine with that, and we don't need to shed our blood because of it. We will need to park a couple of carrier attack groups in there and keep the lane open or else we will be looking at about 8 per gallon in gas, if not worse.
 
History has shown that the dangerous repercussions for not acting can far outweigh those for acting. This sure seems to be one of them.
 
I would agree with this in principle. There is one serious problem with this though, and that is the strait of Hormuz. If that is lost, there will be some serious financial implications that go with it. We need that strait real bad. I would say let Israel defend itself from Iran, I am fine with that, and we don't need to shed our blood because of it. We will need to park a couple of carrier attack groups in there and keep the lane open or else we will be looking at about 8 per gallon in gas, if not worse.

$8 for gas is probably the solution to our quest for alternative energy.

It's certainly the solution to my problem of not being able to see to back out of my parallel parking space because of SUV's all 'round. ;)
 
An Iran event seems inevitable and will change the world as we know it for our lifetimes. Other countries also know this and that's why they're not so eager for it to occur.
 
I'm all for it. The Iranian regime should've been eradicated years ago.

Along with the North Koreans to name just two.

Ahhh yes if the world was that easy.
Should we do this and whatever cost?

That fact that the rest of the world allows such dictatorial and fundamentally evil regimes to continue to exist is an insult to all humanity.
Well look around and dont be so naive. The US supports(ed) evil regimes..
 
Or two.

Wait, that didn't turn out so well....

So, WW2 didn't stimulate the economy and massive government spending doesn't stimulate the economy, either?
 
No one "wants" a war. That being said, lots of us have learned from WWII what appeasement did. We would up with a bigger war than would have been necessary, if we hadn't gone so long with appeasement. WWWI would have not been the conflagration it turned into if no one listened to the likes of Neville (peace in our time) Chamberlain.

Those who don't learn from their history are bound to make the same mistakes again. Sound familiar?
 
So, WW2 didn't stimulate the economy and massive government spending doesn't stimulate the economy, either?

Should we go to war just because the economy is bad?
 
Back
Top Bottom