• 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!

Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's nuclear sites

Israel needs to act before Iran gets nuclear weapons and before Obama trades their existence for a teleprompter reading.
 
Iran has just as much right to develop nuclear weapons as Pakistan, North Korea, or Israel. Iran should be an ally of the West, not an enemy. They are an ancient civilization, much more stable and reliable than Pakistan. To destroy the reactors they have worked on for so long would only create terrorists.

What if Iran used their nuclear weapons to attack Israel, as they have virtually promised they would?
 
What if Iran used their nuclear weapons to attack Israel, as they have virtually promised they would?

Where has Iran said they would nuke Israel first?
 
Where has Iran said they would nuke Israel first?


Um...over and over and over? Have you heard Achmandinijad repeatedly calling for the destruction of Israel?
 
Where has Iran said they would nuke Israel first?

Ahmadinejad Threatens Israel
01 October 2008
The United States will ask the United Nations Security Council to take up the issue of threats made against Israel by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for Israel to be “wiped off the map.” In his address to world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly on September 23rd, he said Israel “is on a definite slope to collapse, and there is no way for it to get out of the cesspool created by itself and its supporters.”

In language similar to the Nazi propaganda that paved the way for the murder of more than six million Jews during World War Two, Mr. Ahmadinejad also said that Zionists were manipulating the world’s financial, monetary and political centers “in a deceitful, complex and furtive manner.”

VOA News - Ahmadinejad Threatens Israel

Most of us are aware that Ahmadinejad did all but promise to annihilate Israel.
 
Iran does not want to make a bomb, they want nuclear power so they can start being part of the solution when it comes to global warming.
 
Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's nuclear sites - Times Online



An accompanying article:
Obama's stance worries Israelis | theage.com.au

This will be interesting.
To be a fly on the wall when the calls are made.

.

That entire article is extremely suspect. First of all, as it notes, they'd have to violate two countries' air space with tankers. Really. Second, the number of air craft necessary will likely be more than the IAF has or its entire force. Will Israel risk its entire air force on this compared to a single squadron against Osirak? And Iran's air defenses are far superior than Iraq's was. Actually making into Iranian air space, deep into their air space, avoiding interceptors and SAMs and then delivering sufficiently large weapons to to underground facilities to stop them is fantasy land.

A far more plausible plan is to take its 4 dolphin class subs move into the Persian Gulf, arm their harpoon missiles with nukes and hit every facility with nuclear warheads.
 
Most people believe its only the US and Israel against Iran wanting nukes, hell no one in the ME wants Iran to obtain nukes.

Correction. No one in the ME wants anyone in the ME to obtain nukes.

As stated before, Iran alone having weapons is not that big of a threat. What is crap-in-your-pants-scary is the nuclear arms race that will follow their entry into the nuclear weapons club. Imagine every Middle Eastern country trying to get nukes with the background of Islamic terrorism. HOLY ****.
 
As stated before, Iran alone having weapons is not that big of a threat.
The largest supporter of terrorism in the Middle East having nukes is not that big of a threat.....

That kind of bravado gets folks in uniform killed.
 
Do you have any statements from the people who actually run Iran rather than loud mouth figure head Ahmadinejad?
If he's just a figurehead, doesn't that mean he's just saying what he's told to say....making the distinction a moot point?
 
The largest supporter of terrorism in the Middle East having nukes is not that big of a threat.

No, not really. You are implying that Iran, which is run by rational folks who run costs vs benefit economic analysis would do what no other country on the face of the planet has ever done: give up control of weapons of mass destruction. That Iran will completely forsake all rational thought it has shown over the course of thirty years, despite having intelligent people in its military to do what no rational regime has ever done.

Furthermore, you also imply that a regime that has gone to extreme measures to stay in power and never, ever, ever risking their own lives will suddenly change and sacrifice their own necks and their own statuses to eliminate less than half of all Jews despite 20,000+ Jews in Iran.

And then you imply that Iran will do it DESPITE knowing that they will be murdering at least a million Palestinians, vaporize a key holy site of Islam, and turn Islam against their goals retarding if not completely blocking their end results.

That kind of bravado gets folks in uniform killed.

See above.
 
If he's just a figurehead, doesn't that mean he's just saying what he's told to say....making the distinction a moot point?

I take it you have really no idea how Iran is run do you?

Look up the past president. And the economy under him. Then compare it to the current president and his economy. It doesn't take a major in political science to figure this one out.

People here are generally incapable of putting two and two together.
 
No, not really. You are implying that Iran, which is run by rational folks who run costs vs benefit economic analysis would do what no other country on the face of the planet has ever done: give up control of weapons of mass destruction. That Iran will completely forsake all rational thought it has shown over the course of thirty years, despite having intelligent people in its military to do what no rational regime has ever done.
No, I am not. I'm quite convinced they won't give up such control. Of course, with the terrorists they have on payroll, they don't need to.

However, stop calling them rational folk. Nations that sponsor terrorists are not rational folk.

Furthermore, you also imply that a regime that has gone to extreme measures to stay in power and never, ever, ever risking their own lives will suddenly change and sacrifice their own necks and their own statuses to eliminate less than half of all Jews despite 20,000+ Jews in Iran.
No, I'm implying that they might gift a small nuke or two to Hezbollah to put on a cargo ship bound for Tel Aviv.

And then you imply that Iran will do it DESPITE knowing that they will be murdering at least a million Palestinians, vaporize a key holy site of Islam, and turn Islam against their goals retarding if not completely blocking their end results.
Iran doesn't give a rat's ass about the Palestinians. They use the Palestinian suicide bombers and terrorists to grind on the Israelis by proxy. They've already killed more than a million Palestinians by funding and fomenting the Palestinian conflict with the Israelis, why would they care about another million now?

BTW, Tel Aviv, which is a much more likely target for a nuke, is not at sacred to Islam.
 
I doubt most Palestinians would mind if parts of Israel got nuked.

I am sure that would change when they figure out that water and power no longer work.
 
I doubt most Palestinians would mind if parts of Israel got nuked.

I am sure that would change when they figure out that water and power no longer work.
They'd probably blame that on Israel and the US as well....
 
No, I am not. I'm quite convinced they won't give up such control. Of course, with the terrorists they have on payroll, they don't need to.

So you're saying that Iran will put its own troops out for the attack?

However, stop calling them rational folk. Nations that sponsor terrorists are not rational folk.

So every nation is not rational? You do realize that the US under Reagan sponsored some of the worst terrorism the US committed. Are you going to say that the US under Reagan wasn't rational?

Do you know any crazy people that run cost vs benefit analysis?

And terrorism in their case is actually quite rational. The distance between Iran, Israel and US rules out conventional warfare not to mention the distinct advantages both Israel and US have over it. A conventional war is suicidal. Therefore, they rely upon asymmetrical warfare. It was rational for the US to fund, train and arm the Mujadheem back in the 80s since a direct hot conflict between US and Soviet forces was not acceptable. Asymmetrical warfare is merely a tool in conflict. People who use it are inherently neither, what defines their rationality is how they go about using it and for what means.

No, I'm implying that they might gift a small nuke or two to Hezbollah to put on a cargo ship bound for Tel Aviv.

Then you have lied. You stated Iran would not give up control of its weapons. But you NOW within the SAME post say they would give the weapon to a group they cannot control. You just stated that Iran would do what no country in history has ever done: give up control of weapons of mass destruction.

And by your silence, you admit that Iran will do a 180 on its long term stances to stay in power and stay alive. Care to name a single regime in history that has suddenly sacrificed itself by its own choice without provocation after years of trying to stay in power?

Iran doesn't give a rat's ass about the Palestinians. They use the Palestinian suicide bombers and terrorists to grind on the Israelis by proxy. They've already killed more than a million Palestinians by funding and fomenting the Palestinian conflict with the Israelis, why would they care about another million now?

PR. Directly killing those you use to morally beat on your enemy with directly destroys any credibility you have. Muslims nuking Muslims is completely unheard of. It took us huge amounts of effort to get Syria in on the Desert storm. Thinking that a Muslim nation will without thought nuke what amounts to another Muslim nation (fallout anyone?) is rather short sighted. Iran likes to say it is the protector of Islam. Deliberately murdering a million fellow Muslims not to mention millions more from fallout and decimating their chances to return to their land does nothing to help Iran's cause. And if they really hated Jews, they would have exterminated those living within Iran already instead of letting them expand not to mention letting them have a nominal state in their assembly.

Iran uses Israel as an excuse for its own failures. The booming economy of the 90s provided legitimacy for the government it never had before. And threats to Israel all but ceased. What happens a year into the current administration when their economy bombs? Blame the outside aggressor. Classic political unity. Textbook case.

BTW, Tel Aviv, which is a much more likely target for a nuke, is not at sacred to Islam.

But Jerusalem is and likely would be affected.
 
Then you have lied.
I bet it felt really good to put those in bold. Did you enjoy scoring the major hit?

So which will thrill you more, a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv, or a mushroom cloud over Baghdad?
 
I bet it felt really good to put those in bold. Did you enjoy scoring the major hit?

What is more enjoyable is watching you try to produce an argument. Rather amusing after all. Enjoying the taste of fail?

So which will thrill you more, a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv, or a mushroom cloud over Baghdad?

Neither. Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. But that does not change the fact that Iran alone with a weapon is nowhere near as dangerous as the entire Middle East full of nukes. One cannot call themselves rational if they disagree with that.

What's more dangerous, Iran with a nuke or every middle eastern country with a nuke?

lol.:2wave:
 
I bet it felt really good to put those in bold. Did you enjoy scoring the major hit?

So which will thrill you more, a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv, or a mushroom cloud over Baghdad?


I think we have all heard enough from your crowd about mushroom clouds. You are just pigheaded enough to force a situation in which terrorists actually obtain a nuclear device from a sympathetic nation and use it against a major American city.

We are long past the day when America could prevent other nations from building their own nuclear devices. To pretend otherwise is stupid and dangerous. We will not prevent nuclear terrorism by military action against Iran or anyone else. As for Israel, they can defend themselves perfectly well, thank you, and don't need the rhetoric of a "mushroom cloud over Jerusalem" to justify America starting another war.

The wars begun by the Bush administration have already made us less safe, what we need to do now is try to mend relations with the Moslem world, and prevent mushroom clouds through intelligence and diplomacy, not more Bush-era redneck threats.
 
I imagine it would be much like the calls that went back and forth before the invasion of Iraq.

Israel has to protect itself at all costs.

But this time we might choose to allow Israel to defend itself so that we could be the "good guy".

Interesting that some people's idea of defence, those who roundly pronouce they don't believe in aggressive and interventionist foreign policy very often, seems to include attacking those who aren't attacking you when the evidence they are going to is very little.
 
celticlord said:
I bet it felt really good to put those in bold. Did you enjoy scoring the major hit?

So which will thrill you more, a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv, or a mushroom cloud over Baghdad?

I think we have all heard enough from your crowd about mushroom clouds. You are just pigheaded enough to force a situation in which terrorists actually obtain a nuclear device from a sympathetic nation and use it against a major American city.

Damn you celticlord! Just damn you, your pigheadedness is going to get us all killed! :doh
 
The UN's nuclear watchdog reported today that Iran had managed to enrich a metric tonne of low enriched uranium (LEU), which UN officials say is technically enough to build a nuclear weapon.

UN officials cautioned that there remained many practical obstacles to the production of a bomb, and pointed out that the uranium was under close surveillance,

Low Enriched Uranium is not weapons-grade and cannot be used in a nuclear weapon. Further enrichment is required, which requires considerably more effort and is much more noticeable. Based on this fact, and the fact that the IAEA is fully aware of every aspect of Iran's nuclear program and monitors everything, it is simply more supportive of the fact that Iran has no nuclear weapons program.

However, stop calling them rational folk. Nations that sponsor terrorists are not rational folk.

Most nations with expansionist/imperialist ambitions sponsor terrorist groups.

*The support of the Mujahideen during the Afghan-Soviet war.
*The arming of Afghan and Iraqi Sunni groups that are hostile to the US and whose weapons probably ended up being fired at American troops more so than Shi'ia Militias.
*Iran-Contra
*The toppling of democratically elected governments to replace them with repressive regimes that sponsor terror.

That's a one-minute list for you.

No, I'm implying that they might gift a small nuke or two to Hezbollah to put on a cargo ship bound for Tel Aviv.

That would be suicide. The nuclear weapon would immediately be tracked back to them. Moreover, they would lose nearly all of their allies and influence in the Middle East due to the effect of a nuclear blast in Israel. The fallout would spread over Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. It would make absolutely zero sense to do so.

I am sure that would change when they figure out that water and power no longer work.

I'm sure the Palestinians in the West Bank wouldn't notice, then, as their utilities were destroyed by the Israelis, who targeted it with their bombs a few months back.
 
Back
Top Bottom